Category: Militarism

  • The war in Ukraine is, but in reverse, the same situation that America’s President JFK had faced with regard to the Soviet Union in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the U.S. would have invaded Cuba if Khrushchev wouldn’t agree to a mutually acceptable settlement — which he did, and so WW3 was averted on that occasion. But whereas Khrushchev was reasonable; Obama, Biden, and Trump, are not; and, so, we again stand at the brink of a WW3, but this time with a truly evil head-of-state (Obama, then Biden, and now Trump), who might even be willing to go beyond that brink — into WW3 — in order to become able to achieve world-conquest. This is as-if Khrushchev had said no to JFK’s proposal in 1962 — but, thankfully, he didn’t; so, WW3 was averted, on that occasion.

    How often have you heard or seen the situation in the matter of Cuba being near to the White House (near to America’s central command) being analogized to Ukraine’s being near  — far nearer, in fact — to The Kremlin (Russia’s central command)? No, you probably haven’t encountered this historical context before, because it’s not being published — at least not in America and its allied countries. It’s being hidden.

    The Ukrainian war actually started after the democratically elected President of Ukraine (an infamously corrupt country), who was committed to keeping his country internationally neutral (not allied with either Russia or the United States), met privately with both the U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2010, shortly following that Ukrainian President’s election earlier in 2010; and, on both occasions, he rejected their urgings for Ukraine to become allied with the United States against his adjoining country Russia. This was being urged upon him so that America could position its nuclear missiles at the Russian border with Ukraine, less than a five-minute striking-distance away from hitting the Kremlin in Moscow.

    The war in Ukraine started in 2014, as both NATO’s Stoltenberg and Ukraine’s Zelensky have said (NOT in 2022 as is alleged in the U.S.-controlled nations). This war was started in February 2014 by a U.S. coup which replaced the democratically elected and neutralist Ukrainian President, with a U.S. selected and rabidly anti-Russian leader, who immediately imposed an ethnic-cleansing program to get rid of the residents in the regions that had voted overwhelmingly for the overthrown President. Russia responded militarily on 24 February 2022, in order to prevent Ukraine from allowing the U.S. to place a missile there a mere 317 miles or five minutes of missile-flying-time away from The Kremlin and thus too brief for Russia to respond before its central command would already be beheaded by America’s nuclear strike. (As I headlined on 28 October 2022, “NATO Wants To Place Nuclear Missiles On Finland’s Russian Border — Finland Says Yes”. The U.S. had demanded this, especially because it will place American nuclear missiles far nearer to The Kremlin than at present, only 507 miles away — not as close as Ukraine, but the closest yet.)

    Ukraine was neutral between Russia and America until Obama’s brilliantly executed Ukrainian coup, which his Administration started planning by no later than June 2011, culminated successfully in February 2014 and promptly appointed a anti-Russian to impose in regions that rejected the new anti-Russian U.S.-controlled goverment an “Anti-Terrorist Operation” to kill protesters, and, ultimately, to terrorize the residents in those regions in order to kill as many of them as possible and to force the others to flee into Russia so that when elections would be held, pro-Russian voters would no longer be in the electorate.

    The U.S. Government had engaged the Gallup polling organization, both  before  and  after  the  coup,  in order to poll Ukrainians, and especially ones who lived in its Crimean independent republic (where Russia has had its main naval base ever since 1783), regarding their views on U.S., Russia, NATO, and the EU; and, generally, Ukrainians were far more pro-Russia than pro-U.S., pro-NATO, or pro-EU, but this was especially the case in Crimea; so, America’s Government knew that Crimeans would be especially resistant. However, this was not really new information. During 2003-2009, only around 20% of Ukrainians had wanted NATO membership, while around 55% opposed it. In 2010, Gallup found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean “protection of your country,” 40% said it’s “a threat to your country.” Ukrainians predominantly saw NATO as an enemy, not a friend. But after Obama’s February 2014 Ukrainian coup, “Ukraine’s NATO membership would get 53.4% of the votes, one third of Ukrainians (33.6%) would oppose it.” However, afterward, the support averaged around 45% — still over twice as high as had been the case prior to the coup.

    In other words: what Obama did was generally successful: it grabbed Ukraine, or most of it, and it changed Ukrainians’ minds regarding America and Russia. But only after the subsequent passage of time did the American billionaires’ neoconservative heart become successfully grafted into the Ukrainian nation so as to make Ukraine a viable place to position U.S. nuclear missiles against Moscow (which is the U.S. Government’s goal there). Furthermore: America’s rulers also needed to do some work upon U.S. public opinion. Not until February of 2014 — the time of Obama’s coup — did more than 15% of the American public have a “very unfavorable” view of Russia. (Right before Russia invaded Ukraine, that figure had already risen to 42%. America’s press — and academia or public-policy ‘experts’ — have been very effective at managing public opinion, for the benefit of America’s billionaires.)

    Then came the Minsk Agreements (#1 & #2, with #2 being the final version, which is shown here, as a U.N. Security Council Resolution), between Ukraine and the separatist region in its far east, and which the U.S. Government refused to participate in, but the U.S.-installed Ukrainian government (then under the oligarch Petro Poroshenko) signed it in order to have a chance of Ukraine’s gaining EU membership, but never complied with any of it; and, so, the war continued); and, then, finally, as the Ukrainian government (now under Volodmyr Zelensky) was greatly intensifying its shelling of the break-away far-eastern region, Russia presented, to both the U.S. Government and its NATO military alliance against Russia, two proposed agreements for negotiation (one to U.S., the other to NATO), but neither the U.S. nor its NATO agreed to negotiate. The key portions of the two 17 December 2021 proposed Agreements, with both the U.S. and with its NATO, were, in regards to NATO:

    Article 1

    The Parties shall guide in their relations by the principles of cooperation, equal and indivisible security. They shall not strengthen their security individually, within international organizations, military alliances or coalitions at the expense of the security of other Parties. …

    Article 4

    The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties.

    Article 5

    The Parties shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties.

    Article 6

    All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.

    And, in regards to the U.S.:

    Article 2

    The Parties shall seek to ensure that all international organizations, military alliances and coalitions in which at least one of the Parties is taking part adhere to the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations.

    Article 3

    The Parties shall not use the territories of other States with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other Party.

    Article 4

    The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

    The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.

    Any reader here can easily click onto the respective link to either proposed Agreement, in order to read that entire document, so as to evaluate whether or not all of its proposed provisions are acceptable and reasonable. What was proposed by Russia in each of the two was only a proposal, and the other side (the U.S. side) in each of the two instances, was therefore able to pick and choose amongst those proposed provisions, which ones were accepted, and to negotiate regarding any of the others; but, instead, the U.S. side simply rejected all of them.

    On 7 January 2022, the Associated Press (AP) headlined “US, NATO rule out halt to expansion, reject Russian demands”, and reported:

    Washington and NATO have formally rejected Russia’s key demands for assurances that the US-led military bloc will not expand closer towards its borders, leaked correspondence reportedly shows.

    According to documents seen by Spanish daily El Pais and published on Wednesday morning, Moscow’s calls for a written guarantee that Ukraine will not be admitted as a member of NATO were dismissed following several rounds of talks between Russian and Western diplomats. …

    The US-led bloc denied that it posed a threat to Russia. …

    The US similarly rejected the demand that NATO does not expand even closer to Russia’s borders. “The United States continues to firmly support NATO’s Open Door Policy.”

    NATO-U.S. was by now clearly determined to get Ukraine into NATO and to place its nukes so near to The Kremlin as to constitute, like a checkmate in chess, a forced defeat of Russia, a capture of its central command. This was, but in reverse, the situation that America’s President JFK had faced with regard to the Soviet Union in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the U.S. would have invaded Cuba if Khrushchev wouldn’t agree to a mutually acceptable settlement — which he did agree to, and so WW3 was averted on that occasion. But whereas Khrushchev was reasonable, America’s recent Presidents are not; and, so, we again stand at the brink of WW3, but this time with a truly evil head-of-state (America’s recent Presidents), who might even be willing to go beyond that brink in order to become able to achieve world-conquest.

    Russia did what it had to do: it invaded Ukraine, on 24 February 2022. If Khrushchev had said no to JFK’s proposal in 1962, then the U.S. would have invaded and taken over Cuba, because the only other alternative would have been to skip that step and go directly to invade the Soviet Union itself — directly to WW3. Under existing international law, either response — against Cuba, or against the U.S.S.R. — would have been undecidable, because Truman’s U.N. Charter refused to allow “aggression” to be defined (Truman, even at the time of the San Francisco Conference, 25 April to 26 June 1945, that drew up the U.N. Charter, was considering for the U.S. to maybe take over the entire world). Would the aggression in such an instance have been by Khrushchev (and by Eisenhower for having similarly placed U.S. missiles too close to Moscow in 1959), or instead by JFK for responding to that threat? International law needs to be revised so as to prohibit ANY nation that is “too near” to a superpower’s central command, from allying itself with a different superpower so as to enable that other superpower to place its strategic forces so close to that adjoining or nearby superpower as to present a mortal threat against its national security. But, in any case, 317 miles from The Kremlin would easily be far “too close”; and, so, Russia must do everything possible to prevent that from becoming possible. America and its colonies (‘allies’) are CLEARLY in the wrong on this one. (And I think that JFK was likewise correct in the 1962 case — though to a lesser extent because the distance was four times larger in that case — America was the defender and NOT the aggressor in that matter.)

    If this finding appears to you to be too contradictory to what you have read and heard in the past for you to be able to believe it, then my article earlier today (March 4), “The Extent of Lying in the U.S. Press” presents also five other widespread-in-The-West lies, so that you will be able to see that there is nothing particularly unusual about this one, other than that this case could very possibly produce a world-ending nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia. People in the mainstream news-business are beholden to the billionaires who control the people who control (hire and fire) themselves, and owe their jobs to that — NOT really to the audience. This is the basic reality. To ignore it is to remain deceived. But you can consider yourself fortunate to be reading this, because none of the mainstream news-sites is allowed to publish articles such as this. None of the mainstream will. They instead deceived you. It’s what they are hired (by their owners and advertisers) to do, so as to continue ruling the Government (by getting you to vote for their candidates).

    Furthermore, I received today from the great investigative journalist Lucy Komisar, who has done many breakthrough news-reports exposing the con-man whom U.S. billionaires have assisted — back even before Obama started imposing sanctions against Russia in 2012 (Bill Browder) — to provide the ‘evidence’ on the basis of which Obama started imposing anti-Russian sanctions, in 2012 (the Magnitsky Act sanctions), recent articles from her, regarding how intentional the press’s refusals to allow the truth to be reported, actually are: on 28 February 2025, her “20 fake US media articles on the Browder Magnitsky hoax and one honest reporter from Cyprus”, and on 4 December 2024, her “MSNBC killed reporter Ken Dilanian’s exposé of the Wm Browder-Magnitsky hoax. State Department knew about it.”

    This isn’t to say, however, that ALL mainstream news-reports in the U.S. empire are false. For example, the Democratic Party site Common Dreams, headlined authentic news against the Republican Party, on March 4, “Trump Threatens Campus Protesters With Imprisonment: ‘Trump here is referring to pro-Palestine protests so you won’t hear a peep from conservatives or even pro-Israel liberals,’ said one journalist”, by Julia Conley; and so did the Republican site N.Y. Post, headlining on 15 October 2020, against the Democratic Party (which Democratic Party media similarly ignored), “Emails reveal how Hunter Biden tried to cash in big on behalf of family with Chinese firm.” However, NONE of the empire’s mainstream media publish reports against the U.S. Government or against its empire; so, the lies that have been covered here are virtually universal — go unchallenged — throughout the empire.

    The post Why America, the EU, and Ukraine, Should Lose to Russia in Ukraine’s War first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Mahra, a 31-year-old mother of four who was expecting her fifth child, is one of 4.5 million people displaced by the ongoing conflict in Yemen, which has been heavily fomented by international powers, particularly the UK. The country faces extreme famine and drought, leaving 21 million people in dire need of humanitarian aid.

    While attempting to fetch water, Mahra collapsed, highlighting the daily struggles faced by those in war-torn regions. Fortunately, she received medical care funded by the United Nations, but tragically, her unborn child did not survive.

    This incident underscores the severe consequences of the conflict, which has intensified over the years.

    Yemen: a war waged by Saudi Arabia – with complicity from the UK

    In the UK parliament, MPs recently defended an increase in military spending by the government, without reflecting on the implications of such funding. This was in tandem with a cut to the foreign aid budget.

    Since 2015, more than half of the combat aircraft used by Saudi Arabia in bombing campaigns against Yemen have been supplied by the UK, with British arms companies earning over £6 billion from these sales. These military actions have killed over 150,000 people and set off widespread crises of disease and famine.

    Criticism has arisen regarding the government’s decision to cut foreign aid in favour of military spending. This decision is not only detrimental to those suffering from conflict, such as people in Yemen, but also perpetuates the very conditions that lead to war.

    Around 80% of the world’s poorest countries either are currently experiencing or have recently faced violent conflict. A comprehensive approach to foreign policy would aim to address the causes of war, rather than deepen existing insecurities.

    The government has also taken steps to target “illegal” migrants (even though there’s no such thing), showcasing a strategy that appears to neglect the plight of vulnerable individuals, both domestically and abroad. Cuts to essential support systems often affect the poorest members of society, raising questions about governmental priorities.

    The right focus for the rich – the wrong focus for the rest of us

    As the anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine arrives, the devastation caused by war is called into question. Amid ongoing tragedies, there is an urgent need to emphasise peace over militarism. The effects of violent conflict go beyond the battlefield, impacting mothers and families worldwide, leading to loss and grief.

    Simultaneously, the looming threat of climate crisis disaster remains largely unaddressed. Individuals are dying from the consequences of droughts and flooding, yet their struggles receive little attention in political discourse.

    The UK government’s focus seems reserved for those who benefit economically from warfare, with assertions from officials likening military expenditure to economic growth. This perspective raises concerns about the prioritisation of military funding over sustainable solutions that could genuinely foster safety and stability.

    Critics argue that governments should rethink their approach to safety and security. For every pound spent on military solutions, there are pressing needs for investment in renewable energy and resources that could preserve life and promote a healthier planet. To build a secure and equitable society, prioritising a collaborative approach rather than militarisation could pave the way for a more peaceful world.

    As conflicts around the globe, such as in Yemen and Ukraine, rage on, the focus of political leaders must shift to ensure they consider the profound impacts of their policies on the lives of those caught in turmoil.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • European nations are facing a critical crossroads as their increasing military budgets are redirected away from vital foreign aid and climate assistance meant for developing countries. This shift is resulting in significant implications not only for the Global South but also for Europe itself.

    Europe: cutting foreign aid to drop more bombs

    As conflicts and security concerns take centre stage, billions of euros that were once allocated for fighting climate crises—such as floods, droughts, and cyclones—are being reassigned to bolster military efforts. This redirection has the potential to exacerbate inflation in Europe, lead to an increase in refugees, and undermine the continent’s international standing.

    Gareth Redmond-King, head of international programs at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, highlighted the interconnectedness between European nations and those in the Global South.

    Speaking to Bloomberg, he remarked “we are mutually dependent on these countries.” This reality is starkly reflected in recent decisions taken by various European nations. The UK, under Labour Party PM Keir Starmer, has announced a cut of £6 billion (around $7.6 billion) in foreign aid funding to accommodate rising military expenditures.

    Germany plans to reduce its development finance by nearly $1 billion, while the Netherlands has proposed cuts totalling €2.4 billion (approximately $2.5 billion). Similar measures are being put in place by Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland.

    The implications of these cuts are worrying.

    Stark warnings

    Redmond-King suggested that reduced aid would likely lead to higher prices on essential commodities like coffee, cocoa, and bananas, as fewer protections against climate disasters leave exporting countries vulnerable. The UK, for instance, imports around two-fifths of its food, with half sourced from regions increasingly impacted by climate change, including worsening heat waves and floods.

    David Miliband, former UK foreign secretary and now CEO of the International Rescue Committee, articulated the long-term consequences of these financial decisions. He described the UK’s withdrawal from development finance as “a blow to Britain’s proud reputation as a global humanitarian and development leader.”

    His concerns are echoed by sentiment within the UK government itself, as Anneliese Dodds, the nation’s minister for international development, resigned in protest against the funding cuts.

    Redmond-King also warned that withdrawing climate aid risks allowing nations perceived as hostile by Europe to increase their influence in strategically vital regions. He highlighted the irony that while there is a pressing need to increase defense spending, cutting climate aid could destabilise developing countries in ways that might encourage undesirable foreign influence.

