The Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) misled a minister and subsequently parliament on the number of records it holds documenting blood and urine tests relating to nuclear test veterans, according to an MP.
The UK government says more than 20,000 military personnel were present for the UK’s nuclear weapons tests which took place from 1952 to 1967 in Australia and the South Pacific.
MP alleges AWE misled minister and subsequently parliament
Conservative backbench MP for South Holland and the Deepings Sir John Hayes, who is also a former minister, raised the allegation in a point of order in the House of Commons on Wednesday 12 March 2025.
Hayes said:
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 21 May 2024, the former Defence Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), published records of blood and urine tests relating to nuclear test veterans.
He said at that time that there were 150. It has now become clear from the correspondence of a court case brought by the British nuclear test veterans that there are 370 documents mentioning blood and urine. That includes 265 that were previously unseen and unreleased.
That raises the possibility, as you will appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Atomic Weapons Establishment misled Ministers about the number of records, and that, inadvertently and entirely innocently, the Minister brought the wrong information to this House.
I seek your guidance on how the Government can correct the record and publish those extra records. The nuclear test veterans deserve nothing less.”
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order.
The Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of ministerial statements in the House, but he has put his point on the record and no doubt those on the Treasury Bench are taking note and listening.
John Hayes and Andrew Murrison did not respond to a request for comment.
Labour MP said blood and urine test data collection was ‘routine’
In a debate in the House of Commons on 28 November 2023, Labour backbench MP for Salford and Eccles Rebecca Long Bailey said “limited documents, notes, forms, official instructions and guidance” were accessible in the National Archives which suggest:
blood and urine test data was collected from servicemen and that this information was stored and analysed.
She also said the documents at the National Archives indicate that “orders from the Air Ministry and War Office” told medical officers:
to arrange repeated “blood testing of personnel working regularly with radioactive sources”.
Long Bailey went on to say that it seemed “clear that blood and urine tests were routine”.
Those blood and urine test results are critical for nuclear test veterans to be able to access proper compensation from the government due to the ill health they experienced after being exposed to radiation and nuclear material.
In 2023, law firm McCue Jury & Partners said nuclear test veterans were having their medical records “illegally withheld” which was having:
a devastating impact on their physical and mental health.”
The firm said:
Blood and urine samples taken from them as young men at the Cold War weapons trials have been reclassified as ‘scientific data’ and placed out of reach at the Atomic Weapons Establishment.
Nuclear test veterans group says veterans need transparency
LABRATS says it “represents nuclear veterans, atomic veterans, scientists, civilians, and their families across the world who have been affected by the Atomic / Nuclear Testing program” and has been looking for the blood and urine tests.
LABRATS founder Alan Owen said:
This is just the tip of the iceberg, there are hundreds of thousands of pages if not millions of pages of information which has not been digitised and not indexed.
The Minister admitted to the gargantuan task of looking through these records. The Nuclear veterans do not have time on their side, the average age is 85 and we lose many each month, we need a fast track 1 year inquiry into the mismanagement of these records.
We require transparency and access to these records, not secrecy and exclusion.
Charity says veterans ‘never’ received ‘appropriate compensation’
Help for Heroes head of communications, public affairs & policy Sasha Misra said:
Help for Heroes is aware that the Ministry of Defence is currently reviewing the medical records of nuclear test veterans, and we are keen to understand more about its investigation into missing files.
Veterans and their families continue to face the long-term health impacts of radiation exposure, yet they have never received appropriate recognition or compensation.
Help for Heroes is calling on the Government to establish a fair compensation scheme to support those who served and their families.
MOD committed to ‘look seriously into’ medical records
We recognise the huge contribution that Nuclear Test Veterans have made to national security.
The government is committed to working with veterans and listening to their concerns. We have already amended the criteria for the commemorative Nuclear Test Medal to ensure those who took part in US atmospheric testing are also recognised.
The Minister for Veterans and People has commissioned officials to look seriously into unresolved questions regarding medical records as a priority, and this is now underway.
This work will be comprehensive, and it will enable us to better understand what information the Department holds in relation to the medical testing of Service personnel who took part in the UK nuclear weapons tests, ensuring that we can be assured that relevant information has been looked at thoroughly.
AWE declined to comment.
Anti-nuclear campaign calls for inquiry for nuclear test veterans
Successive British governments have covered up the scandalous legacy of Britain’s nuclear testing programme for too long.