    Foreign aid cuts fly in the face of global priorities

    The loosening of development budgets comes at a particularly troubling time, positioned just three months after the COP29 summit in Baku, where wealthier nations had made a commitment of $300 billion annually in climate aid to support poorer nations. This new military-focused budgetary framework jeopardises those pledges, complicating future efforts to fulfil these commitments.

    Now, overall Europe is set to increase its military budgets to over £320bn.

    Moreover, the financial markets are responding to this change in focus. The S&P Global Clean Energy Index has seen a staggering 40% decline in value since the onset of hostilities following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, juxtaposed with a 64% increase in the S&P Global 1200 Aerospace and Defense Index during the same timeframe.

    The shift of financial resources from climate crisis aid to military spending is poised to deepen existing crises in the Global South while further complicating Europe’s own challenges—marking a significant moment in global governance and resource allocation.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • All U.S. federal Departments except the Defense Department will have their budgets reduced this year.

    60% of U.S. military expenses get paid out from the Defense Department (the Pentagon), which is the only U.S. federal Department that has never passed an audit — never been audited — and is also the only federal Department that pays America’s military-weapons manufacturers, such as Lockheed Martin — the companies that depend mainly or even entirely on purchases by the federal Government. The Trump Administration has decided not to cut that Department’s budget, and might even increase it. The details, so far as they are yet known, were first published, on February 28, by In These Times magazine, in an article by Stephen Semler and Sarah Lazare, titled “As Trump and Musk slash social spending, military spending is set to soar.” An excellent article explaining this in a broader context than merely that Department’s budget was then published on March 2nd by the Naked Capitalism site, and headlined “The Empire Rebrands,” by Conor Gallagher.

    Already, U.S. military expenses (including from all federal Departments) amount to 65% of the entire world’s military expenses; and yet, as-of 24 October 2024, the most-respected international ranking of nations’ militaries, the one in U.S. News & World Report, rated the top three in order, as: #1. Russia, #2. U.S., and #3. China. A lower-regarded ranking, by  “Global Firepower,” ranked: #1. U.S., #2. Russia, and #3. China. The site “Military Empires: A Visual Guide to Foreign Bases,” as-of 30 October 2024, showed the nations with the largest number of foreign military bases, as being #1. U.S., with 917 foreign military bases; #2. Turkiye, with 128; #3. UK, with 117; and #4. Russia, with 58. China was #10, with 6. (Numbers 5-9 were: India, Iran, France, and UAE.) However, the U.S. is overwhelmingly the most powerful empire, because right after FDR’s death on 12 April 1945, when Truman took over, the U.S. — which had entered WW2 the last of the major world powers and therefore suffered the lowest casualties and least destruction from it — was the only nation that had the assets by which to establish the post-WW2 international order, and did that for his imperialistic purposes, exactly contrary to FDR’s plan, as a consequence of which, the U.S. Government still controls the IMF, World Bank, and many other international institutions, and dominates even the U.N. (which FDR invented and was developing his plan for, but Truman mainly controled the writing of the U.N.’s Charter). So, most of America’s power doesn’t come from its military — which is America’s most-corrupt federal Department. The main purpose of the U.S. Government today is to boost its stock-markets, which are overwhelmingly controlled by its billionaires, and “93% of U.S. households’ stock market wealth (not 93% of the stock market) is held by the wealthiest 10% of those households.” So, this Government’s top concern is to pay-off the political high-donors and especially the mega-donors (all of whom are billionaires). It is a sophisticated type of bribery-operation. And by far the most lucrative segement of the U.S. stock markets is its “Defense and Aerospace” segment (that being the segment which sells to the Government instead of to the public — so, the U.S. Government is the main benefctor to America’s billionaires, and they know this). (For example: Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post headlined on February 26, “Elon Musk’s business empire is built on $38 billion in government funding: Government infusions at key moments helped Tesla and SpaceX flourish, boosting Musk’s wealth.” And on 25 March 2018, I reported that “since 2014, Amazon Web Services has supplied to the U.S. Government (CIA, Pentagon, NSA, etc.) its cloud-computing services, which has since produced virtually all of Amazon’s profits (also see “Cloud Business Drives Amazon’s Profits”), though Amazon doesn’t even so much as show up on that list of 100 top contractors to the U.S. Government; so, this extremely profitable business is more important to Jeff Bezos (the owner also of the Washington Post) than all the rest of his investments put together are.” This is called “neo-liberalism” or “libertarianism” but by any name means “Let the wealth rule, NOT the people rule.” It is the reigning principle in the U.S. empire.

    On February 25, I reported that:

    On February 14th, the AP headlined “Where US adults think the government is spending too much, according to AP-NORC polling”, and listed in rank-order according to the opposite (“spending too little”) the following 8 Government functions: 1. Social Security; 2. Medicare; 3. Education; 4. Assistance to the poor; 5. Medicaid; 6. Border security; 7. Federal law enforcement; 8. The Military. That’s right: the American public (and by an overwhelming margin) are THE LEAST SUPPORTIVE of spending more money on the military, and the MOST SUPPORTIVE of spending more money on Social Security, Medicare, Education, Assistance to the poor, and Medicaid (the five functions the Republican Party has always been the most vocal to call “waste, fraud, and abuse” and try to cut). Meanwhile, The Military, which actually receives 53% (and in the latest year far more than that) of the money that the Congress allocates each year and gets signed into law by the President, keeps getting, each year, over 50% of the annually appropriated federal funds.

    An important point to be made here is that both #s 4&5, Assistance to the poor, and Medicaid, are “discretionary federal spending” (i.e., controlled by the annual appropriations that get voted into law each year), whereas #s 1&2 (Social Security and Medicare) are “mandatory federal spending” (i.e., NOT controlled by Congress and the President). So, Trump and the Republicans are going after the poor because they CAN; they can’t (at least as-of YET) reduce or eliminate Social Security and Medicare. However, by now, it is crystal clear that Trump’s Presidency will be an enormous boon to America’s billionaires, and an enormous bane to the nation’s poor. The aristocratic ideology has always been: to get rid of poverty, we must get rid of the poor — work them so hard they will go away (let them seek ‘refugee’ status SOMEWHERE ELSE).

    This is an excellent example of a libertarian (or neo-liberal) Government.

    The post Only the US Defense Department’s Budget Will NOT be Cut first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • All U.S. federal Departments except the Defense Department will have their budgets reduced this year.

    60% of U.S. military expenses get paid out from the Defense Department (the Pentagon), which is the only U.S. federal Department that has never passed an audit — never been audited — and is also the only federal Department that pays America’s military-weapons manufacturers, such as Lockheed Martin — the companies that depend mainly or even entirely on purchases by the federal Government. The Trump Administration has decided not to cut that Department’s budget, and might even increase it. The details, so far as they are yet known, were first published, on February 28, by In These Times magazine, in an article by Stephen Semler and Sarah Lazare, titled “As Trump and Musk slash social spending, military spending is set to soar.” An excellent article explaining this in a broader context than merely that Department’s budget was then published on March 2nd by the Naked Capitalism site, and headlined “The Empire Rebrands,” by Conor Gallagher.

    Already, U.S. military expenses (including from all federal Departments) amount to 65% of the entire world’s military expenses; and yet, as-of 24 October 2024, the most-respected international ranking of nations’ militaries, the one in U.S. News & World Report, rated the top three in order, as: #1. Russia, #2. U.S., and #3. China. A lower-regarded ranking, by  “Global Firepower,” ranked: #1. U.S., #2. Russia, and #3. China. The site “Military Empires: A Visual Guide to Foreign Bases,” as-of 30 October 2024, showed the nations with the largest number of foreign military bases, as being #1. U.S., with 917 foreign military bases; #2. Turkiye, with 128; #3. UK, with 117; and #4. Russia, with 58. China was #10, with 6. (Numbers 5-9 were: India, Iran, France, and UAE.) However, the U.S. is overwhelmingly the most powerful empire, because right after FDR’s death on 12 April 1945, when Truman took over, the U.S. — which had entered WW2 the last of the major world powers and therefore suffered the lowest casualties and least destruction from it — was the only nation that had the assets by which to establish the post-WW2 international order, and did that for his imperialistic purposes, exactly contrary to FDR’s plan, as a consequence of which, the U.S. Government still controls the IMF, World Bank, and many other international institutions, and dominates even the U.N. (which FDR invented and was developing his plan for, but Truman mainly controled the writing of the U.N.’s Charter). So, most of America’s power doesn’t come from its military — which is America’s most-corrupt federal Department. The main purpose of the U.S. Government today is to boost its stock-markets, which are overwhelmingly controlled by its billionaires, and “93% of U.S. households’ stock market wealth (not 93% of the stock market) is held by the wealthiest 10% of those households.” So, this Government’s top concern is to pay-off the political high-donors and especially the mega-donors (all of whom are billionaires). It is a sophisticated type of bribery-operation. And by far the most lucrative segement of the U.S. stock markets is its “Defense and Aerospace” segment (that being the segment which sells to the Government instead of to the public — so, the U.S. Government is the main benefctor to America’s billionaires, and they know this). (For example: Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post headlined on February 26, “Elon Musk’s business empire is built on $38 billion in government funding: Government infusions at key moments helped Tesla and SpaceX flourish, boosting Musk’s wealth.” And on 25 March 2018, I reported that “since 2014, Amazon Web Services has supplied to the U.S. Government (CIA, Pentagon, NSA, etc.) its cloud-computing services, which has since produced virtually all of Amazon’s profits (also see “Cloud Business Drives Amazon’s Profits”), though Amazon doesn’t even so much as show up on that list of 100 top contractors to the U.S. Government; so, this extremely profitable business is more important to Jeff Bezos (the owner also of the Washington Post) than all the rest of his investments put together are.” This is called “neo-liberalism” or “libertarianism” but by any name means “Let the wealth rule, NOT the people rule.” It is the reigning principle in the U.S. empire.

    On February 25, I reported that:

    On February 14th, the AP headlined “Where US adults think the government is spending too much, according to AP-NORC polling”, and listed in rank-order according to the opposite (“spending too little”) the following 8 Government functions: 1. Social Security; 2. Medicare; 3. Education; 4. Assistance to the poor; 5. Medicaid; 6. Border security; 7. Federal law enforcement; 8. The Military. That’s right: the American public (and by an overwhelming margin) are THE LEAST SUPPORTIVE of spending more money on the military, and the MOST SUPPORTIVE of spending more money on Social Security, Medicare, Education, Assistance to the poor, and Medicaid (the five functions the Republican Party has always been the most vocal to call “waste, fraud, and abuse” and try to cut). Meanwhile, The Military, which actually receives 53% (and in the latest year far more than that) of the money that the Congress allocates each year and gets signed into law by the President, keeps getting, each year, over 50% of the annually appropriated federal funds.

    An important point to be made here is that both #s 4&5, Assistance to the poor, and Medicaid, are “discretionary federal spending” (i.e., controlled by the annual appropriations that get voted into law each year), whereas #s 1&2 (Social Security and Medicare) are “mandatory federal spending” (i.e., NOT controlled by Congress and the President). So, Trump and the Republicans are going after the poor because they CAN; they can’t (at least as-of YET) reduce or eliminate Social Security and Medicare. However, by now, it is crystal clear that Trump’s Presidency will be an enormous boon to America’s billionaires, and an enormous bane to the nation’s poor. The aristocratic ideology has always been: to get rid of poverty, we must get rid of the poor — work them so hard they will go away (let them seek ‘refugee’ status SOMEWHERE ELSE).

    This is an excellent example of a libertarian (or neo-liberal) Government.

    The post Only the US Defense Department’s Budget Will NOT be Cut first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • 138 leaders of NGOs from across the UK, including Save the Children UK, Oxfam GB, World Vision UK, ONE, Christian Aid, Action Aid UK, Islamic Relief, Amref UK, and CAFOD, have written an open letter to the Labour Party PM Keir Starmer and the Treasury, calling for a reversal of its decision to cut the UK foreign aid budget, risking the closure of programs supporting marginalised communities facing poverty, conflict, and the climate crisis.

    They warn that the move will “destroy Labour’s legacy on international development” and leave the “government’s ambition to be a reliable development partner on the global stage in tatters”.

    NGO’s ‘appalled’ by foreign aid budget cut

    The letter states over the foreign aid budget states:

    “As 138 leaders of the UK INGO sector, responding to urgent humanitarian emergencies and supporting global development, we are appalled by the recent announcement that UK aid will be cut to pay for defence spending. It is alarming that the UK is now following in the US’s footsteps and has accepted the false choice of cutting the already diminished UK aid to fund defence. We implore you to reverse this decision before significant damage is done to both the UK’s development and humanitarian work and its global reputation….”

    “No government should balance its books on the backs of the world’s most marginalised people. The previous UK aid cuts and the current US aid freeze have already shown their impact: children are now at risk of missing out on vaccines, girls may lose access to education, and healthcare services in refugee camps are being withdrawn. This move will also destroy Labour’s legacy on international development and will leave your manifesto commitments and the government’s ambition to be a reliable development partner on the global stage in tatters.”

    The cuts come as the US government’s 90-day suspension of humanitarian assistance and development ripples across the sector and sees HIV vaccine trials in South Africa halted and HIV medicine running out in Uganda, food and shelter programs in refugee camps have been reduced or stopped entirely.

    Where is the impact assessment?

    The letter goes on to say:

    “We recognise that the safety and security of the people of Britain should always be a priority of the government. But using the UK aid budget to do this is both strategically and morally wrong. UK aid, which is only just over 1p in every £1 of public spending brings a huge return on investment. It builds peace and prevents conflict and instability, forced migration, and the spread of diseases like COVID – which would save the UK money in the long run, and help make both the UK and the world a safer, healthier and more prosperous place for us all. As we saw during the pandemic, viruses don’t respect borders. By making these cuts today you’re weakening already fragile health systems, putting us all at risk of the next global outbreak.”

    The sector, and MPs across the house, are putting pressure on the PM and Treasury to make a statement to Parliament, outlining whether the impact of these cuts has been thought through and are asking whether alternative sources of funding were explored before deciding to remove support to those who need it the most.

    Romilly Greenhill, CEO of Bond, the UK network for NGOs said:

    We’re appalled that the government has decided to enact cuts which will devastate the UK’s development and humanitarian work supporting communities around the world, its global reputation and the UK’s own national security interests.

    The government needs to urgently publish an impact assessment explaining whether the impact of these cuts has been thought through and which alternative sources of funding were explored before deciding to remove support to those who need it most. These cuts are going to have a direct and devastating impact on the most marginalised communities in the lowest-income countries.

    The government needs to explain how it intends to support people facing poverty, conflict, and climate change and honour its existing global commitments.

    The foreign aid budget is needed more than ever

    Martin Drewry CEO of Health Poverty Action (HPA) said:

    Just when millions are reeling from the loss of USAID, with lifesaving supplies and medication stopped overnight, the UK government chooses to do similar.  The UK should be showing leadership – stepping up, not down. Shame on the UK government.

    Adrian Lovett, UK Executive Director at ONE, said:

    The UK’s aid programme is a set of commitments to partners around the world. Deep and sudden cuts will create huge problems for the delivery of vital health services, humanitarian assistance and programmes to deal with the impact of conflict and climate change.

    The devastating impacts of cuts will hurt some of the world’s most vulnerable people – and it will make Britain weaker too.  The government must look at other ways to fund this.

    Katie Husselby, Director of Action for Global Health, said:

    Today’s decision is a catastrophic blow to the health of people in the UK and globally. We have already seen the devastation caused by previous cuts to the UK’s aid budget and the USAID ‘stop-work’ order, leading to the preventable deaths of people all around the world.

    Cuts to UK aid undermine efforts to achieve international stability, which in turn fuels further conflict. These budget decisions should not be a case of ‘either or’.

    We call on the Prime Minister to recognise that overcoming global challenges – such as global health risks or tackling the climate crisis – is critical to achieving peace and security. Any other approach will be destructive in the short and long term.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Concerns about the potentially “catastrophic” introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) into the nuclear weapons’ command, control and communication (N3) systems have been raised by the former First Sea Lord and former Security Minister Lord West of Spithead.

    An AI expert told the Canary that the potential worst-case scenario for introducing AI into nuclear weapons command and control systems is a situation like the one which caused the apocalypse in the Terminator franchise. 

    The Terminator films revolve around an event where the AI in control of the USA’s nuclear weapons system gains self-awareness, views its human controllers as a threat, and chooses to attempt to wipe out humanity. 

    Can’t, or wont?

    Lord West, a backbench Labour peer, raised his concerns via a parliamentary written question which was answered by Ministry of Defence minister of state Lord Coaker. 

    West asked:

    What work is being undertaken, and by whom, regarding the integration of AI in nuclear (1) command, (2) control, and (3) communications systems; and whether they have commissioned research to identify and manage high-risk AI applications?

    Responding, Lord Coaker said:

    The UK’s nuclear weapons are operationally independent and only the Prime Minister can authorise their use. It is a long-standing policy that we do not discuss detailed nuclear command and control matters and so will not be able to provide any additional detail.

    “Research to identify, understand, and mitigate against risks of AI in sensitive applications is underway. We will ensure that, regardless of any use of AI in our strategic systems, human political control of our nuclear weapons is maintained at all times.

    West confirmed to the Canary that his question was inspired by a recent briefing titled Assessing the implications of integrating AI in nuclear decision-making systems, published on 11 February 2025 by the European Leadership Network (ELN) and authored by Non-Resident Expert on AI at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) Alice Saltini. 

    The peer said he found Saltini’s paper very useful and:

    It’s the first time I’ve seen people really addressing [this issue].

    Peer warns about ‘catastrophic’ consequences of introducing AI into nuclear weapons

    West made it clear he doesn’t oppose AI, per se.

    There’s a lot of interest being shown in AI. I understand all of that. That’s fine, and I think there’s some good work going on

    He continued:

    I just am very, very nervous about getting AI into command and control and that area of nuclear weapons, because if anything goes wrong, the results can be so catastrophic.

    West was First Sea Lord and Commander in Chief of the Royal Navy from 2002 to 2006. 

    Reflecting on the response he got from the minister, West said:

    I just wanted to discover what actually has been going on. And I don’t think the answer really made me think, ‘Gosh, yes, they’re looking at this very carefully.

    I got the feeling that there are people saying, ‘Oh, maybe we could do this, that and the other with it’, and I’m not sure what safeguards and what work has been done to make sure that nothing silly is done.

    Explaining why he asked the question, in addition to being inspired by Saltini’s briefing, West said: 

    What I’d like to flag up is to anyone, let’s just be very wary if we do anything in this arena of AI, because [the] results could be so catastrophic.

    Reacting to the government’s line which implied it could use, or already be using AI, in “strategic systems”, West said:

    It gives a huge potential to all sorts of things.

    Appropriate oversight

    West said he wanted more reassurance from the government that it is at least being careful with the rollout of AI in the defence sector, including with appropriate oversight. He said: 

    What I’d like to flag up is to anyone, let’s just be very wary if we do anything in this arena of AI, because [the] results could be so catastrophic

    It would be very nice to have some more clarity about this, and some more reassurance about the work that’s actually going on.

    He recognised, however, that the government is likely unable to provide a full explanation of its activities in the areas of AI in defence because to do so could hand advantages to the UK’s adversaries. He said: 

    You can’t tell people what’s happening, because obviously, it’s going to be highly classified

    [However], you can reassure people and make sure people understand that work is going on – that can be done.

    On oversight specifically, he said:

    What I would like to see is that there’s someone who’s been set up to monitor and take charge of this and lay out the ground rules, and I’d like to know who that is.

    The government previously had a body called the AI Council which was “an independent expert committee that provided advice to government, and high-level leadership of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) ecosystem”, according to its website, but its last meeting was held in June 2023

    A newer body exists called the AI Security Institute, renamed recently from the AI Safety Institute, which appears to focus more on research into AI rather than providing oversight and governance.

    AI has “power-seeking tendencies”

    Saltini is described by the ELN as:

    specialising in the impact of AI on nuclear decision-making.

    She told the Canary:

    the government’s response doesn’t satisfactorily address the core problem of nuclear risks generated by AI.

    She said the reassurance in the parliamentary response that human political control would be maintained:

    rests on the familiar promise of keeping a human in the loop” but added “this approach is dangerously simplistic.

    A critical part of nuclear weapons development and maintenance is choices about the visibility of various parts of the weapon systems for adversaries because that visibility dictates how other states react to certain actions by nuclear-armed countries.

    Saltini said:

    the commitment to “human oversight […] mask critical vulnerabilities.

    As nuclear arsenals modernise under intense geopolitical pressure, integrating AI into nuclear decision-making carries a very real risk of unintended escalation

    Not every nuclear state has made an explicit commitment to human oversight, and even if they had, there is no straightforward way to verify these promises, leaving room for dangerous misinterpretations or misunderstandings of countries’ intentions.

    She explained that:

    AI tools are not perfect and have significant limitations for high-stakes domains” such as nuclear weapons. 

    They are prone to ‘hallucinations,’ where false information is generated with high confidence, and their opaque ‘black box’ nature means that even when a human is in the loop, the underlying processes can be too complex to fully understand. 

    “This is further compounded by cyber vulnerabilities and our inability to align AI outputs with human goals and values, potentially deviating from strategic objectives.

    She went on to hypothesise that introducing AI into nuclear weapons command and control systems could precipitate a situation like the one which leads to the apocalypse in the Terminator franchise. She said:

    As these systems gain greater operational agency, they may display power-seeking tendencies, potentially leading to rapid and unintended escalation in high-stakes environments. All of these limitations persist even when states maintain human oversight

    However, she did say that AI could have safer applications in the defence sector. 

    Generally speaking, when applied narrowly—with built-in redundancies and rigorous safeguards—AI can efficiently synthesise large volumes of data in a timely manner, support wargaming scenarios, and enhance training.

    In the nuclear weapons sector specifically, she said could “optimise logistics by streamlining maintenance schedules for nuclear assets and enhancing overall system efficiency, augmenting human capabilities and improving performance, rather than automating decisions.

    The answer on AI in nuclear weapons is not reassuring

    The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) said it strongly opposes the introduction of AI into systems related to nuclear weapons, as well as nuclear weapons themselves. 

    Reflecting on the minister’s response, CND General Secretary Sophie Bolt said:

    Their answer is not particularly reassuring. 

    Perhaps the Prime Minister is the only person who can authorise the use of nuclear weapons, but how much will the decision on what to do depend on information supplied by AI?

    Even if the PM has ultimate control, they would probably be ‘advised’ by AI systems that are there to provide possible strategies relevant to the perceived situation.

    Research into the risks of AI in sensitive applications is most definitely needed, but in the meantime, it seems that those AI systems already in the system will continue to operate.

    Bolt said the focus should be on de-escalation and disarmament, rather than introducing new technologies into nuclear weapons systems. She continued: 

    It would be easier, cheaper and safer for the government to spend time on negotiating nuclear arms reduction and eventual disarmament rather than trying to take part in a race to achieve some high tech goal that, even if achievable, will only be superseded by newer, more elaborate systems. 

    What is needed is a break in this technological anti-weapon – weapon cycle and a move to serious, in good faith, disarmament negotiations as required by our obligations under the NPT.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Tom Pashby

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The conduct of live-fire exercises by the People’s Liberation Army Navy Surface Force (the Chinese “communists”, as they are called by the analytically strained) has recently caused much murmur and consternation in Australia. It’s the season for federal elections, and the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, thinks he’s in with more than a fighting chance. Whether that chance is deserved or not is another matter.

    The exercise, conducted in international waters by a cruiser, frigate and replenishment ship, involved what is said to have been poor notice given to Australian authorities on February 21. But the matter has rapidly burgeoned into something else: that what the Chinese task fleet did was mischievously remarkable, exceptional and snooty to convention and protocols. It is on that score that incontinent demagogy has taken hold.

    Media outlets have done little to soften the barbs. A report by ABC News, for instance, notes that Airservices Australia was “only aware of the exercises 40 minutes after China’s navy opened a ‘window’ for live-fire exercises from 9.30am.” The first pickup of the exercises came from a Virgin Australia pilot, who had flown within 250 nautical miles of the operation zone and warned of the drills. Airservices Australia was immediately contacted, with the deputy CEO of the agency, Peter Curran, bemused about whether “it was a potential hoax or real.”

    Defence Chief Admiral David Johnston told Senate estimates that he would have preferred more notice for the exercises – 24-48 hours was desirable – but it was clear that Coalition Senator and shadow home affairs minister James Paterson wanted more. Paterson had thought it “remarkable that Australia was relying on civilian aircraft for early warning about military exercises by a formidable foreign task group in our region.” To a certain extent, the needlessly irate minister got what he wanted, with the badgered Admiral conceding that the Chinese navy’s conduct had been “irresponsible” and “disruptive”.

    Wu Qian, spokesperson for the China National Ministry for Defence, offered a different reading: “During the period, China organised live-fire training of naval guns toward the sea on the basis of repeatedly issuing prior safety notices”. Its actions were “in full compliance with international law and international practice, with no impact on aviation flight safety”. That said, 49 flights were diverted on February 21.

    Much was also made about what were the constituent elements of the fleet. As if it mattered one jot, the Defence Force chief was pressed on whether a Chinese nuclear-powered submarine had made up the task force. “I don’t know whether there is a submarine with them, it is possible, task groups occasionally do deploy with submarines but not always,” came the reply. “I can’t be definitive whether that’s the case.”

    The carnival of fear was very much in town, with opposition politicians keen to blow air into the balloon of the China threat across the press circuit. The shadow defence minister Andrew Hastie warned listeners on Sydney radio station 2GB of “the biggest peacetime military buildup since 1945”, Beijing’s projection of power with its blue-water navy, the conduct of two live-fire exercises and the Chinese taskforce operating within Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone off Tasmania. Apparently, all of this showed the Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, to be “weak” for daring to accept that the conduct complained of was legal under international law. “Now that may be technically right, but that misses the deeper subtext, and that is China is now in our backyard, and they’ve demonstrated that we don’t have the will to insist on our national interest and mutual respect.”

    There are few voices of sensible restraint in Australia’s arid landscape of strategic thinking, but one could be found. Former principal warfare officer of the Royal Australian Navy, Jennifer Parker, commendably remarked that this hardly warranted the title of “a crisis”. To regard it as such “with over-the-top indignation diminishes our capacity to tackle real crises as the region deteriorates.” Australia might, at the very least, consider modernising a surface fleet that was “the smallest and oldest we’ve had since 1950.”

    Allegations that Beijing should not be operating in Australia’s exclusive economic zone, let alone conduct live-fire exercises in international waters, served to give it “a propaganda win to challenge our necessary deployments to North-East Asia and the South China Sea – routes that carry two-thirds of our maritime trade.”

    The cockeyed priorities of the Australian defence establishment lie elsewhere: fantasy, second hand US nuclear-powered submarines that may, or may never make their way to Australia; mushy hopes of a jointly designed nuclear powered submarine specific to the AUKUS pact that risks sinking off the design sheet; and the subordination of Australian land, naval and spatial assets to the United States imperium.

    Such is the standard of political debate that something as unremarkable as this latest sea incident has become a throbbing issue that supposedly shows the Albanese government as insufficiently belligerent. Yet there was no issue arising, other than a statement of presence by China’s growing navy, something it was perfectly entitled to do.

    The post Ho Hum at Sea: Anti-China Hysteria Down Under first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Campaigners are calling on the UK government to block moves to sell Turkey 40 Eurofighters following the latest repression by president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s government.

    Turkey: fascistic – but we’ll still do a deal with them

    In recent weeks, the Turkish state detained 282 people including lawyers, journalists, and LGBTQ+ campaigners. A range of organisations were targeted including members of the Peoples’ Democratic Congress (HDK), Democratic Regions Party (DBP), Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM), Labor Party (EMEP), Socialist Refoundation Party (SYKP), Socialist Party of the Oppressed (ESP) and Green Left Party.

    Negotiations are currently underway with Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain for Turkey’s acquisition of the Eurofighters in a deal reportedly worth approximately $5.6bn. France meanwhile has agreed to sell Turkey MBDA Meteor air-to-air missiles for the fighters. In the UK, BAE Systems – who announced annual profits of £3bn last week – will be the main beneficiary.

    This latest clampdown is part of ongoing repression against Kurdish and other opposition voices in Turkey. Since the local elections in 2024, Erdoğan has replaced ten mayors with trustees from his ruling AKP party. In Van, in the Kurdish majority southeast, this has led to widespread protests and repression that included detaining 40 people, including 5 children.

    According to a Freedom House report published this week, Turkey is amongst the top 10 countries that has experienced a sharp decline in freedoms over the last decade.

    Alongside this latest round of domestic repression, Erdoğan has continued his deadly assault in Rojava – the autonomous Kurdish-majority region of north east Syria. Between 2019 and 2024, Turkey carried out more than 100 airstrikes on oil fields, gas facilities and power stations, cutting off electricity to over one million people and violating International Humanitarian Law. Turkey is also carrying out regular airstrikes in Iraq, killing four civilians in January.

    ‘Unconscionable’

    Campaign Against Arms Trade media spokesperson, Emily Apple, said

    It is unconscionable that this Eurofighter deal is still being talked about. Not only is Turkey an authoritarian, human rights abusing regime domestically, it is committing war crimes in Rojava.

    This deal is about lining the pockets of arms dealers while Kurdish communities across the region face bombardment and repression from Erdoğan’s fascistic regime.

    We need to stand in solidarity with the Kurdish community and show that there’s massive public opposition to this deal now before it is too late.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • When America’s Founders declared on 4 July 1776 their willingness to risk “our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor,” in order to establish justice in their land — our land — they were throwing down the gauntlet to the evil acts that their exploiters had perpetrated upon them, and against their evil perpetrators who had carried it out. They did this not by calling them evil, but by categorizing and providing an itemized list of their “usurpations,” such that “a candid world” would recognize these acts as being the evils that they were. And it would not have succeeded if those evils had not been itemized on the basis of facts that then were well known (especially to their own countrymen).

    There is a limit to what victims can bear, before they will risk their lives in revolt. America is not there yet, but it is getting close — close to a Second Revolution.

    On February 25, I posted “It’s time to fire President Trump” and presented reasons in domestic policy why Trump is even more brazen than his recent predecessors have been at stripping the American public in order to further enrich America’s billionaires — the economic inequality in this country isn’t high enough for him as it already is, and I documented there that his priorities for where federal spending needs to be cut are the public’s priorities for where federal spending needs to be increased — his priorities are exactly opposite to those the American citizenry hold, so, he is ruling like a dictator, against the public will, regardless of his campaign promises; this is a dictatorship.

    Like all U.S. Presidents, and virtually all members of the U.S. Congress, so far in this century, he has been rabidly hostile against the courageous individuals who have blown the whistle on their Government’s illegal, and even unConstitutional, actions — a Government like this can only be called a tyranny, which Britain’s also was at America’s founding.

    America’s Declaration of Independence, as I said, listed usurpations extending over a long time and not merely in the present, and likewise Trump’s violations of his promises and of the public’s priorities are merely more of— even if they might be worse than — those that were practiced by his recent predecessors; and, for documenting this, I shall focus here not on domestic policies (like I did on February 25) but instead on foreign polices, and will be showing here that the evilness is not ONLY Trump’s, but is climaxing under his Presidency, and so is actually institutional and therefore needs now to end entirely. This is a slightly expanded list from Brian Berletic’s list provided on February 18th:

    1994: Clinton co-signs Budapest Memorandum enshrining Ukrainian neutrality;
    2001: Bush withdraws from Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia;
    2003: Bush oversees overthrow of the Georgian government;
    2003: Bush 2008: US begins arming and training Georgian forces;
    2008: Bush in April invites Ukraine to join NATO in violation of the Budapest Memorandum;
    2008: Bush In August — Georgian forces attack Russian peacekeepers triggering Russian-Georgian war;
    2009: Obama Under the Obama administration — Secretary Clinton organizes a “reset” with Russia;
    2010: Obama & Hillary meet privately w. Yanukovych, fail to get him to back NATO membership
    2011: Obama — Following the US-engineered “Arab Spring,” US Senator McCain claims Russia is next;
    2014: Obama’s coup replaces Ukraine’s government, installs rabidly anti-Russian one;
    2014-2019: Obama-Biden US trains Ukrainian forces;
    2019: Trump withdraws from the INF Treaty with Russia;
    2019: Trump begins arming Ukrainian military;
    2022: Biden — US trained and armed Ukrainian troops begin intensifying operations in the Donbass along Russia’s border followed by the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine;
    2022-2025: Biden — US exhausts arms/ammunition in proxy war against Russia;
    2025: Trump seeks “reset” with Russia, while proposing Western troops enter Ukraine to freeze conflict as the West expands arms/ammunition production.

    And that doesn’t even include Trump’s continuing Biden’s policy of unlimited arming and ammunition of Israel so that Israel can exterminate the Gazans and expel or exterminate the Palestinians in the West Bank.