Bolt said the testing programme had:
caused serious intergenerational health impacts for the local inhabitants where testing took place as well as test veterans who were unaware of the experiments they were taking part in while on mandatory national service.
As a result, it’s hard not to conceive that the Atomic Weapons Establishment is continuing to avoid scrutiny by failing to acknowledge the extent of the medical documentation it has on those who took part in the programme.
Releasing documents in drips and drabs in the hope that veterans will eventually die, and their families will give up is disgraceful. But they can’t stall forever.
We need an inquiry now, while veterans are still alive, to get to the bottom of this scandal with full cooperation from both AWE and the Ministry of Defence.
When the truth about the Nuked Blood scandal finally gets out, it will join the Post Office, Infected Blood, and Hillsborough scandals as one of the great state injustices against its citizens.
Alex Karp, the CEO of the controversial military tech firm Palantir, is the coauthor of a new book, The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West. In it, he calls for a renewed sense of national purpose and even greater cooperation between government and the tech sector. His book is, in fact, not just an account of how to spur technological innovation…
The outrages are raining down one after another: Trump’s suggestion that Ukraine is responsible for the war with Russia, which thus blames Ukraine for the deaths of its own people and implicitly supports Putin’s use of unrestrained military force. Trump’s proposal to forcefully relocate Palestinians from Gaza, which functions as an extension of ethnic cleansing. Trump’s exaggerated use of…
With the Ukraine War and the retreat of the United States from what has routinely been called Europe’s security architecture, states are galloping to whatever point of presumed sanctuary is on offer. The general presumption is that the galloping is done in the same step and rhythm. But Europe, for all the heavy layers of union driven diplomacy, retains its salty differences.
Poland is particularly striking in this regard, having always positioned itself as a defender against the continent’s enemies, perceived or otherwise. This messianic purpose was well on show with the exploits of King John III Sobieski in his triumphant defence of Vienna against the Ottoman Empire in 1683. The seemingly endless wars against Russia, including the massacres and repressions, have also left their wounding marks on a fragile national psyche.
These marks continue to script the approach of Warsaw’s anxiety to its traditional enemy, one that has become fixated with a nuclear option, in addition to a massive buildup of its armed forces and a defence budget that has reached 4.7% of its national income. While there is some disagreement among government officials on whether Poland should pursue its own arsenal, a general mood towards stationing the nuclear weapons of allies has taken hold. (As a matter of interest, a February 21 poll for Onet found that 52.9 percent of Poles favoured having nuclear weapons, with 27.9 percent opposed.)
This would mirror, albeit from the opposite side, the Cold War history of Poland, when its army was equipped with Soviet nuclear-capable 8K11 and 3R10 missiles. With sweet irony, those weapons were intended to be used against NATO member states.
The flirtatious offer of French President Emmanual Macron to potentially extend his country’s nuclear arsenal as an umbrella of reassurance to other European states did make an impression on Poland’s leadership. Prudence might have dictated a more reticent approach, but Prime Minister Donald Tusk would have none of that before the Polish parliament. In his words, “We must be aware that Poland must reach for the most modern capabilities also related to nuclear weapons and modern unconventional weapons.” According to the PM, “this is a race for security, not for war.”
The Polish President, Andrzej Duda, is also warm to the US option (he has been, over his time in office, profoundly pro-American), despite Tusk’s concerns about a “profound change in American geopolitics”. He was already ruminating over the idea in 2022 when he made the proposal to the Biden administration to host US nuclear weapons, one that was also repeated in June 2023 by then-Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki. To have such weapons in Poland was a necessary “defensive tactic […] to Russia’s behaviour, relocating nuclear weapons to the NATO area,” he explained to the BBC. “Poland is ready to host this nuclear weapon.”
Duda then goes on to restate a familiar theme. Were US nuclear weapons stored on Polish soil, Washington would have little choice but to defend such territory against any threat. “Every kind of strategic infrastructure, American and NATO infrastructure, which we have on our soil is strengthening the inclination of the US and the North Atlantic Alliance to defend this territory.” To the Financial Times, Duda further reasoned that, as NATO’s borders had moved east in 1999, “so twenty-six years later there should also be a shift of the NATO infrastructure east.”