    Nor does it include the fact that on February 26, Trump agreed with Ukraine’s Zelensky that U.S. taxpayers will continue to fund Ukraine’s war against Russia, and that if Putin won’t accept the deal that Trump has made with Zelensky, then America’s war against Russia in the battlefields of Ukraine and of Russia, will continue; but, in any case, there will be NOT EVEN A CEASEFIRE — it will be a continuing war to the end, between America and Russia. The beneficiaries will be the U.S. armaments companies whose weapons will continue to be supplied by U.S. taxpayers to Ukraine, and also the U.S. billionaires who will receive ownership shares in Ukraine’s oil, gas, and rare earth elements, if America wins the war.

    NONE of these things, either, reflect the priorities of the American people (no more than Trump/Musk’s taking a “chainsaw” approach to the U.S. federal Government’s domestic policies does), and each of these extremely aggressive U.S. Governmental policies — especially the foreign policies violating international law — brings Americans (as a nation) into international disrepute, which Americans likewise do not want. It drives Americans to feel ashamed of being Americans. This is what we are to get from his “MAGA”?

    Here is how this situation is getting worse day-by-day:

    On February 14, the AP headlined “Where US adults think the government is spending too much, according to AP-NORC polling,” and listed in rank-order according to the opposite (“spending too little”) the following 8 Government functions: 1. Social Security; 2. Medicare; 3. Education; 4. Assistance to the poor; 5. Medicaid; 6. Border security; 7. Federal law enforcement; 8. The Military. That’s right: the American public (and by an overwhelming margin) are THE LEAST SUPPORTIVE of spending more money on the military, and the MOST SUPPORTIVE of spending more money on Social Security, Medicare, Education, Assistance to the poor, and Medicaid (the five functions the Republican Party has always been the most vocal to call “waste, fraud, and abuse” and try to cut). Meanwhile, The Military, which actually receives 53% (and in the latest year far more than that) of the money that the Congress allocates each year and gets signed into law by the President, keeps getting, each year, over 50% of the annually appropriated federal funds.

    On February 25, Huffington Post headlined “White House Finally Comes Up With An Official Answer For Who Is Running DOGE: An Obama Honoree,” and reported that “The White House on Tuesday provided an answer to a weeks-old mystery — who is actually running the so-called Department of Government Efficiency — but is immediately facing new questions about the apparent obfuscation of the precise role of billionaire Trump adviser Elon Musk.” The White House was finally legally forced to reply to questions about whom the actual person was at Musk’s “DOGE” who was issuing the orders that have fired thousands of federal workers, and the White House alleged that it was “Amy Gleason, a nurse-turned-technology expert who was once honored by former President Barack Obama and who then worked in Trump’s White House during his first term and also in the first year of President Joe Biden’s term.” Furthermore, Weijia Jiang, CBS News Senior White House correspondent, reported that, “Gleason told my colleague [Michael Kaplan, CBS News Investigative Producer] that she was (vacationing) in Mexico when he reached her by phone” earlier that same day. The HufPo article made clear that because neither Gleason nor Musk has been confirmed yet by the Senate, the firing-orders from DOGE — whomever wrote them — are illegal: “Lawyers say the reason administration officials refuse to admit that Musk is the de facto DOGE administrator is simple: To do so would guarantee losing those lawsuits filed in recent weeks that challenge DOGE’s authority.” Unfortunately, that article failed to explain how or why they are “illegal,” and why Gleason was falsely identified as the Administrator in order to reduce the likelihood that courts would rule them to be illegal. However, regardless of what the answers to those questions might be, the clear inference from HufPo’s poor reporting there, is that this IS illegal, and that the White House is lying about whom DOGE’s Administrator is, in order to increase the likelihood of getting some court to say that what DOGE is doing IS legal.

    Also on February 25, HufPo headlined “House Adopts Republican Budget That Calls For Medicaid Cuts: Lobbying by President Donald Trump himself helped sway Republican holdouts.”, and reported that “The budget resolution [just passed in the House] calls for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and $1.5 trillion in spending cuts,” and that “Democrats all voted against the budget, denouncing its 11% reduction in Medicaid spending over 10 years and its 20% cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.” So: Trump’s enormous tax-cuts for billionaires would be partially paid for by cutting Medicaid to the nation’s poor. However, the Republican argument (as is always the case regarding their efforts to punish the poor) is that “We can eliminate all these fraudulent payments and achieve a lot of savings.” The “fraudulent payments” hadn’t been documented but estimated by Elon Musk’s DOGE, Musk being, of course, not only the wealthiest of America’s billionaires but also by far the biggest donor ($279 million) to Trump’s re-election campaign (as well as a large and rapidly growing seller or “contractor” of Starlink and other weapons and services to the only U.S. federal Department that has never yet been audited, the ‘Defense’ Department). The article said that, “President Donald Trump personally lobbied some of the holdouts with phone calls on Tuesday, including Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), who withheld his vote until it was already clear the House would adopt the measure without him.” So: Trump’s DOGE cuts funding of healthcare for the nation’s poor, while his lobbying gets the thing to pass in the House though all Democrats voted against it.

    So: whereas the American public wanted increases in federal spending, and decreases in federal spending, to be ranked as (INCREASE) 1. Social Security; 2. Medicare; 3. Education; 4. Assistance to the poor; 5. Medicaid; 6. Border security; 7. Federal law enforcement; 8. The Military (DECREASE) — Trump and his Republican Congress are passing into law cuts in numbers 4 and 5 (Assistance to the poor, and Medicaid) the two priorities that are specifically for the poor; and they will presumably be increasing the most: 8. The Military; 7. Federal law enforcement (mainly against poor people); and 6. Border security (which includes Trump’s demand to eliminate ALL refugee-admissions into the U.S.). These are extraordinarily ‘libertarian’ (or “neoliberal”) policies, but they definitely are NOT the priorities of the American public. To THEM, this is a hostile country.

    An important point to be made here is that both #s 4&5, Assistance to the poor, and Medicaid, are “discretionary federal spending” (i.e., controlled by the annual appropriations that get voted into law each year), whereas #s 1&2 (Social Security and Medicare) are “mandatory federal spending” (i.e., NOT controlled by Congress and the President). So, Trump and the Republicans are going after the poor because they CAN; they can’t (at least as-of YET) reduce or eliminate Social Security and Medicare. However, by now, it is crystal clear that Trump’s Presidency will be an enormous boon to America’s billionaires, and an enormous bane to the nation’s poor. The aristocratic ideology has always been: to get rid of poverty, we must get rid of the poor — work them so hard they will go away (let them seek ‘refugee’ status SOMEWHERE ELSE).

    THEREFORE: if any nation needs to be regime-changed, it is right here at home; and our now blatantly evil leaders (and the former ones, such as Bush, Obama, and Biden) ought to be driven out, just like happened during America’s First Revolution. The longer that this is delayed, the worse that things will get — this is, by now, clear in every day’s headlines. America is declining; it has been happening for a long time now (see this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, for examples), and our desperate leaders do only the bidding of their campaign megadonors — which means more war, and more economic inequality. This is NOT democracy. To accept it as-of it were, is to accept a regime of lies that is based on lies about what it is. And it’s getting deeper all the time — until it ends. The longer we wait, the worse it will get.

    (This article, and its conclusion that America is now perilously close to a Second American Revolution, might shock some people; so, here is a reader-response — comment — from a reader of a closely related article I posted February 23 to my Substack, and showing also my response to it. I acknowledged there that though I believe that we are already in an authentically Revolutionary moment, we might not yet have reached the stage of the public’s knowledge of this, and that — if I may say so here — the public before the First American Revolution were aware of it when Thomas Paine published his Revolutionary Common Sense on 10 January 1776. So, in that sense, this article might be premature. However, premature does not, at all, mean false. I invite anyone here who doubts what I have said, to click onto the link at any point where you disagree, so that you can see and evaluate the evidence on your own.)

    The post The Need to Confront the Evilness in Evil Leaders first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Donald Trump’s power has thrived on the economics, politics, and culture of war. The runaway militarism of the last quarter-century was a crucial factor in making President Trump possible, even if it goes virtually unmentioned in mainstream media and political discourse. That silence is particularly notable among Democratic leaders, who have routinely joined in bipartisan messaging to boost the…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On Tuesday 25 February, Keir Starmer announced a significant policy shift: increasing defence spending to 2.5% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2027. Yet this boost in military expenditure is to be financed by spending cuts to the foreign aid budget – from 0.5% to 0.3% of GDP. Starmer emphasised that this move represents the most substantial rise in defence funding since the end of the Cold War. However, he has also out in place a bigger cut to foreign aid than the Conservative Party ever did.

    The decision has sparked considerable outrage. Aid organisations have expressed deep concern, labeling the cuts to overseas development assistance as “truly catastrophic” for vulnerable populations worldwide.

    Hannah Bond, CEO of ActionAid UK, criticised the government for “raiding the already diminished ODA budget,” highlighting the severe impact on marginalised communities, especially women and girls in conflict zones.

    Similarly, Rose Caldwell, chief executive of Plan International UK, warned that the reduction comes at a time of unprecedented humanitarian need, potentially exacerbating crises in regions like Gaza, Lebanon, and Sudan. ​

    Spending cuts to foreign aid: ‘appalling’

    In reaction to the announcement, Romilly Greenhill, CEO of Bond, the UK network for organisations working in international development and humanitarian assistance said:

    This is a short-sighted and appalling move by both the PM and Treasury. Slashing the already diminished UK aid budget to fund an uplift in defence is a reckless decision that will have devastating consequences for millions of marginalised people worldwide.

    Following in the US’s footsteps will not only undermine the UK’s global commitments and credibility, but also weaken our own national security interests. Instead of stepping up, the UK is turning its back on communities facing poverty, conflict and insecurity, further damaging its credibility on the global stage.

    Tragically, this cut is even deeper than the last Conservative government’s and will destroy this Labour government’s reputation, tearing to shreds their previous manifesto commitments to rebuild the UK’s international reputation as a reliable global partner.

    Within the political sphere, reactions are mixed. Labour Party MP Sarah Champion, chair of the Commons International Development Committee, urged Starmer to reconsider, arguing that diverting funds from aid to defence is a “false economy” that could undermine global security and stability.

    Economists from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) have weighed in, suggesting that even with the proposed cuts to foreign aid, achieving the 2.5% GDP target for defence spending will necessitate additional financial measures. These could include either raising taxes or implementing cuts in other government sectors to accommodate the increased military budget. ​

    Campaign groups have also hit back.

    Making the threat of war more likely

    After Starmer also said the goal was to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP, Stop the War convenor Lindsey German said:

    The prime minister’s announcement of a rapid increase in ‘defence’ spending to 2.6% by 2027 and to 3% in the next parliament was designed to appease Donald Trump and the right wing in Britain. It will take the money from overseas development budgets, consigning some of the poorest people in the world to become even poorer. But no worry – Britain will develop more arms and more weapons to facilitate the increasing wars taking place throughout the world.

    There is something grotesquely awful about a Labour government denying the WASPI women around £10 billion in one off compensation but then immediately committing to £13 billion a year for this increased spending. Starmer lauded the previous generations who have fought in wars but is prepared for them to be cold and hungry to promote his imperial ambitions.

    She continued:

    This decision will make the threat of war more likely. It will tie the ailing British economy even more to military production (and indeed to US arms companies) with the consequent threats to public spending in other areas. The claim that it will help British jobs is one that no one should be fooled by. Any big increase in spending – on housing and health for example – would have the same effect. Many of the jobs in ‘defence’ are in the US and elsewhere. As number of studies have shown, defence expenditure is one of the least efficient ways of creating jobs.

    The trade unions who welcome this are deluding themselves: it will do little for their members in those industries and will worsen the social security of housing, health and education that millions of workers in this country desperately need.

    The beneficiaries will be the warmongers and the arms companies, whose profits are assured. They want wars to continue. It is not in any of our interests to do anything but oppose them.

    Featured image via the House of Commons

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • In April 2023, Sudan’s two main military factions broke out into an all-out war that has devastated much of the country in the nearly two years since. The two factions, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), had previously worked together to repress the popular revolution that ousted Omar al-Bashir in 2019, jointly committing the June 2019 Khartoum massacre and…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The last few years have seen Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Israel’s invasion of Gaza. Both invading forces stand accused of war crimes, and the costs in terms of human lives and spending have been enormous. While neither conflict is settling in a fashion which is equitable for the invaded parties, it does seem like both conflicts are coming to a close. Strange, then, that the British political and media class – specifically the BBC – have chosen this moment to tell us that now is the time to increase our ‘defence’ spending:

    In other words, defence contractors have gotten used to the extra income they made from arming Ukraine and Israel, and they don’t want the gravy train to end.

    The BBC bubble

    On Sunday 23 February, Laura Kuenssberg interviewed Labour Party education secretary Bridget Phillipson. The fact that Kuenssberg questioned Phillipson on defence spending and the armed forces rather than education tells you a lot about the ideology of the psychopaths at our national broadcaster. It’s important to understand, though, that while some described this exchange as a ‘grilling’, what’s far more disturbing is how closely aligned the BBC and Labour are:

    In a clip the BBC felt worthy of sharing, Kuenssberg said:

    And many of, people who work in this world, many of your political rivals, other people even like the boss of NATO, would say it’s also urgent that countries like Britain right now commit to spend more money, potentially a lot more money on defence.

    Wow – shocking that the head of NATOan organisation which exists solely to encircle Russia with an ever-growing web of expensive military bases – would want more money. Here’s what NATO boss Mark Rutte had to say in December 2024:

    Russia is preparing for long-term confrontation, with Ukraine and with us. We are not ready for what is coming our way in four to five years… It is time to shift to a wartime mindset, and turbocharge our defence production and defence spending.

    As of 2024, Russia had about 1.3 million active soldiers, about 2 millions reserve forces, and 250,000 paramilitary units. Statista shows how this compared to Ukraine:

    Recent statistics reported by the BBC estimate that:

    the true number of Russian military deaths could range from 146,194 to 211,169. If one adds estimated losses from DPR and LPR forces, the total number of Russian-aligned fatalities may range from 167,194 to 234,669.

    This means Russia has probably lost something like 10% of its ‘Russian-aligned’ fighting forces. And that’s not to mention the financial cost, with Reuters reporting US claims in February 2024 that:

    Russia has probably spent up to $211 billion in equipping, deploying and maintaining its troops for operations in Ukraine and Moscow has lost more than $10 billion in canceled or postponed arms sales

    It’s worth noting that despite the above, recent reports show that Russia’s economy has been more resilient than some analysts initially predicted. It’s also worth noting that these human and financial costs are the result of Russia engaging a singular enemy. Now let’s have a look at NATO.

    The NATO forces

    The following comparison from Statista compares NATO’s military capabilities with Russia’s as of 2024:

    Spread across its 32 member countries, NATO has around twice as many military personnel as Russia. Importantly, it also has more than five times as many aircraft.

    Now let’s look back at what NATO boss Mark Rutte had to say:

    We are not ready for what is coming our way in four to five years

    We aren’t?

    Because it looks like we’re more than ready. Unless you know something we don’t, like perhaps every Russian soldier will gain the ability to split into two like amoeba.

    But forgetting all that, there’s also the glowing-green megaton elephant in the room that nobody seems to be talking about.

    Nuclear NATO

    Is everyone forgetting what the word ‘deterrent’ means in ‘nuclear deterrent’? Because our understanding is that we have a nuclear deterrent to deter other nuclear powers from going to war with us. And we know we’re not imagining that, because this is what the UK government has to say:

    The purpose of nuclear deterrence is to preserve peace, prevent coercion and deter aggression. Potential aggressors know that the costs of attacking the UK, or our NATO allies, could far outweigh any benefit they could hope to achieve. This deters states from using their nuclear weapons against us or carrying out the most extreme threats to our national security.

    That’s weird, because over the past few years there have been many instances of British military bigwigs telling us that war with Russia is possible, such as general Roly Walker in 2024:

    BBC

    So what’s going on here?

    Is the British military going rogue, and announcing to Russia and the rest of the world that we will forego using our nuclear deterrent for no apparent gain?

    Or are military bigwigs like Mark Rutte and Roly Walker simply exaggerating the threats we face to secure more funding?

    We’d lean towards the latter, because exaggerating the threats we face to secure more funding is literally the job of every military boss – at least it is under the Western neoliberal order, anyway.

    This isn’t a new phenomenon; it’s simply one which persists, because there is zero pushback from journalists or politicians. It’s a topic Lewis Page covered in his 2006 book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs, with an Independent review noting at the time:

    The high offices of the police, the medical profession and the universities have fallen under ever more scrutiny and suspicion in recent years, but the media has largely ignored the Ministry of Defence. If the former naval officer Lewis Page has his way, all this is set to change.