Much of this seems like theatrical, puffy nonsense, given Poland’s membership of the NATO alliance, which has, as its central point, Article 5. Whether it involves its protection by a fellow NATO ally using conventional or nuclear weapons, hosting such nuclear weapons is negated as a value. Poland would receive collective military aid in any case should it be attacked. But, as Jon Wolfsthal of the Federation of American Scientists reasons, an innate concern of being abandoned in the face of aggression continues to cause jitters. Tusk’s remarks were possibly “a signal of concern – maybe to motivate the United States, but clearly designed to play on the French and perhaps the British.”
The crippling paranoia of the current government in the face of any perceived Russian threat becomes even less justifiable given the presence of US troops on its soil. According to the government’s own information, a total of 10,000 troops are present on a rotational basis, with US Land Forces V Corps Forward Command based in Poznań. In February, Duda confirmed to reporters after meeting the US envoy to Ukraine Gen. Keith Kellogg that there were “no concerns that the US would reduce the level of its presence in our country, that the US would in any way withdraw from its responsibility or co-responsibility for the security of this part of Europe.”
Duda goes further, offering a sycophantic flourish. “I will say in my personal opinion, America has entered the game very strongly when it comes to ending the war in Ukraine. I know President Donald Trump, I know that he is an extremely decisive man and when he acts, he acts in a very determined and usually effective way.” With those remarks, we can only assume that the desire to have massively lethal weapons on one’s own soil that would risk obliterating life, limb and everything else is but a sporting parlour game of misplaced assumptions.
Universities have long been pivotal hubs of the global solidarity movement with Palestine. During Israel’s genocidal siege of Gaza and its annihilation campaign against Palestinian educational institutions, students across the world transformed universities into sites of protests and encampments. A central demand united this movement: that universities cut their ties with Israel’s machinery of war…
May 18, 2015: Remains of an Eastern Orthodox church after shelling by the Ukrainian Army near Donetsk International Airport. Eastern Ukraine. (Mstyslav Chernov. CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)
The way to prevent the Ukraine war from being understood is to suppress its history.
A cartoon version has the conflict beginning on Feb. 24, 2022 when Vladimir Putin woke up that morning and decided to invade Ukraine.
There was no other cause, according to this version, other than unprovoked, Russian aggression against an innocent country.
Please use this short, historical guide to share with people who still flip through the funny pages trying to figure out what’s going on in Ukraine.
The mainstream account is like opening a novel in the middle of the book to read a random chapter as though it’s the beginning of the story.
Thirty years from now historians will write about the context of the Ukraine war: the coup, the attack on Donbass, NATO expansion, rejection of the Minsk Accords and Russian treaty proposals — without being called Putin puppets.
It will be the same way historians write of the Versailles Treaty as a cause of Nazism and WWII, without being called Nazi-sympathizers.
Providing context is taboo while the war continues in Ukraine, as it would have been during WWII. Context is paramount in journalism.
But journalists have to get with the program of war propaganda while a war goes on. Journalists are clearly not afforded these same liberties as historians. Long after the war, historians are free to sift through the facts.
The Ukraine Timeline
World War II— Ukrainian national fascists, led by Stepan Bandera, at first allied with the German Nazis, massacre more than a hundred thousands Jews and Poles.
1950s to 1990 – C.I.A. brought Ukrainian fascists to the U.S. and worked with them to undermine the Soviet Union in Ukraine, running sabotage and propaganda operations. Ukrainian fascist leader Mykola Lebed was taken to New York where he worked with the C.I.A. through at least the 1960s and was still useful to the C.I.A. until 1991, the year of Ukraine’s independence. The evidence is in a U.S. government report starting from page 82. Ukraine has thus been a staging ground for the U.S. to weaken and threaten Moscow for nearly 80 years.
November 1990: A year after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Charter of Paris for a New Europe (also known as the Paris Charter) is adopted by the U.S., Europe and the Soviet Union. The charter is based on the Helsinki Accords and is updated in the 1999 Charter for European Security. These documents are the foundation of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The OSCE charter says no country or bloc can preserve its own security at another country’s expense.
Dec. 25, 1991: Soviet Union collapses. Wall Street and Washington carpetbaggers move in during the ensuing decade to asset-strip the country of formerly state-owned properties, enrich themselves, help give rise to oligarchs, and impoverish the Russian, Ukrainian and other former Soviet peoples.
1990s: U.S. reneges on promise to last Soviet leader Gorbachev not to expand NATO to Eastern Europe in exchange for a unified Germany. George Kennan, the leading U.S. government expert on the U.S.S.R., opposes expansion. Sen. Joe Biden, who supports NATO enlargement, predicts Russia will react hostilely to it.
1997: Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. national security adviser, in his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, writes:
“Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state.”
New Year’s Eve 1999: After eight years of U.S. and Wall Street dominance, Vladimir Putin becomes president of Russia. Bill Clinton rebuffs him in 2000 when he asks to join NATO.
Putin begins closing the door on Western interlopers, restoring Russian sovereignty, ultimately angering Washington and Wall Street. This process does not occur in Ukraine, which remains subject to Western exploitation and impoverishment of Ukrainian people.
Feb. 10, 2007: Putin gives his Munich Security Conference speech in which he condemns U.S. aggressive unilateralism, including its illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq and its NATO expansion eastward.
He said: “We have the right to ask: against whom is this [NATO] expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them.”
Putin speaks three years after the Baltic States, former Soviet republics bordering on Russia, joined the Western Alliance. The West humiliates Putin and Russia by ignoring its legitimate concerns. A year after his speech, NATO says Ukraine and Georgia will become members. Four other former Warsaw Pact states join in 2009.
2004-5: Orange Revolution. Election results are overturned giving the presidency in a run-off to U.S.-aligned Viktor Yuschenko over Viktor Yanukovich. Yuschenko makes fascist leader Bandera a “hero of Ukraine.”
April 3, 2008: At a NATO conference in Bucharest, a summit declaration “welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO”. Russia harshly objects. William Burns, then U.S. ambassador to Russia, and presently C.I.A. director, warns in a cable to Washington, revealed by WikiLeaks, that,
“Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains ‘an emotional and neuralgic’ issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene. … Lavrov stressed that Russia had to view continued eastward expansion of NATO, particularly to Ukraine and Georgia, as a potential military threat.”
A crisis in Georgia erupts four months later leading to a brief war with Russia, which the European Union blames on provocation from Georgia.
November 2009: Russia seeks new security arrangement in Europe. Moscow releases a draft of a proposal for a new European security architecture that the Kremlin says should replace outdated institutions such as NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
The text, posted on the Kremlin’s website on Nov. 29, comes more than a year after President Dmitry Medvedev first formally raised the issue. Speaking in Berlin in June 2008, Medvedev said the new pact was necessary to finally update Cold War-era arrangements.
“I’m convinced that Europe’s problems won’t be solved until its unity is established, an organic wholeness of all its integral parts, including Russia,” Medvedev said.
2010: Viktor Yanukovich is elected president of Ukraine in a free and fair election, according to the OSCE.
2013: Yanukovich chooses an economic package from Russia rather than an association agreement with the EU. This threatens Western exploiters in Ukraine and Ukrainian comprador political leaders and oligarchs.
February 2014: Yanukovich is overthrown in a violent, U.S.-backed coup (presaged by the Nuland-Pyatt intercept), with Ukrainian fascist groups, like Right Sector, playing a lead role. Ukrainian fascists parade through cities in torch-lit parades with portraits of Bandera.
Protesters clash with police in Kiev, Ukraine, February 2014. (Wikimedia Commons)
March 16, 2014: In a rejection of the coup and the unconstitutional installation of an anti-Russian government in Kiev, Crimeans vote by 97 percent to join Russia in a referendum with 89 percent turnout. The Wagner private military organization is created to support Crimea. Virtually no shots are fired, and no one was killed in what Western media wrongly portrays as a “Russian invasion of Crimea.”
April 12, 2014: The Coup government in Kiev launches war against anti-coup, pro-democracy separatists in Donbass. Openly neo-Nazi Azov Battalion plays a key role in the fighting for Kiev. Wagner forces arrive to support Donbass militias. U.S. again exaggerates this as a Russian “invasion” of Ukraine. “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext,” says U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who voted as a senator in favor of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 on a completely trumped up pre-text.
May 2, 2014: Dozens of ethnic Russian protestors are burnt alive in a building in Odessa by neo-Nazi thugs. Eight days later, Luhansk and Donetsk declare independence and vote to leave Ukraine.
Sept. 5, 2014: First Minsk agreement is signed in Minsk, Belarus by Russia, Ukraine, the OSCE, and the leaders of the breakaway Donbass republics, with mediation by Germany and France in a Normandy Format. It fails to resolve the conflict.
Feb. 12, 2015: Minsk II is signed in Belarus, which would end the fighting and grant the republics autonomy while they remain part of Ukraine. The accord was unanimously endorsed by the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 15. In December 2022 former German Chancellor Angela Merkel admits West never had intention of pushing for Minsk implementation and essentially used it as a ruse to give time for NATO to arm and train the Ukraine armed forces.