    The formal naval officer did not have his way unfortunately, and military bigwigs are still able to spew nonsense unchecked in the establishment safe space that is the British media.

    Labour responds to the BBC

    In the Kuenssberg interview, this is how Phillipson responded:

    the defence secretary has also been clear that alongside increased spending, there has to be better spending. There is far too much waste, poor procurement, and bad decisions that are being made. So alongside extra investment, there has to be that programme of reform that John Healy, the defence secretary, has set out.

    So Labour’s plan is to increase military spending while cutting down on military waste. It’s hard to see how they’ll achieve this given that most military spending is waste by design, whether it be preparing for a land war with Russia we’ll never have or this long, long list of failed projects published by Declassified.

    Another important thing to remember is that we don’t simply exaggerate the threats we face; we also create new ones, and then we waste more money ‘countering’ them.

    The axis of defence spending opportunities

    In 2022, NPR published a piece giving some context to the shifting relationship between NATO and Russia. It reported in the piece:

    The question: Should NATO, the mutual defense pact formed in the wake of World War II that has long served to represent Western interests and counter Russia’s influence in Europe, expand eastward?

    NATO’s founding articles declare that any European country that is able to meet the alliance’s criteria for membership can join. This includes Ukraine. The U.S. and its allies in Europe have repeatedly said they are committed to that “open-door” policy.

    But in the words of Russian President Vladimir Putin, NATO’s eastward march represents decades of broken promises from the West to Moscow.

    “You promised us in the 1990s that [NATO] would not move an inch to the East. You cheated us shamelessly,” Putin said at a news conference in December.

    The article carried a map showing the members who joined before 1992 and those who joined after:

    What’s the relevance of 1992?

    1992 was a year after the Soviet Union ended, and the beginning of the new relationship between the US and the Russian Federation. Boris Yeltsin, Russia’s then-leader, was described at the time as a Western “stooge who followed IMF and World Bank advice”. How easy it would have been for the West to treat Russia as just another victim of neoliberal extraction policies; instead, NATO continued to expand eastward as if the Cold War never ended, and this made the rise of a figure like Vladimir Putin more and more likely.

    This isn’t to say Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was justified; it is to say that it wasn’t unexpected. Hostility, it turns out, breeds further hostility. There are many such cases, with examples from recent history including ISIS rising from the ashes of the Iraq war, and Iranian politicians taking a more hardline stance after the US branded them part of the Axis of Evil. Few in the West know that Iranian politicians and citizens responded sympathetically to American losses following 9/11, and of course they wouldn’t, because that narrative wouldn’t support further defence spending.

    The military industrial complex, Labour, and the BBC

    In his 1961 farewell address, US president Dwight Eisenhower warned of the “military-industrial complex”. As he described it, this was a system in which the arms industry and political sphere became so entwined that they pursued war solely for their mutual enrichment. Sadly, this is the world we all now inhabit. It’s why president Joe Biden and his NATO allies turned down peace talks with Russia; it’s also why this same group refused to use their influence to stop Israel committing a genocide.

    The total acceptance of military-industrial complex dogma is beyond apparent in the interview between Kuenssberg and Phillipson. Ignore the fact that our military ambitions only seem to make the world more dangerous – war is profit, and profit is the only thing that matters in the neoliberal world order:

    Featured image via the BBC

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • On Wednesday 5 March, campaigners from a range of peace and anti-war organisations in Wales will host a day of presentations in the Pierhead building at the Senedd to which they have invited all Members of the Senedd to attend.

    Headed up by Heddwch ar Waith (Peace Action Wales) the peace summit will be themed ‘Highlighting Militarism in Wales’.

    Highlighting militarism in Wales

    Sponsored by Plaid Cymru’s Heledd Fychan MS, the events are being held on the UN’s International Day for Disarmament and Nonproliferation Awareness. The main thrust of the day will be a lunchtime presentation at which PARC Against DARC’s lead campaigners will seek to inform MSs of their concerns and objections to the proposed DARC Radar at Cawdor barracks in Pembrokeshire.

    Heledd Fychan MS will introduce the presentation where MSs will have an opportunity to ask the campaigners questions about DARC.

    This comes following a vote at Plaid Cymru’s national conference last October where the party unanimously backed a motion to oppose DARC and support the campaign to halt its development.

    Heledd Fychan MS said:

    Plaid Cymru has a long history of opposing militarism and campaigning for peace, which is why I’m proud to sponsor such an important and timely event at our national parliament.

    We are also supporting the campaign by Pembrokeshire residents to the DARC proposal, and I strongly encourage all Senedd Members to support and attend this important event to understand the strength of opposition and the reasons why this should be of concern to everyone in Wales.

    Peace groups involved in hosting the day include CND Cymru, the Peace Pledge Union, and Stop The War who have all urged their supporters to email their MSs to encourage them to attend the events.

    This is to especially encourage MSs to attend the lunchtime presentation at 12.30pm which will be hosted by PARC Against DARC. It is aimed at briefing MSs on their key concerns around the proposed DARC Radar as well as encouraging MSs to support Cefin Campbell MS’s Statement of Opinion which was tabled on 29 January in opposition to the proposed Radar.

    Opposing Trump’s military radars in Pembrokeshire

    A spokesperson for PARC Against DARC told the Canary:

    From our experience in Pembrokeshire it’s very rare that you see what seems at first like a local issue with the kind of public feeling behind it to have not only a statement of opinion tabled in the Senedd with this kind of support, but teams of locals voluntarily out delivering 18,000 flyers against DARC radar by hand.

    But when you think what it means that these radars would play a massive part in Trump and Elon Musk’s attempt to dominate space against the wishes of most countries, you see why so many people are demanding Labour not to take Donald Trump’s side against the very Pembrokeshire people the party’s supposed to represent.

    The world watches on as Trump unleashes his dangerous & clearly deranged global agenda, the Welsh Government must make a stand against this, and must under no circumstances allow Trump to militarily dominate space from Pembrokeshire. Our peace event could not come with more perfect timing.

    Peace action Wales

    Heddwch ar Waith, the main host of the day, was formed by a collaboration between Cymdeithas y Cymod and CND Cymru. It has successfully become a peace network organisation which encompasses all of the peace campaigns in Wales.

    Sam Bannon, project coordinator at Heddwch ar Waith encouraged MSs to attend the event, said:

    Heddwch ar Waith is hosting ‘Highlighting Militarism in Wales’, at the Senedd to make the collective voice of the peace movement in Wales heard and listened to by our elected representatives. Militarism in Wales occupies 23,000ha of land, utilises 85% of our skies, and over 6,500 square kilometres of our sea.

    It is omnipresent in our schools, universities and public institutions. It already has deep ties with: Trump’s Whitehouse, by way of MOD Sealand; Israel, by way of Aberporth; and will soon put us on the frontline of a new theatre of space war, by way of DARC.

    During a uniquely dangerous era of unprecedently high international tensions, being exacerbated by climate change, it is crucial now more than ever that governments pursue a policy of cooperation, peace and reconciliation, spending less on the military, and instead funding public services and a just transition to net zero.

    Bannon will open the morning at 10.30am. This will take the form of a drop in for MSs and their researchers to meet and talk with the campaigns present. Following the lunchtime presentation on DARC there will be a symposium style series of lightning talks aimed at the public from 1.30pm onwards focussing on some key themes relating to the growing levels of militarism in Wales.

    Wales as a nation of peace and a nation of sanctuary

    Academi Heddwch Cymru is Wales’s national peace institute and recently produced an executive report on DARC radar for the Senedd’s Cross Party group for peace and reconciliation which drew attention to key concerns about the proposed radar installation.

    Jill Evans, former Plaid Cymru MEP and vice chair of Academi Heddwch will host a talk themed Wales as a nation of Peace at 1.45pm.

    Dr Bethan Sian Jones of the Academi said:

    Academi Heddwch Cymru is looking forward to presenting at Heddwch ar Waith’s ‘Highlighting militarism in Wales’ event on the 5th of March at the Senedd. Academi Heddwch’s role is to conduct high quality research and, through this, inform public understanding and debate on key issues relating to peace in Wales and beyond.

    Our Vice Chair, Jill Evans, will be discussing the findings of our newly released report, ‘Wales as a Nation of Peace’. The report argues that Wales can build on its historical legacy, proud culture and contemporary legislation to lead the UK in becoming a nation of peace – which is not only about acting as a globally responsible nation, but also about promoting social justice, human rights, fairness and trust within Wales.

    Militarism in schools and it fuelling racism

    At 2.15pm Ed Bridges of the Peace Pledge Union, supported by Cymdeithas y Cymod and the Quakers of Wales, will host a talk on militarism in Schools.

    Inviting members of the public to attend his talk, Bridges said:

    Both within Wales, and as Wales’ voice to the UK and the world, we believe that Members of the Senedd have a moral duty to act as a force for peace, continuing Wales’ proud history of opposing war, conflict and division.

    To that end, the Peace Pledge Union wants our elected members at all levels in Wales to set out how they will make Wales a beacon of peace. That might include opposing the Welsh Government’s subsidies for arms companies, calling for regulation of military visits to schools, or just rowing back from language which normalises the presence of the military in everyday life.

    At 2.45pm Cardiff Stop The War will present a talk themed ‘Islamophobia, Racism and War’, which will aim to draw the links that militarism and the ever-constant march to war creates and fosters racism within society, Key organiser and well known Cardiff activist Adam Johannes said:

    The Welsh Government says it wants to make Wales an anti-racist nation by 2030. Fine words. But let’s get real—you can’t fight racism while staying silent on war and militarism. Racism doesn’t just exist in people’s heads—it is structured into our economy, our institutions, and yes, our wars.  Britain’s foreign policy, backed by the arms trade, fuels Islamophobia at home and devastation abroad. Who profits? Not the people of Wales, not the communities suffering from war, but the same elites who always do.”

    Racism and war are inseparable. The same machinery that bombs cities abroad manufactures hatred at home.  Islamophobia has been carefully cultivated—not by accident, not by misunderstanding, but as a political tool to justify endless war and repression. The arms industry does not just sell weapons; it sells the ideology of fear and domination.If Wales is serious about being an anti-racist nation, We must tear the mask off this system. We must reject complicity in Britain’s wars, stand against the arms industry, and expose the brutal truth: you cannot fight racism while feeding the war machine.

    Cardiff and District United Nations Association will conclude the afternoon’s talks with a presentation on Disarmament and Ecocide at 3.15pm. A spokesperson simply told the Canary:

    The route to disarmament is through international collaboration.

    A vigil for peace

    The day will conclude with a ‘vigil for peace’ at 4.30pm outside the Senedd where members of the public are encouraged to attend in their numbers to show their strength of belief that Wales must remain and strive to be a nation of peace and sanctuary.

    Alison Lochhead of CND Cymru who will close the event said:

    We must de-escalate investing in conflict and militarism rather than security for a sustainable future.

    Following the event, a report will be compiled which will contain a list of actions that each group would like to see followed. This will be sent to all 60 MSs.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • What on earth does Keir Starmer think he is doing?

    I’ve gone back through the untold pledges, the impossible missions, the multitude of milestones, the uncosted commitments and plethora of broken promises, and I couldn’t find a single mention of deploying British soldiers to fight a war for a state with a bit of a Nazi problem.

    The British army, made up of 74,000 regular forces personnel and 25,000 reservists, is around half the size of military superpowers such as… erm… Myanmar, Morocco, and Colombia.

    If Starmer was planning to have a shit fight, it’s best not to go armed with little more than a fart.

    Does the prime minister have any children of military service age? When I see a gun-toting Starmer Junior cosplaying on the streets of Mariupol in their Dad’s Army outfit — the one he gets out for the occasional photo-opportunity — I’ll review my stance, but until that time, and not before, the Prime Minister shouldn’t even consider putting someone else’s children in front of one of the most powerful militaries on earth.

    I don’t think that’s particularly controversial, and I certainly have no ill feelings towards any of Starmer’s offspring because that would make me as bad as their pathetic, desperate old man.

    But if you’re not willing to dip your toes into the bath to see how hot the water is you certainly shouldn’t be contemplating the possibility of getting someone else to dip theirs in first.

    Keir Starmer’s jingoism is opportunistic hypocrisy

    Starmer is an opportunistic hypocrite. The attempt to appeal to the often jingoistic British public isn’t entirely dissimilar to Netanyahu’s destruction of Gaza.

    The corrupt, genocidal fugitive Netanyahu has been clinging on to power by a thread for some time. The destruction of Gaza helped him buy more time with the demonstrably racist Israeli public.

    Starmer is in a whole heap of trouble at home. His party is less popular than a bunch of shouty, white, tweed-clad, urine-scented Faragists and the Labour Party still hasn’t recovered from the worst start for a government in living memory. Just this week, voters were asked if they trust the Labour Party. Only 16% said they trust Labour.

    Their immigration policy has alienated more people than it has attracted, pretend-economist Rachel Reeves’ plan for growth only seems to apply to poverty and destitution, the filthy rich continue to get considerably richer, and the ‘moderate’ people that loaned Labour their vote just to get rid of the Tories are wondering when a Labour government will actually take office.

    Meanwhile…

    Just this past week, Labour has confirmed they will be cutting £3 billion from disability benefits. Red Tory minister, Stephen Timms claimed “money is tight”, while somehow managing to keep a straight face, safe in the knowledge his boss has already committed £3 billion a year to Ukraine, for as long as it takes.

    Starmer has been desperately thrashing around for a distraction for some time. Trump, Musk and Gaza didn’t serve the intended purpose, so why not talk up throwing a load of British lives into the lion’s den?

    Starmer’s spinners know they have a far greater chance of causing a significant distraction if their liability of a leader is laughably flexing our red, white and blue muscles on the global stage.

    Isn’t patriotism said to be the last refuge of the scoundrel?

    What next? Conscription?

    Look at it from Starmer’s point of view. The United States’ long withdrawal from Europe has moved up a gear with the arrival of the neofascist Trump. So who is going to step up to the plate?

    The right-wing establishment media will bang the war drum, of course, they still think Britannia rules the waves rather than a shitty little isolated island that prefers to waive the rules, these days.

    But they, and Britain’s biggest arms manufacturers, will be telling Starmer how British boots on the ground in Ukraine will save his chaos-ridden, shambles of a government at home.

    If Starmer honestly believes the British public will tolerate the brutal deaths of hundreds, if not thousands of our children to fight a proxy war against Putinist Russia in a former Soviet state, he’s even more deluded, desperate and dangerous than I ever thought possible.

    What next? Conscription? What worked in 1940 isn’t going to work in 2025.

    Stick to playing Fortnite

    Back in the Forties, young people were ready to sign up to fight against fascism on the continent of Europe. Skip forward eighty-odd years and you will see your average young person prefers to fight ghouls on the PlayStation, or document their every move on TikTok.

    And good for them. Stick to playing Fortnite. Go and get drunk with your friends, share a spliff, start a band, play football, do what young people do and NEVER become a victim of conformity.

    What is it with this government and assisted dying? If they’re not telling disabled people that they are a worthless burden on their loved ones and society as a whole, they are talking up sending young people to face their inevitable, gruesome demise under the guise of “peace keeping”.

    We may as well do a block-booking with Pure Cremation at this rate, as this really will not end well for us.

    Starmer will be on Trident, next

    You keep peace with diplomacy, Mr Starmer, not poorly-equipped British teenagers carrying hand grenades.

    I have no doubt this conversation will soon move on to the apparent importance of our nuclear deterrent, and why we need to further invest in something we are never going to have any use for.

    The hawks have a point though.

    What could be better than the threat of Trident while Russian hackers bring down the IT infrastructure of our NHS?

    “Oi, Nikita, put down that gallon of Novichok or we’ll get on the phone to Trump and ask him if we can nuke your Commie ass, when he’s finished his round of golf”.

    Our nuclear deterrent serves no greater purpose than me standing tall at the very highest point of the White Cliffs of Dover, trying to scare off the Russians with a Care Bear stare.

    You’ll have to Google that one, kids.

    In fact, at least I’d provide you with a laugh or two, and you’d even get a bit of change out of £200 billion.

    Not much though.

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Admiral Alvin Hosley demonstrated selective outrage over the fear of multipolarity in the Western Hemisphere. The Southcom commander confirmed the official US military doctrine for the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region on February 13, before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

    In a poorly disguised assertion of US hegemony, Hosley envisioned, “an enduring commitment to democratic principles…to engender security, capability, democratic norms, and resilience that fuel regional peace, prosperity, and sovereignty.”

    Threats to the vision of a Pax Americana

    Foremost of the “threats to this vision” is the “methodical incursion into the region” by China, secondarily by Russia, and a distant third by Iran.