2016: The hoax known as Russiagate grips the Democratic Party and its allied media in the United States, in which it is falsely alleged that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to get Donald Trump elected. The phony scandal serves to further demonize Russia in the U.S. and raise tensions between the nuclear-armed powers, conditioning the public for war against Russia.
May 12, 2016: The US activates missile system in Romania, angering Russia. U.S. claims it is purely defensive, but Moscow says the system could also be used offensively and would cut the time to deliver a strike on the Russian capital to within 10 to 12 minutes.
June 6, 2016: Symbolically on the anniversary of the Normandy invasion, NATO launches aggressive exercises against Russia. It begins war games with 31,000 troops near Russia’s borders, the largest exercise in Eastern Europe since the Cold War ended. For the first time in 75 years, German troops retrace the steps of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union across Poland.
German Foreign Minister Frank Walter-Steinmeier objects. “What we shouldn’t do now is inflame the situation further through saber-rattling and warmongering,” Steinmeier stunningly tells Bild am Sontag newspaper. “Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will bring security is mistaken.”
Instead, Steinmeier calls for dialogue with Moscow. “We are well-advised to not create pretexts to renew an old confrontation,” he warns, adding it would be “fatal to search only for military solutions and a policy of deterrence.”
December 2021: Russia offers draft treaty proposals to the United States and NATO proposing a new security architecture in Europe, reviving the failed Russian attempt to do so in 2009. The treaties propose the removal of the Romanian missile system and the withdrawal of NATO troop deployments from Eastern Europe. Russia says there will be a “technical-military” response if there are not serious negotiations on the treaties. The U.S. and NATO essentially reject them out of hand.
February 2022: Russia begins its military intervention into Donbass in the still ongoing Ukrainian civil war after first recognizing the independence of Luhansk and Donetsk.
Before the intervention, OSCE maps show a significant uptick of shelling from Ukraine into the separatist republics, where more than 10,000 people have been killed since 2014.
Ukrainian troops in the Donbass region, March 2015. (OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)
March-April 2022: Russia and Ukraine agree on a framework agreement that would end the war, including Ukraine pledging not to join NATO. The U.S. and U.K. object. Prime Minister Boris Johnson flies to Kiev to tell Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to stop negotiating with Russia. The war continues with Russia seizing much of the Donbass.
March 26, 2022: Biden admits in a speech in Warsaw that the U.S. is seeking through its proxy war against Russia to overthrow the Putin government. Earlier in March he overruled his secretary of state on establishing a no-fly zone against Russian aircraft in Ukraine. Biden opposed the no-fly zone, he said at the time, because “that’s called World War III, okay? Let’s get it straight here, guys. We will not fight the third world war in Ukraine.”
September 2022: Donbass republics vote to join the Russian Federation, as well as two other regions: Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.
May 2023: Ukraine begins a counter-offensive to try to take back territory controlled by Russia. As seen in leaked documents earlier in the year, U.S. intelligence concludes the offensive will fail before it begins.
June 2023: A 36-hour rebellion by the Wagner group fails, when its leader Yevegny Prigoshzin takes a deal to go into exile in Belarus. The Wagner private army, which was funded and armed by the Russian Ministry of Defense, is absorbed into the Russian army. The Ukrainian offensive ends in failure at the end of November.
September 2024: Biden deferred to the realists in the Pentagon to oppose long-range British Storm Shadow missiles from being fired by Ukraine deep into Russia out of fear it would also lead to a direct NATO-Russia military confrontation with all that that entails.
Putin warned at the time that because British soldiers on the ground in Ukraine would actually launch the British missiles into Russia with U.S. geostrategic support, it “will mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us.”
November 2024: After he was driven from the race and his party lost the White House, a lame duck Biden suddenly switched gears, allowing not only British, but also U.S. long-range ATACMS missiles to be fired into Russia. It’s not clear that the White House ever informed the Pentagon in advance of a move that risked the very World War III that Biden had previously sought to avoid.
February 2025: The first direct contact between senior leadership of the United States and Russia in more than three years takes place, with a phone call between the countries’ presidents and a meeting of foreign ministers in Saudi Arabia. They agree to begin negotiations to end the war.
*****
This timeline clearly shows an aggressive Western intent towards Russia, and how the tragedy could have been avoided if NATO would not allow Ukraine to join; if the Minsk accords had been implemented; and if the U.S. and NATO negotiated a new security arrangement in Europe, taking Russian security concerns into account.
We live in dangerous times, and politicians are happy to be cheerleaders of that supposed fact. They do not care to reassure; they merely care to strike fear into hearts and feed the sort of pernicious despondency that encourages conflict. Hope is not a political currency worth trading. These days, fear is the bankable asset, easily cashed at a moment’s notice.
The March 6 meeting of the Special European Council was a chance for 27 leaders of the European Union to make that point. It was time to cash in on the Russia threat and promote a strategic vision that spoke of elevated dangers. It was, in other words, a good time to be throwing money at the militaries of the various member states.
The language was clear from the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, a figure who has become increasingly hawkish in pushing the barrow of the military-industrial complex. Announced on March 4, her ReArm Europe plan entails various measures intended to free up to EUR 800 billion in defence funding. A notable one is enabling member states to use the escape clause of the Stability and Growth Pact to bypass the Excessive Deficit Procedure. Without giving too much by way of details, von der Leyen claims that EUR 650 billion of “fiscal space” could be created were EU countries to increase defence spending by 1.5% of GDP. So much, it would seem, for the bloc’s emphasis on fiscal frugality.
Another measure involves the provision of EUR 150 billion of loans to member states under Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) that will go into such defence initiatives as air and missile defence, artillery, missiles, armed drones and anti-drone systems, and cyber security. But this is not all: this initiative is not only intended for European defence but aiding Ukraine and, it follows, prolonging the war.
Vague suggestions are also on the table. Von der Leyen babbles about “cohesion policy programmes” that might be used to increase military expenditure, with money drawn from the EU budget. Private capital will also be raised through the Savings and Investment Union and the European Investment Bank.
The five-point agreement that emerged from the summit was approved by 26 of the 27 members. (Hungary did not disappoint in vetoing the leaders’ statement). It spoke to such compulsory conditions as Ukrainian participation in peace talks, and European involvement on matters touching upon its security. “Ukraine’s, Europe’s, transatlantic and global security,” the statement pompously reads, “are intertwined”. EU funding in the order of EUR 30.6 billion was also promised for 2025.
The move brings some unwanted attention to the workings of EU policy. Of interest here is the issue of using Article 122, an emergency provision that is non-legislative in nature and has been previously used in responding to the COVID pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In other words, it is an executive pathway that purposely bypasses the European Parliament.
Resorting to the article in this instance did not impress Manfred Weber, who leads the European People’s Party (EPP) group in the Parliament. “Bypassing Parliament with Article 122 is a mistake,” opined Weber to his colleagues in the Strasbourg plenary. “Europe’s democracy stands on two pillars: its citizens and its member states, (and) we need both for our security.”
European Parliament president Roberta Metsola also urged EU leaders at the March 6 summit that, “Working through the European Parliament, especially on decisions of this magnitude, is a way of fostering trust in our union.” While “swift action” was needed, “acting together is the only way of ensuring broad and deep public backing.”
In a non-legislative resolution, 419 MEPs encouraged member states to, amongst other matters, increase defending expenditure by at least 3% of GDP, create a bank for defence, security and resilience and pursue a system by which European defence bonds might be used to pre-finance military investment. While these approving members thought Europe was “facing the most profound military threat to its territorial integrity since the end of the Cold War”, 204 chose to vote against it, with 46 deciding to abstain.
In the process of reaching the final resolution, it is worth noting that certain MEPs from The Left and The Greens/EFA attempted to include an amendment that was rejected by 444 votes. “The Parliament,” it read, “deplores the choice to use Art. 122 […] for the new EU instrument meant to support members states defence capabilities; expresses deep concern for being excluded from decisional process”.
While the March summit suggested a new turn towards bellicose militarism, the trend is unmistakable and troublingly inexorable: Europe is spending more on defence, and was doing so even before the return of Donald Trump to the White House. In 2024, military budgets increased by 11.7% in real terms, with a number of countries reaching the target of 2% of GDP expenditure agreed by NATO members in 2014. Throughout Europe, the merchants of death, an eloquent, accurate term coined in the 1930s, can only be crowing.
New arms export licensing data shows that the Labour Party approved £10.9m in arms exports to Israel in its first three months in office. Data from July to September 2024 show a large increase in arms exports compared to the first half of the year.