    Hosley charged China with a “long-term global campaign to become the world’s dominant strategic power in the Western Hemisphere” and Russia with continuing support for “anti-American authoritarian regimes” and spreading “misinformation throughout the region.” Meanwhile, the “theocratic regime” in Iran, “seeks to build political, military, and economic clout in Latin America… where it believes cooperation is achievable.”

    These “malign actions,” Holsey argued, run against US national interests, threaten our sovereignty, and pose a “global risk.” Not questioned, of course, is the US presence in the region as part of Washington’s official “full spectrum [world] dominance” posture.

    Rather, he lauded US regional military programs: acquisitions of F-16s by Argentina and Black Hawk helicopters by Brazil, the International Military Education and Training program spanning 27 regional countries, and the Joint Exercise Program with over 10,000 participants from 38 countries.

    Unlike the US with 76 regional military bases, neither China nor Russia has formal alliances, joint command structures, or large-scale military agreements in the region. In contrast, Colombia is a NATO “global partner,” Argentina and Brazil are “major non-NATO Allies,” and Chile is a key cooperator with NATO. The US is making Guyana a military hotspot, while the US occupation of Cuba with the Guantánamo naval base is rendered invisible.

    Hosley also cited humanitarian assistance as “an essential soft power tool,” later adding “with empathy and compassion at the forefront.”

    “Erosion of democratic capitalism”

    The admiral’s double-speak continued with the claim that the Western Hemisphere suffers from an “erosion of democratic capitalism, which in too many countries is being replaced by…authoritarianism.” Not mentioned is the recent US support of Bukele in El Salvador, Bolsonaro in Brazil, Moreno, Lasso and Noboa in Ecuador, Boluarte in Peru, Añez in Bolivia, Uribe and Duque in Colombia, or Milei in Argentina.

    China is accused of interfering in “our south,” a new euphemism of “our backyard,” but with the same chauvinistic implications. Hosley testified that Chinese presence “at strategic chokepoints such as the Panama Canal imperil the US’s ability to rapidly respond in the Indo-Pacific should a crisis unfold.” Might such a contingency include US military deployment to the Asia-Pacific, which has been the practice since at least 2003?

    The admiral charged China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) with doing what the US has consistently failed to do; namely going “beyond raw materials and commodities to include” infrastructure improvements. China accomplished becoming the region’s second major trading partner and the first specifically in South America in less than two decades, where the US had previously enjoyed nearly uncontested dominance for well over a century.

    Hosley lauded the region’s abundant natural resources (20% of the world’s oil reserves, 25% of its strategic metals, etc.). That these are resources which US multinationals have been pillaging, leaving little in return, remained unstated.

    Meanwhile, China is accused of chicanery by providing benevolent short-term benefits to leave regional countries “vulnerable to unsustainable debt, environmental degradation, and informational security risks.” In fact, “no country…owes Chinese creditors more than it owes other major creditor categories, including bondholders, Paris Club creditors, multilateral development banks (MDBs) or other creditors.”

    And what are the security risks? Satellites for Venezuela and Bolivia? DeepSeek? Technology transfer? Millions of anti-COVID vaccines?

    Outlandishly, the admiral asserted that “the malign activities, harmful influence, and autocratic philosophy of China are a direct threat to the democratic will.” In contrast, he claims the US “offers economic prosperity, sustainable development, and true partnership.” This would be laughable if it weren’t so tragically false. Consider Haiti, under US domination, where the country is in ruins and any pretence of democratic elections has long been dropped.

    Predictably, Hosley also charged Russia with “malign” aims because it “seeks to undermine the US regional interests” by supporting “like-minded authoritarian regimes in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.”

    His concern with Russia’s “state-controlled media to disseminate disinformation and propaganda,” is far eclipsed by the 6,200 journalists and the 707 non-state media outlets in more than 30 countries financed by USAID. This is without mentioning the Western giant media conglomerates that overwhelmingly dominate the world’s news reporting.

    Transnational criminal organizations and Russian acolytes

    Hosley reported that transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) engaged in drug trafficking are connected to the “death of thousands of US citizens.” Not only that but, “TCO-driven corruption and instability open space for China, Russia, and other malign actors to achieve strategic ends and further their agendas.”

    Yet, as Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum noted, organized crime and drug distribution are prevalent within the US itself, which is the largest market for illicit drugs and the source of most weapons used by the cartels to the south. She rhetorically asked: “Who is in charge of distributing the drug? Who sells it in the cities of the US?…Let them start with their country.”

    Venezuela is presented as exemplifying the “devastating effects and consequences of authoritarian rule.” Citing the “widespread inability to access life-sustaining necessities” driving economic refugees from Venezuela, Hosley warned: “The large numbers of migrants transiting the region strains our Partner Nations.”

    Nicaragua is accused of harbouring a global positioning system, a vaccination plant, and a police academy, all of which are collaborations with Russia, which – horrors – “enjoys the diplomatic status of an embassy.” The “repressive Ortega-Murillo regime” joined the BRI and a free trade agreement with China, including building “a massive solar power plant.”

    “Instead of addressing the ongoing humanitarian crises,” the Cuban “authoritarian regime” is accused of “strengthening ties with our Strategic Competitors and adversaries.” Hypocritically, he mourns: “The long-suffering populace does not have sufficient access to medicine, food, and essential services.”

    Outrageously omitted are the effects of draconian Yankee unilateral coercive measures (aka sanctions) on what Hosley calls the “ideological acolytes” of Russia. His narrative blames the victims for the severe consequences of Washington’s sanctions imposed to deliberately produce what the admiral laments.

    “The challenge”

    “Time is not on our side” were the possibly prescient words by the commander of Southcom to the senators about the LAC region, which is “on the front lines of a decisive and urgent contest to define the future of our world.”

    This may be because the US is not prepared to accept that sovereign and independent nations enter into beneficial trade agreements about their raw materials and infrastructure and join multipolar bodies such as BRI and BRICS. The ultimate logic of US policy is to prevent the region from being part of a multipolar world. As the admiral admitted, “we have redoubled our efforts to nest military engagement with diplomatic, informational and economic initiatives.”

    The post Every Accusation Is a Confession first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Peace campaigners are calling on the UK government to hold the British Armed Forces to account for systemic abuse within their ranks and to halt planned rises in military spending.

    The armed forces have systemic problems with abuse and misogyny

    The inquest into the suicide of 19-year-old soldier Jaysley Beck this week has revealed a harrowing culture of abuse and cover-up within the armed forces. The inquest found that her death was caused by the sexual assault and harassment she suffered at the hands of senior colleagues, as well as the Army’s failure to investigate her allegations or report them to the police.

    The revelations follow a long series of stories of abuse across all branches of the UK armed forces, including allegations of widespread sexism and harassment in the RAF’s Red Arrows display team and the Royal Navy’s Submarine Service, and a parliamentary report which found that almost two-thirds of women in the armed forces have experienced bullying, sexual harassment and discrimination.

    In spite of mounting evidence of systemic abuse, Labour Party PM Keir Starmer is ramping up support for the armed forces through increased military spending.

    On the back of multiple military spending hikes under the Tories, the Labour government is promising to increase the UK’s military budget to 2.5% of GDP, in line with NATO’s target for member states. Keir Starmer is under pressure to meet this target quickly, or even exceed it, with UK politicians and military figures urging increases to as much as 3.5% of GDP. The Strategic Defence Review, led by former senior military, defence and security figures, is likely to recommend significant spending increases in its impending report.

    Peace campaigners from the Peace Pledge Union (PPU) have responded with shock and sorrow to the latest reports of abuse, as revealed in the inquest. They have slammed the government for brushing these, and many similar reports, aside while offering ever-increasing support and funding to the armed forces.

    Acting with impunity

    Amy Corcoran, the PPU’s operations manager, said:

    If any other institution had seen numerous reports of rape and sexual assault within the space of a few years, it would be subject to major investigation and serious repercussions. Instead, military chiefs continue to pretend these are isolated incidents, and the government rewards the armed forces with huge increases in public spending.

    The PPU points out that the armed forces are the only institutions in the UK that are allowed to run their own criminal courts and judicial system, along with their own police forces. The PPU argues that this effectively allows the armed forces to operate above the law.

    The inquest into the death of Jaysley Beck comes on the back of a recent report by Child Rights International Network (CRIN), into widespread allegations of sexual offences and rape at the Army Foundation College in Harrogate, where Jaysley Beck initially trained, along with most 16- and 17-year-old army recruits.

    CRIN found that, within a three year period at the Army Foundation College, there were 15 internal complaints of violent behaviour by staff, 13 alleged sexual offences including nine cases of rape, and the conviction of multiple instructors working at the college.

    In spite of this mounting evidence of endemic abuse, successive governments have lent unqualified support to the armed forces, with ever-increasing military spending. The PPU has consistently argued that this is a grievous waste of public funds, pointing out that the UK already has the fifth highest military budget in the world.

    Accountability for the armed forces – not more money

    Amy Corcoran said:

    Spending more and more money on weapons and the armed forces does nothing to make us safer. On the contrary, it fuels military confrontation around the world, and sustains the unaccountable and abusive behaviour of the armed forces at home.

    The PPU argues that military budgets would be better spent on desperately under-funded public services and major security threats such as climate change and pandemics. They challenge the armed forces’ recruitment practices, which target poorer areas of the country and – uniquely in Europe – children as young as 16 years old.

    In recent months the PPU has criticised the UK armed forces for fuelling violence and geopolitical tensions by bombing Yemen, providing military backing to Israel during its genocide in Gaza, and leading NATO exercises in Eastern Europe.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Over 230 global civil society organisations have called on governments producing F-35 fighter jets to immediately halt all arms transfers to Israel, including the these jets. The F-35 jet programme partners include Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, the UK, and the US. On top of the letter, civil society organisations around the world have taken legal action to hold their governments accountable for the F-35 programme, and complicity in Israel’s crimes in Gaza. And in the UK, groups are calling on the Labour Party government to end its complicity now.

    Israel: using F-35 jets with Western complicity

    Israel has used these jets in its bombardment of Palestinians in Gaza. An F-35 was used in July 2024 to drop three 2,000 lb bombs in an attack on a so-called “safe zone” on Al-Mawasi in Khan Younis, killing 90 Palestinians.

    Despite all partners to the jets programme having legal obligations to halt arms exports to Israel, governments continue to allow the transfer of parts to Israel. Incoherent positions have been put forward by governments including stating that arms licences to Israel have been suspended while allowing transfers under existing licences or supplying “indirectly” via the US or other F-35 partners.

    A global movement of legal cases taken by civil society has grown across countries in the F-35 programme, seeking to hold their government accountable for the transfer of jets and components to Israel. These include Australia, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the UK.

    The organisations, while welcoming the limited temporary ceasefire, say that the past 15 months have illustrated with devastating clarity that Israel is not committed to complying with international law. It is therefore inexcusable for our governments to continue to provide arms transfers to Israel, potentially implicating themselves in war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    In December 2024, Amnesty International’s investigation concluded that Israel has committed and is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and Human Rights Watch reported that ‘Israeli authorities are responsible for the crime against humanity of extermination and for acts of genocide’.

    You can read the full letter on the supply of F-35 jets here.

    International law must be complied with

    Shawan Jabarin, General-Director of Al-Haq, said:

    Israeli airstrikes, including the use of 2,000-pound bombs dropped from F-35 fighter jets, have devastated Gaza, repeatedly targeting densely populated areas, alleged “safe zones”, and even shelters for displaced Palestinians, during Israel’s ongoing genocidal onslaught. The overwhelming evidence of Israel’s grave violations of international law makes the F-35 partner nations—all of which are signatories to the Geneva Conventions, with the majority also having ratified the Arms Trade Treaty—complicit in these actions.

    F-35 partner nations, including the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, have assessed Israel’s use of these jets and concluded that the risk of violations of International Humanitarian Law is significant enough to halt direct sales of key components. However, components continue to reach Israel indirectly, highlighting the urgent need for the entire F-35 programme to be brought into compliance with international law.

    As Israel carries out its genocidal practices across the occupied Palestinian territory, with Palestinians in the West Bank subject to an ongoing, violent military onslaught and Gaza’s population still being attacked and denied essential aid despite a ceasefire, it is imperative that states uphold their binding duties under international law. They must collectively ensure that F-35 jets and components no longer reach Israel, halting further complicity in these international crimes.

    Gearóid Ó Cuinn, Director of GLAN (Global Legal Action Network) which is supporting Al-Haq’s arms exports challenge in the UK, said:

    This May the UK High Court will consider this controversial exemption for war plane parts. The UK Government’s position is that Israel can commit whatever depraved atrocity it pleases in Palestine, and nothing will stop the supply of British war plane components. In taking this indefensible position the UK Government has shamelessly put US interests and arms contracts above its own international legal obligations.

    F-35 jets: enough is enough

    Yasmine Ahmed, UK Director of Human Rights Watch, said:

    It is unconscionable that the UK government continues to supply weapons that end up going to the Israeli government, especially for the F35 which has played a pivotal role in Israel’s brutal bombing campaign.

    The government must close the loopholes and end its legal gymnastics- failure to do so displays either a misunderstanding of the government’s legal obligations or a wilful disregard for them.

    Katie Fallon, Advocacy Manager at Campaign Against Arms Trade said:

    The F-35 jet programme is emblematic of the West’s complicity in Israel’s crimes against Palestinians. These jets were instrumental in Israel’s 466 day bombardment of Gaza, in crimes that include war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Since the limited ceasefire the US government, and lead partner to the F-35 programme, has threatened Gaza with mass ethnic cleansing and forced displacement. This programme gives material and political consent from all Western partners, including the UK, for these crimes to continue.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A group of half a dozen young activists staged a third peaceful sit-in at the Bristol Broadmead branch of Barclays Bank. It follows similar protests against the bank in October and December last year.

    Barclays: wrecking the planet

    Activists from Extinction Rebellion Youth Bristol (XRYB) entered the bank branch at around 10am on Saturday 15 February with the aim of engaging customers about what they see as the problems with Barclays, and to encourage them to stop banking there:

    Barclays

    Barclays

    The protests staged by XRYB previously drew significant public attention and customer interest.

    The action by XRYB coincided with a vigil by Cristian Climate Action Bristol (CCA) in protest against the bank, resulting in a significant activist presence both inside and outside the Bristol branch.

    Rather than making demands of Barclays who are a global financial superpower, ranking in the top five largest European banks, the XRYB activists are seeking to increase customer awareness of how the bank invests its money, and of alternative banks that XRYB consider preferable.

    Barclays are a significant global investor in fossil fuels, at a time when a rapid transition to renewable energy is essential in the face of the climate crisis. Barclays is ranked the number one investor in fossil fuels in Europe, and seventh biggest in the world, having financed around $167 billion in fossil fuels between 2015 and 2021. It is also the 4th biggest financer of Arctic fossil fuel extraction.

    As well as its destructive fossil fuel funding, Barclays is a major financer of the global arms trade. This includes funding the sale of weapons to be used in Yemen and major investment in arms companies whose technologies are being used for genocide in Palestine.

    According to Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Barclays bank now holds over £2 billion in shares, and provides £6.1 billion in loans and underwriting to companies used by Israel against Palestine.

    Close your accounts

    A young person from XRYB expressed their concern over Barclays’ investment policies:

    Barclays is a major investment bank and currently has over a billion pounds of investments in companies whose weapons, components, and military tech have been used in unlawful violence against Palestinians. They are also a significant investor in fossil fuels, so are not only funding the deaths of Palestinian people but are also sacrificing our planet’s future for profit.

    Bella, another XRYB member, appealed to those who bank there:

    You have the power to make a difference. Historically boycott, divest, and sanction tactics work to make change, such as in the cases of racist practices in Bristol bus networks and against South African apartheid. Barclays are using your money to fund genocide and using the profits to make themselves richer. They are not your friends. There are numerous alternative banks such as Triodos, Nationwide, and Monzo who will use your money more responsibly and even offer better value!.

    Featured image and additional images supplied

    By The Canary

  • The testimony of Mark Smith, former diplomat and policy adviser at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Officepublished in the Guardian on 10 February 2025, confirms exactly what Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) has argued for decades: the UK’s arms export control system is rotten to its core.

    Mark Smith exposed a system rotten to the core

    Mark Smith’s testimony raises fundamental questions about why the system works in this way and why successive governments have bent over backwards to justify selling arms despite knowing they’ll be used to commit or facilitate horrific war crimes. CAAT argues that the answer lies in the power and influence of the arms trade.

    In August 2024, Smith resigned over the UK government’s refusal to halt arms sales to Israel amid the bombardment of Gaza, following a year of internal lobbying and whistleblowing.

    As an official responsible for assessing Saudi Arabia’s compliance with International Humanitarian law (IHL) in Yemen, Mark Smith was repeatedly told to revise or “rebalance” his reports to make them less damning of Saudi’s conduct, and to give an appearance of “progress”.

    Officials were told to delete correspondence that gave a more negative picture. Ministers employed delaying tactics and repeated requests for “more evidence”, even when the picture of serious violations was clear.

    CAAT’s 2024 report on political influence revealed the disturbing level of access and influence the arms industry has on the UK government. This included BAE Systems having more meetings with ministers, and more with prime ministers, than any other private company.

    On average, between 2009-19, senior government officials and ministers met with their arms industry counterparts 1.64 times a day. This level of influence buys government complicity and makes a mockery of international law in order to safeguard arms dealers’ profits.

    Racism and colonialism in action

    CAAT further argues that underpinning this is the racism and colonialism that is still at the heart of UK foreign policy. It doesn’t matter if this means arming human rights abusing dictators and genocidal regimes – and it doesn’t matter if Black and Brown people are murdered with UK supplied weapons and parts – if this helps pursue a supposed ‘stability’ that promotes US/UK interests.

    CAAT’s media coordinator Emily Apple said:

    Thousands of campaigners across the UK have been vindicated, but it’s too late for tens of thousands of Palestinian and Yemeni people killed with weapons and components exported from the UK.

    Successive governments have manipulated evidence to knowingly and willingly facilitate war crimes and genocide to safeguard arms dealers’ profits. This has to stop.  This has to be the wake up call to take action, reduce the power of the arms trade lobby, and demand a systemic change in our arms export licensing system.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • After World War 2, the US set its sights on becoming the dominant superpower. As a benevolent dictator — an enlightened hegemon — it would spread peace and prosperity across the globe. Its first objective was to defeat what it perceived as the #1 threat to the economic and political system it represented, which was capitalism and democracy, that being communism.

    After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the US decided to leverage its new positioning as the world’s most militarily and economically powerful nation into becoming a full-blown empire. This was the beginning of a period of unprecedented military expansion, i.e. endless wars and defense budget increases which have now all but bankrupted the country. There are a lot of narratives out there about why things are as they are, why the economy is poised on the verge of collapse, but the one offered by War Is Making Us Poor makes the most sense. At least it explains why the excesses of DOD funding is the main reason for many of our current crises.

    This short, powerful book, War Is Making Us Poor, packs more punch and understanding than volumes ten times its size. It presents unmistakeable proof of the mess our country is in, and it points the finger at rampant, accelerating militarism. The sub-title is “Militarism Is Destroying the U.S.”

    Why aren’t people talking about this? Why is this never discussed or debated in the mainstream media?

    The “War Is Making Us Poor” campaign is the beginning of this necessary, vital conversation.

    Why did I write this book at this time?

    It’s simple.

    America is at the end of its ropes. It’s in a tailspin. It’s accelerating its own decline and demise. If we as a nation are not consumed by a nuclear war, then we will be cannibalized by horrible policies which will eventually lead to our destruction as a functioning nation.

    Our fortunes are declining on every front. Our international standing is plummeting. Our power is shrinking. Our economic viability is fatally compromised. As a society, we are unraveling, increasingly more divided, constantly bickering and at each other’s throats. Desperation is the new normal. We are losing our sense of what it is to be “an American”.

    While not the sole cause, it is our military and foreign policy which is largely responsible. We have lost our perspective and are now incapable of cooperation with and respect for other countries. We see the main thrust of this in our militarization both overseas and at home, and our exclusive exercise of military power when dealing with the rest of the world. It’s our way or bombs away. Now with our provoking Russia and China, we are crossing existential red lines. It’s Russian Roulette with bullets in every chamber.

    Domestically, the U.S. — despite the propaganda and spin — is a mess. A crash — a HUGE crash — is coming. The U.S. as a country is becoming insolvent. Individually, we are in debt up to our eyebrows. And both are only getting worse. The U.S. now pays $1 trillion annually just to service the national debt. That debt is increasing by $1 trillion every three to four months. As individual citizens, with inflation so severe, people are so overwhelmed, they’re charging food on their credit cards. There’s no end in sight to any of this, other than a complete implosion.

    In order to slow, and hopefully prevent, our complete bankruptcy, I say we have to target the DOD. As I explain in the book:

    Can we blame all of America’s crises and deficiencies on the military? Perhaps not directly. But we certainly can blame our chronic inability to find the money to fix things on the endless wars and exorbitant DOD budgets.

    The DOD consumes the biggest portion of our national budget. That makes it the “Achilles heel” for the entire edifice of catastrophic priorities.

    Folks, it’s time to get real. We’re at an existential moment in our history as a nation and society. If we don’t begin to act decisively and immediately, then it’s all over.

    Understand, our current national leaders will not solve the problem. They continue to exacerbate the problem. They are the problem. At the end of this very short volume, I’m offering a controversial but realistic proposal. It’s a modest beginning but at least it’s a beginning. I see nothing else out there other than whining and pleading to the very people who are responsible for the disaster, an exercise in futility.

    We can still save America from collapse. But hesitation, no matter how conveniently rationalized, will guarantee failure.

    The post War Is Making Us Poor first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A pious Sunday school teacher confessing to lust in his heart but swearing never to lie, he came to Washington to reestablish public faith in government just when popular disgust at monstrous U.S. crimes in Indochina had reached unprecedented heights. The big business agenda during his term in office (1977-1981) was to roll back the welfare state, break the power of unions, fan the flames of the Cold War to increase military spending, engineer tax breaks for wealthy corporate interests, and repeal government regulation of business. While portraying himself as a peanut-farming populist, Carter delivered the goods for Wall Street.

    Having run as a Washington “outsider,” he immediately filled his administration with Trilateral Commission members, hoping that a coterie of Rockefeller internationalists could resurrect the confidence of American leaders and enrich business relations between Japan and the United States.

    His Secretary of State was Cyrus Vance, a Wall Street lawyer and former planner of the Vietnam slaughter. Secretary of Defense Harold Brown was Lyndon Johnson’s Air Force Secretary and a leading proponent of saturation bombing in Vietnam. Secretary of the Treasury Michael Blumenthal was the standard rich corporation president. Attorney General Griffen Bell was a segregationist judge who disclosed that he would request “inactive” status as a member of Atlanta clubs closed to blacks and Jews [Carter himself stated that housing should be segregated]. Energy coordinator James Schlesinger was a proponent of winnable nuclear war. Transportation Secretary Brock Adams was a staunch proponent of Lockheed’s supersonic transport. National security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski was an anti-Soviet fanatic who said in an interview with the New Yorker that it was “egocentric” to worry that a nuclear war between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. would entail “the end of the human race.” Since it was unlikely that every last human being would perish in such event, Brzezinski recommended that critics of U.S. nuclear policy abstain from narcissistic concern for the mere hundreds of millions of people who would.

    In what William Greider, author of Secrets of the Temple (a study of the Federal Reserve Bank), called his most important appointment, Carter named Paul Volcker to chair the Federal Reserve Bank. Stuart Eizenstat, Carter’s assistant for domestic affairs said that, “Volcker was selected because he was the candidate of Wall Street.” The Wall Street agenda became clear when Volcker contracted the money supply and declared, “the standard of living of the average American has to decline.”

    Wealth was funneled upward and wages and production declined. Unemployment and bankruptcy rose, unions shriveled and disappeared, Pentagon spending soared. For the first time ever American white collar families couldn’t save money. With urban housing costs zooming, workers fled to remote suburbs, but the increased commute expenses tended to cancel out cheaper mortgages. Moonlighting and overtime work increased, but added income disappeared in eating out, second commutes, and hired child care. As the cost of necessities outpaced wage gains, only credit cards could fill the widening gap. Hamburger stands and nursing homes proliferated while well-paid manufacturing jobs fled to the Third World. The workforce of the future was said to be a generation of super-efficient robots.

    Carter’s populist assurances simply whetted the public appetite for this kind of dismal anticlimax. While making a few listless gestures towards blacks and the poor, he spent the bulk of his energy promoting corporate profits and building up a huge military machine that drained away public wealth in defense of a far-flung network of repressive “friends” of American business.

    The heaviest applause line in his Inaugural Address was his promise “to move this year a step towards our ultimate goal – the elimination of all nuclear weapons from this Earth.” But after his beguiling rhetoric faded away, he embarked on a program of building two to three nuclear bombs every day. Although he had promised to cut military spending by $5 to $7 billion, he decided to increase it after just six months in office, and his 5% proposed spending increases in each of his last two years in office were identical to those first proposed by Ronald Reagan. Furthermore, having pledged to reduce foreign arms sales, he ended up raising them to new highs, and after speaking of helping the needy, he proposed cutbacks in summer youth jobs, child nutrition programs, and other popular projects serving important social needs. Similarly, though he had campaigned as a friend of labor, he refused a request to increase the minimum wage and opposed most of organized labor’s legislative agenda while handing out huge subsidies to big business. He made much ado about “human rights,” but returned Haiti’s fleeing boat people to the tender care of “Baby Doc” Duvalier, and when a member of the American delegation to the U.N. Human Rights Commission spoke of his “profoundest regrets” for the C.I.A.’s role in General Pinochet’s bloodbath in Chile, Carter scolded him, insisting that the C.I.A.’s actions were “not illegal or improper.”

    Carter came to Washington proclaiming his desire for a comprehensive Middle East peace, including a solution to the Palestinian question “in all its aspects.” Yet at Camp David he failed to grasp the root of the problem, let alone propose a mature way of dealing with it. He assumed that Palestinians were anonymous refugees whose nationalist aspirations could be safely ignored. He supposed a peace treaty could be signed in the absence of the PLO, world recognized as the Palestinians’ “sole legitimate representative.” He offered no apologies for negotiating an agreement that failed even to mention Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights. He did not protest Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s presentation of the Accords before the Israeli Knesset as a “deal,” one much more favorable to Israel than to “the Arabs.” He pretended not to notice that corralling Palestinians into Bantustans was not simply a tactic of war, but constituted Israel’s boasted final product of “peace”! Finally, his much praised Camp David accords were the death warrant for Lebanon, as Israel, its southern border secure with the removal of Egypt from the Arab military alliance, was freed to concentrate undivided attention on a long-planned invasion across its northern border. It was this invasion (June 1982) that convinced Osama bin Laden that only mass murder of Americans could ever change U.S. foreign policy.

    Carter was effusive in his praise and blind support of the Shah of Iran, who was deeply unpopular in his country due to policies of super-militarization, forced modernization, and systematic torture. By the time Carter arrived in the White House the Shah’s throne sat atop a veritable powder keg. Iranian cities were hideously unlivable with fifteen percent of the entire country crowded around Teheran in shanty dwellings lacking sewage or other water facilities. The nation’s incalculable oil wealth reached few hands and a restless student generation had no prospects. The country’s bloated bureaucracy was totally corrupt. While Shiite leaders rallied popular support, the Shah’s secret police threw tens of thousands of Iranians into jail, the economy gagged on billions of dollars of Western arms imports (mostly from Washington), and Amnesty International speculated that Iran had achieved the worst human rights record on the planet. Meanwhile, Carter declared that “human rights is the soul of our foreign policy,” though he added the following day that he thought the Shah might not survive in power, a strange expectation if indeed the U.S. stood for human rights around the world.

    After the Shah was overthrown, Carter could not conceive of U.S. responsibility for the actions of enraged Iranian students who seized 66 Americans and held them hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Teheran, demanding the return of “the criminal Shah.” (He had admitted the Shah to the U.S. for emergency medical treatment for cancer, thus precipitating the “hostage crisis.”) To Carter, Americans were by definition innocent, outside history, and he dismissed Iranian grievances against the U.S. as ancient history, refusing to discuss them. In his distorted mind, Iranians were terrorists by nature, and Iran had always been a potentially terrorist nation, regardless of what they had suffered at U.S. hands. In short, without the Shah, Carter regarded Iran as a land of swarthy and crazed medievalists, what Washington today calls a “rogue state.”

    Having “lost” Iran, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, along with military outposts and electronic eavesdropping stations used against the Soviet Union, the Carter administration began supporting Afghan Islamic fundamentalists, not making an issue of their having kidnapped the American ambassador in Kabul that year (1979), which resulted in his death in a rescue attempt. While U.S. officials condemned Islamic militants in Iran as terrorists, they praised them as freedom fighters in Afghanistan, though both groups drew inspiration from the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was, in the eyes of official Washington, the Devil incarnate. In a 1998 interview Carter’s national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted that the U.S. had begun giving military assistance to the Islamic fundamentalist moujahedeen in Afghanistan six months before the U.S.S.R. invaded the country, even though he was convinced – as he told Carter – that “this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.” Among the consequences of that policy were a decade-and-a-half of war that claimed the lives of a million Afghans, moujahedeen torture that U.S. government officials called “indescribable horror,” half the Afghan population either dead, crippled, or homeless, and the creation of thousands of Islamic fundamentalist warriors dedicated to unleashing spectacularly violent attacks in countries throughout the world.

    The list of disastrous policies can go on. For example, Carter continued the Ford Administration’s policy of backing Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor, which killed tens of thousands of Timorese during Carter’s years in office, and roughly a third of the Timorese population overall between 1975 and 1979. In 1977-1978 while Indonesia engaged in wholesale destruction in the form of massive bombardment, wiping out of villages and crops, and relocation of populations to concentration camps, the Carter Administration extended the military and diplomatic support necessary to make it all possible. In late 1977 Washington replenished Indonesia’s depleted supplies with a sharp increase in the flow of military equipment (Jakarta used U.S.-supplied OV-10 Broncos, planes designed for counterinsurgency operations) encouraging the ferocious attacks that reduced East Timor to the level of Pol Pot’s Cambodia. In a 1979 interview with the New York Times Father Leoneto Vieira do Rego, a Portuguese priest who spent three years in the mountains of East Timor between 1976 and 1979, said that “the genocide and starvation was the result of the full-scale incendiary bombing . . . I personally witnessed – while running to protected areas, going from tribe to tribe – the great massacre from bombardment and people dying from starvation.” In May 1980 Brian Eads reported for the London Observer that “malnutrition and disease are still more widespread than in ravaged Cambodia.” Relating the comments of an official recently back from a visit to Cambodia, Eads added that “by the criteria of distended bellies, intestinal disease and brachial parameter – the measurement of the upper arm – the East Timorese are in a worse state than the Khmers.” Another stellar achievement of the “Human Rights” administration.

    Furthermore, during Carter’s brief reign he ordered production of the neutron bomb (which his administration praised for “only” destroying people while leaving property intact), endorsed “flexible response” and “limited” nuclear war, lobbied for the radar-evading cruise missile, developed a rapid deployment force for instant intervention anywhere, enacted selective service registration in peacetime, and advocated the construction of first-strike MX missiles for use in a nuclear shell game along an elaborate system of underground railroad tracks proposed for the Utah desert. While lecturing the Soviets on human rights, he escalated state terror in El Salvador, crushed democracy in South Korea, gave full support to Indonesia’s near genocide in East Timor, and maintained or increased funding for the Shah, Somoza, Marcos, Brazil’s neo-Nazi Generals, and the dictatorships of Guatemala, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Bolivia, and Zaire. He refused to heed Archbishop Romero’s desperate plea to cut off U.S. aid to the blood drenched Salvadoran junta, and Romero was promptly assassinated. Furthermore, he said nothing at all when the London Sunday Times revealed that the torture of Arabs implicated “all of Israel’s security forces” and was so “systematic that it cannot be dismissed as a handful of ‘rogue cops’ exceeding orders.” And though he presented himself as sympathetic to those who had opposed the Vietnam war, he refused to pay reconstruction aid on the grounds that during the devastating U.S. attack on the tiny country, “the destruction was mutual.” (Try arguing that the Nazi invasion of Poland wasn’t a crime because “destruction was mutual.”)

    Carter turned domestic policy over to Wall Street, refusing to increase the minimum wage and telling his Cabinet that increasing social spending “is something we just can’t do.” According to Peter Bourne, special assistant to the president in the Carter White House, he “did not see health care as every citizen’s right,” though every other industrial state in the world except apartheid South Africa disagreed with him. He understood that liberals desired it, but, Bourne notes, “he never really accepted it.” Instead, “he preferred to talk movingly of his deep and genuine empathy for those who suffered for lack of health care, as though the depth of his compassion could be a substitute for a major new and expensive government solution for the problem.” In point of fact, money can be saved under a government funded plan, but Carter was uninterested. He insisted on controlling business costs rather than providing universal coverage, neglecting to note that under Medicare – universal insurance for the elderly – administrative costs were a fraction of those charged under private HMOs.