Labour: signing off on Israel’s genocide
While the £10.9m figure only includes individual licences, the data also shows that Labour approved an open license for “components for combat aircraft”. Open licenses are not shown in the financial figure as once granted, companies can export unlimited amounts of specified military equipment. While there is currently no information available on which licenses Labour suspended in September, this license appears completely incompatible with its supposed commitment not to supply military equipment that could be used in Gaza.
The biggest single issue license awarded, worth £7.2m, was for “technology for submarines”, with a footnote stating that it was for “marketing and promotional purposes, including demonstration to potential customers, temporary exhibitions”.
In total, Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) estimates that the UK has approved and/or delivered at least £100m in military equipment to Israel since October 7th 2023. This figure includes single and open licenses and is conservatively estimated from a combination of publicly available sources due to the lack of data published on open licenses.
Globally, £2.9bn worth of arms exports were licensed between July and September 2024. Despite having committed horrific war crimes in Yemen and committing appalling human rights abuses at home, Saudi Arabia was the biggest recipient of UK arms exports with £1.65bn of licenses issued. This included £800m in air-to-surface missiles, £741m in components for bombs, and £100m in surface-to-air missiles.
Licenses were also issued to other human rights abusing states including £23m to Egypt, £15.7m to Turkey and £8.6m to Bahrain. The US was the third biggest recipient for UK arms with licenses worth £253m.
Starmer: making zero difference
CAAT’s media coordinator, Emily Apple, said:
It appears that a Labour government has made zero difference to arms dealers profiting from war crimes and human rights abuses. Despite the government’s admission that Israel is not committed to upholding international humanitarian law, it has authorised millions of pounds of military equipment to Israel, directly supporting its genocide against Palestinian people and supporting Israel’s domestic arms industry.
These figures show that this government is deeply complicit in genocide and human rights abuses. Labour promised change – but it is business as usual for arms dealers.
If our government refuses to act, it is down to all of us to take action against this vile trade and ensure that both politicians and the arms companies are held accountable and face the consequences of their actions.
European leaders meeting in an “Emergency War Summit” in Brussels have agreed on huge increases in arms spending. On entering the meeting, Denmark’s Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, declared “Spend, spend, spend on defense and deterrence.” And in response to an interviewer’s question, French Prime Minster Francois Bayrou dismissed the idea that the French public should have any say in this decision, adding “We can’t let the country be disarmed.” (CNews and Europe 1). French President Macron asserts that peace will come only when Russia is “pacified” and Zelensky, Macron and Starmer will try to meet with Trump once again to hear him reiterate, “No, Non, Hi (Ukrainian) and Nyet.
European leaders have been junior partners, via NATO, with US imperialism (think Libya and Iraq) but now the section of the US ruling class that’s behind Trump is openly severing the partnership. These leaders are bobbing and scrambling to hang on to their old role or find a new one for themselves. Reputations and institutions are at stake and it’s not clear that they can finesse their way out because they’ve always counted on an official narrative about Russia that will be put to the test.
As Alexander Mercouris has noted, the real fear among European leaders is if the US and Russia achieve peaceful relations and a Great Power reset, the fictional “Russia threat” that’s been perpetrated on ordinary Europeans will gradually diminish and people will realize they’ve been lied to all along. For now, we can hope that ordinary Europeans will resist how Europe’s ruling elite try to create hysteria, double down on stupidity (“going batshit crazy” in Mark Sleboba’s words) and eviscerate social programs.
Europeans, as well as their US counterparts, who are unwilling to swallow the official propaganda are subjected to unrelenting Putin-baiting — including from liberals and even self-identified leftists — but we refuse to be silenced. We need to do a better job of using our access to social media to show people that the “Ukraine project” was a proxy war as a prelude to attacking Russia. Finally, we can hope that this will lead to an actual left rising in Europe and the United States.
Of course I want peace. Probably as much as anyone reading this.
Naturally, I get excited and hopeful, whenever there are any signs that we are moving in the direction of a more peaceful world.
At the same time, I’m fed up with being led down a primrose path only to find an Abrams tank waiting at the end.
Trump has made enormous strides, or the appearance of enormous strides, toward rapprochement with Russia and ending the Ukraine war. He rightfully points out that this was a needless conflict. Whether he could and would have prevented it is debatable.
Certainly, the fact that the horrifying slaughter which has claimed an estimated 1,000,000 Ukrainians and 100,000 Russians may finally be ending soon is welcome news.
But make no mistake about it.