    Carter simply could not comprehend the vast unmet social needs that existed (and exist) in the United States. He thought there was a way to maintain a global military presence, balance the budget, and keep business costs low while adequately meeting social welfare needs via reorganizing programs. When his Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Joe Califano informed him that without increased funding many welfare recipients would be worse off after any reorganization than before, Carter erupted: “Are you telling me that there is no way to improve the present welfare system except by spending billions of dollars? In that case, to hell with it!” In response to a comment that his denial of federal funding for poor people’s abortions was unfair, Carter summed up the political philosophy that rendered him hopelessly unprogressive: “Well, as you know, there are many things in life that are not fair, that wealthy people can afford and poor people cannot.”

    Like political candidates who do their bidding.

    The post False Savior: Jimmy Carter first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Campaigners at PARC Against DARC, which launched in May 2024 to block the proposed US military DARC radars at Brawdy in Pembrokeshire say it’s only a matter of time until the proposed radars receive national scrutiny. This follows Cefin Campbell MS submitting a Statement of Opinion on DARC radar in the Senedd.

    The move comes after a vote at Plaid Cymru’s national conference last October where the Party unanimously backed a motion to oppose DARC and support the campaign to halt its development.

    Statement of Opinion tabled in the Senedd to oppose DARC Radar

    Plaid Cymru’s Cefin Campbell who tabled the Statement of Opinion is one of four regional MSs representing Mid and West Wales. He said:

    Plaid Cymru has a long and honourable history of promoting peace around the globe and opposing militarism at every level. We cannot therefore support the construction of DARC and give space to American militarism on our land.

    Furthermore, no assessment at all has been completed on its impact on the community in terms of tourism, health, or the economy, and the assumption is that it will be harmful on each count.

    Statements of Opinion are a mechanism within the Senedd by which elected MSs can register their concerns on particular issues as a means to gauge feeling from other Senedd Members who can then support or oppose the statements. This is a similar mechanism to ‘Early Day Motions’ which are used in Westminster and are considered to be an effective way to raise awareness over certain issues with an aim of escalating to plenary debates within the Senedd chamber later on.

    PARC Against DARC say they worked closely with Cefin Campbell, and other MS’s to draft the Statement of Opinion which reads:

    This Senedd

    1. Notes:

    a) the opposition by Pembrokeshire residents to the Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability (DARC) proposal by the Ministry of Defence;

    b) concerns regarding the visual and tourism impact of 27 large radar dishes in view of a coastal national park of significant UK importance and national heritage in nearby St David’s;

    c) concerns regarding unaddressed health risks and regional security implications; and

    d) the petition of 16,000 signatures against the proposal.

    2. Calls on the Welsh Government to commission an authoritative impact assessment of the plan to better inform residents and decision-makers

    DARC Radar would give Trump the keys to Pembrokeshire to control space

    The campaign, which has asserted its view that the proposed 27 dish radar array would give Donald Trump and the US the ability to militarily dominate all of space from Pembrokeshire and two other proposed sites located in Australia and the US, won a campaign in the 1990s to fight off a very similar proposal.

    A spokesperson told the Canary:

    The successful campaign in the 90’s became an issue of national and international importance which was debated in UK parliament and subsequently cancelled very publicly by the then Conservative government. We fully expect the DARC radar proposal to receive the same level of national scrutiny this time round and we believe it’s only a matter of time before decision makers are forced to U-turn on this very unpopular proposal.

    With Trump now at the helm in the US, which is terrifying enough in itself, who in their right mind would support giving over a precious piece of Pembrokeshire’s landscape to the US military so that Trump, along with his incoherent foreign policies would be able to control space from here?! Especially when you consider that DARC directly breaches several international treaties which dictate that space must be kept for peace and never used for military purposes

    With other local infrastructure projects currently at pre-planning stages which campaigners assert DARC would be reliant on, they also believe that the planning application for DARC should include these as part of the wider application, inline with current planning legislation and regulations.

    These include the new pylons DARC would need, the proposed Newgale bypass and a data Cable which Vodafone hopes to lay from Ireland to Brawdy. “Given that the MOD admits there would be hundreds of lorries per day needed to construct DARC” say campaigners, “it is very apparent to everyone concerned that DARC would not be viable without the new road and the other elements of additional infrastructure, therefore the MOD should be forced to adhere to current planning law and apply for them all at once”.

    DARC set to become a ‘pivotal issue’ in 2026 Senedd Elections

    On Wednesday 12 Feburary, Roy Jones, a leading activist of PARC Against DARC travelled to Cardiff Bay to hand deliver letters to all 60 Members of the Senedd. The letters raise multiple concerns about DARC as well as imploring the MS’s to support Cefin Campbell’s Statement of Opinion and to meet with the Campaign at an event they will be hosting at the Senedd on 5 March.

    The campaign has urged anyone with concerns about DARC to write to their local and regional MS’s asking them to support the Statement of Opinion. The group said:

    With the 2026 Senedd elections also seeing an increase in the number of MS’s from 60 to 96 as well as a move to proportional representation across the board, we are sure that this will become a pivotal issue as the candidates and parties begin vying for votes in the build up to the 2026 elections. Our 16,000 strong petition demonstrates how unpopular DARC already is among locals and we believe that as awareness grows so will the pressure for candidates to join with public opinion and stand up against DARC.

    The campaign says it also has its sights set on similar processes in Westminster and are already receiving help from several MPs:

    A matter of such hugely significant national interest cannot be decided by a few planning officials at PCC [Pembrokeshire County Council] and must therefore be escalated to the appropriate levels of government for real scrutiny and thorough investigation.

    Campaigners set to lobby Senedd Members

    On Wednesday 5 March as part of the United Nations international day of disarmament and non-proliferation awareness, with Heddwch ar Waith a Welsh Peace network, PARC Against DARC, along with other campaigns such as CND Cymru, Stop the War, and the Peace Pledge Union will be hosting presentations in the Peirhead building at the Senedd including a lunchtime session where all MS’s will be invited to come along and learn more about the dangers of the DARC proposal and the growing levels of militarism in Wales. Heledd Fychan MS will sponsor the day’s proceedings.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Arts University Bournemouth has announced it will boycott fossil fuel industry recruitment, implementing a new Ethical Careers Policy. The university has now excluded oil, gas, and arms industries from attending careers fairs or advertising vacancies through the university’s Careers and Enterprise Service.

    Arts University Bournemouth: offloading fossil fuels and arms

    Arts University Bournemouth is now the 11th UK university to end fossil fuel recruitment on campus, following a wave of student pressure for universities across the UK to cut ties with the fossil fuel industry over environmental and social justice concerns.

    As the Canary previously reported, in December 2024 Aberystwyth University committed to ending its recruitment ties with fossil fuel and mining companies. In doing so, it became the third university in Wales to exclude the fossil fuel industry from its careers and recruitment activities.

    In an updated Ethical Careers Policy published on Aberystwyth’s website, the university states that it will “no longer collaborate or hold relationships” with fossil fuel, mining or tobacco companies. This followed similar commitments from the Universities of Swansea in November 2023 and Wrexham in December 2022.

    All this comes as part of the Fossil Free Careers campaign led by the UK’s largest student campaigning network, People & Planet.

    People & Planet

    The campaign calls on universities to adopt an Ethical Careers Policy excluding fossil fuel and mining industries from careers recruitment.

    To date, Fossil Free Careers has received backing from 19 students’ unions across the UK and has been endorsed by the National Union of Students (NUS) and the University and College Union (UCU) at its National Congress.

    This announcement from Arts University Bournemouth demonstrates a further commitment to sustainability from the university, as students across the UK continue to push for their universities to cut all ties with the fossil fuel industry.

    Alison Zorraquin, employability manager at Arts University Bournemouth, said in a statement:

    At AUB, our student cohort strongly values sustainability, equality, and social responsibility. These principles are championed by the university, and in alignment with its code of ethics, we have decided to advertise roles exclusively with companies whose missions align with these values.

    Josie Mizen, climate justice co-director at People & Planet said:

    We’re delighted to see Arts University Bournemouth become the latest university to cut recruitment ties with the fossil fuel industry. The arts have a pivotal role to play in the fight for a fairer world, so it’s only right that arts universities should be leading the way in putting climate justice front and centre in their work. We hope to see more arts and music colleges follow in their footsteps.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Across the globe, communities are still reeling from the sudden cutoff of U.S. funding for food aid, vaccination programs, education, disability supports and more. The State Department issued guidance freezing foreign assistance for at least a 90-day period on January 25, throwing programs funded with U.S. foreign aid into turmoil worldwide. As a result, an estimated $500 million in food aid…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Last April, in a move generating scant media attention, the Air Force announced that it had chosen two little-known drone manufacturers — Anduril Industries of Costa Mesa, California, and General Atomics of San Diego — to build prototype versions of its proposed Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), a future unmanned plane intended to accompany piloted aircraft on high-risk combat missions.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) has sent a legal letter to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and Suffolk County Council highlighting concerns over the potential stationing of US nuclear weapons at an RAF base in Lakenheath, Suffolk.

    CND: US nuclear weapons should not be in Suffolk

    The campaign group points to indications from the US Air Force (USAF) which they say suggest that such weapons, which were previously housed at the base until 2008, could be stationed there once again.

    CND says the authorities do not have the required plans and measures in place to deal with emergency situations that could arise from the storage of radioactive materials.

    Nuclear weapons were initially housed at Lakenheath from 1954, with two major incidents in subsequent years seriously risking the detonation of the bombs and potentially resulting in catastrophic consequences. The weapons were removed in 2008, and the base has since only hosted USAF units and personnel.

    However, the recent 2024 USAF budgetary justification package put forward the need for ‘surety dormitory’ at Lakenheath – with ‘surety’ a term used by the US government to refer to the capability to securely store nuclear weapons.

    CND wrote to the MoD to challenge planning for the dormitory and the potential storage of nuclear weapons at RAF Lakenheath in November 2023. Upgrades to Lakenheath were completed in November 2024 which gave the base the capability to house F-35 aircraft, which are capable of carrying nuclear bombs.

    Breaching regulations?

    It argues that if the UK government were to allow nuclear weapons to be stationed at Lakenheath without proper emergency plans, this could be in breach of statutory obligations under a number of the 2019 Radiation Regulations.

    These regulations include a requirement to carry out a hazard evaluation and have plans prepared to limit the possibility of a radiation emergency, as well as a consequence assessment for if one should occur.

    CND says that no such planning appears to have taken place, which puts on-site personnel, civilians, and the environment in danger.

    In its latest letter to the secretary of state for defence, the group invites the government to demonstrate if the regulations have been met, and if not, urges that appropriate assessments of the nuclear incident risks take place within two months. CND has written to Suffolk County Council as well arguing that it has similarly failed to comply with the 2019 Radiation Regulations.

    The group says that the council has also failed to meet obligations under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which requires it to make occasional assessments of the risk of an emergency occurring, as well as maintain emergency plans.

    In its letter to Suffolk County Council, CND asks that it completes a full assessment of the risks of a nuclear incident occurring at Lakenheath.

    CND: it’s ‘totally unacceptable’

    CND general secretary Sophie Bolt said:

    While the council has now prepared a response to any potential accident at the Sizewell nuclear plant, it seems to have no such emergency plan for the deployment of US nuclear weapons to RAF Lakenheath.

    Why such a huge oversight – especially given the accidents and mishaps when handling nuclear weapons that have taken place at the base historically. This lack of emergency planning is absolutely shocking considering US nuclear bombs could now be at the base.

    It’s totally unacceptable that the British government uses nuclear secrecy to avoid any accountability for these deployments when they pose such a huge risk to the environment and the population.

    Leigh Day environment solicitor Ricardo Gama said:

    With escalating nuclear rhetoric around the world and the possibility of nuclear weapons returning to UK soil, CND believes that the government needs to come clean about the risks that nuclear weapons pose to the public and the environment. That’s why they’re particularly concerned that laws requiring emergency procedures for sites involving radioactive materials have been overlooked by the government and local authorities. We hope that the Ministry of Defence and Suffolk County Council will clarify what plans, if any, the authorities have in place to deal with a nuclear emergency.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Two Youth Demand supporters sprayed paint over a University of Glasgow building to demand the UK government impose a complete trade embargo on Israel, including on arms sales.

    University of Glasgow: complicit in Israel’s genocide

    At around 9:50am on Thursday 6 February, Hannah Taylor and Catriona Roberts used fire extinguishers to spray the James McCune Smith Learning Hub in red paint:

    The pair then glued onto the front of the building:

    One of those who took action is Hannah Taylor, a maths masters student and hospitality employee from Glasgow, who said:

    I was forced into action today because Glasgow University has blatantly ignored the will of the majority of its students and staff, and insisted on continuing to invest in Israeli linked arms research. I’m enraged that I’ve been forced into complicity with the killing and maiming of Palestinian children, both by my university and by my government. As students we demand an immediate trade embargo including all arms. If you too are sick of standing by and watching a genocide be legitimised and enabled go to youthdemand.org and take action now.

    Catriona Roberts, who is also a student from Glasgow, said:

    The Palestinian people are still under siege. No ceasefire will wash away the blame from our genocidal government. We demand our government stops arming the Israeli state and imposes a full trade embargo. Our institutions follow the lead of our government, who continue to trade and send arms to Israel, a state guilty of genocide. We refuse to be made complicit in the mutilation of children. Please take a stand, join us in April and go to youthdemand.org.

    In November, the University of Glasgow refused to prohibit its endowment fund managers from investing in companies that earn more than 10% of their income from arms manufacturing.

    The University of Glasgow has £6.8 million worth of shareholdings in arms companies such as BAE systems and QinetiQ. They have also received around £600,000 in research funding from BAE systems and Rolls Royce since 2017. QinetiQ, a supplier of military robotics, has been criticised for their active export of arms to Israel and involvement in the British Army Watchkeeper Programme which allegedly tested the drones on Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

    This is despite overwhelming opposition from both student groups and staff. A survey of 2,400 staff and students at the university found that 81% of staff and 84% of students were in favour of divestment.

    Join Youth Demand on the streets of London every day in April by signing up at youthdemand.org

    Featured image and video supplied

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Throughout the election campaign US President Donald Trump often claimed that Biden’s administration made a lot of mistakes while in power. Many of them, according to Trump, just fueled the flame of the protracted war between Russia and Ukraine. The US President and his supporters fiercely condemned the Democrats for numerous aid packages, that, from their point of view, not only pulled the opposing sides away from negotiations but also damaged the American economy. In his speeches Trump systematically stressed his intention to bring an end to the conflict in a very short time by halting military aid to Ukraine and forcing the warring parties to enter into peace talks. Billing himself as a “peacekeeper”, Trump inspired hope of the war to be ended.

    However, on January 13, the newspaper Financial Times released the information that the 47th President of the USA urged Kyiv to lower Ukraine’s conscription age from 25 to 18, promising to equip recruits with all necessary clothing and gear as well as weapons. This injunction can be considered to be an indispensable condition for Kyiv to get further financial and military assistance from the USA. Thus, before sending arms and materiel to Ukraine, Trump is determined to make sure that the problem of personnel shortage within its Armed Forces is solved. It seems that Trump and Zelensky reached a certain agreement behind the scenes that made the US President move away from his campaign pledges and reconsider his attitude to financing Ukraine. Conditions, set to Kyiv, leave no possibility to see the end of the Russo-Ukrainian war in the near future, as the lowering of the conscription age, according to the experts, will bring hundreds of thousands recruits to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Such a hefty increase of personnel, in its turn, will instigate another round of escalation instead of bringing peace.

    Agreement reached by the leaders of the USA and Ukraine is confirmed by the active changes in the educational programs of the latter. Traditional school subjects are substituted with military disciplines, new courses, such as “Drones and how to operate them”, are introduced and more time is now devoted to PE. Military trainings for boys and girls every three months, annual paramilitary teen camps testify that Kyiv starts to train recruits when they are just kids. Definitely, the base to lower the conscription age to the point, voiced by Trump, has been already prepared, and, despite an official rejection of condition, set by the US President, Kyiv is elaborating relevant legislative measures. This fact is confirmed by the announcement made by Chairmen of the Council of Reservists of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Ivan Tymochko, who said that since January 1st, 2025, all men from 18 to 25 must undergo military training without an exception. According to some information, spread over Ukrainian social networks, draft offices in several regions have already finished the lists of men of the mentioned age group, who will be conscripted in the very near future. Thus, we can only hope that Ukraine won’t recruit teens, as the current policy can lead to such an outcome in the in the next few years.

    The post Failed Peacekeeper? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.