Trump is not a Peace President.
Because at the same time we entertain the prospect of peace in Ukraine, there are many extremely disturbing things unfolding elsewhere. Here are just a few revealing items.
Trump has ramped up the bombing of Somalia. Of course, we know what a threat to our national security Somalia is. And we also know that innocent Somali citizens are the wrong color, so if we kill a few thousand more, who cares?
It has been reported by reliable non-mainstream sources that a formidable number of B-52 bombers continue to arrive at U.S. bases in the Middle East. These are high-altitude aircraft, so it is doubtful they will be used to drop food and other humanitarian supplies to the besieged people of Gaza. That anti-Iran rhetoric is also accelerating makes this very concerning. Trump may not be Putin’s puppet, but he most assuredly is Bibi’s buttboy. WW3 anyone?
Lethal weapons from the U.S. continue to pour into Israel. So far Trump has approved $12 billion, that enormous sum within only a month-and-a-half. The Trump administration in a ham-fisted unconstitutional end run around Congress days ago rushed more than $2 billion to Netanyahu’s killing machine, justifying the armaments by declaring that Israel is facing a state of emergency. What’s the emergency? The tour buses for Israelis to gleefully view the genocide need an oil change?
Then there’s the constant saber rattling about China. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently announced that the U.S. is ready to go to war with China. It’s inevitable, you know. War with China. No other option. Why? DON’T BE SO RUDE! What? Are you a Xi Jinping apologist? They’re COMMIES. Enough said.
Many analysts are saying that seeking peace in Ukraine actually serves the war agenda: 1) The U.S. is seeking to split Russia off from their close relationship with China, and 2) Ukraine is a distraction. America must marshal its military resources for the Big War. Kiddie cops cozy up to Kiev. Real men bomb Beijing.
Trump loves power. Trump loves thumping his chest as the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. Any talk of peace ultimately only in some twisted fashion feeds into delusions of empire, underscores the right of might, fuels the quest for conquest.
So …
When you walk that primrose path, take care to avoid the landmines.
Trump’s Presidency thus far exhibits the most extreme example that I have ever found of a national leader who not only represents ONLY the extremely rich but who especially despises the poor — it’s a value-system that a person’s moral value is his/her net worth: a person’s value is his/her wealth, neither more nor less than that. The four main federal expenditures that Trump and Musk are investigating for “waste, fraud, and abuse” are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Assistance to the poor. Whereas Social Security and Medicare are relatively safe against being cut, since those are not annually appropriated by Congress, Medicare and assistance to the poor (both of which serve ONLY the poor) ARE appropriated annually by Congress, and signed into law by the President; and, so, those two will likely be cut the most. (They are in what our Government calls “discretionary spending.” You know: they’re things such as yachts.)
The federal Department that the Trump Administration is the least seeking for cuts is the by-far costliest federal Department (at roughly $900 billion per year), which is the only federal Department that has never been audited and that consequently is the most corrupt and wasteful, the Defense Department (Pentagon), which Department is the basic or even only market for the products of firms such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics and Northrup Grumman, etc., which firms (except for Boeing) don’t even have any significant consumer markets — their profits depend totally or almost totally on sales to the U.S. Government itself and to its allied Governments; and, so, they need to control the U.S. Government in order to control their markets, which they consequently do, by means of America’s furiously revolving-door between the public sector and the private sector, so that becoming a part of this “military-industrial complex” is the surest way to become and remain a billionaire in today’s America, regardless of whether or not the U.S. economy is doing well from the standpoint of consumers (the general public — which includes lots of ‘worthless’ people, individuals who owe more than they own).
On February 14, the AP had 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 March 5, the Jeff-Bezos-owned Washington Post headlined “GOP must cut Medicaid or Medicare to achieve budget goals, CBO finds: The nonpartisan bookkeeper said there’s no other way to cut $1.5 trillion from the budget over the next decade.” Though the CBO is ‘nonpartisan’ as between the Democratic and Republican Parties, it is (since both are) entirely beholden to America’s billionaires; and, so, that term there is deceptive. What that ‘news’-report is reporting is that the sense of Congress (even including Democrats there) is that a way needs to be found to cut $1.5T from ‘Medicare or Medicaid” (which, since only Medicare, health care to the poor, is ‘discretionary’, Medicare is not) over the next ten years.
On March 8, ABC News and Yahoo News headlined “DOGE is searching through Social Security payments looking for fraud,” and reported that “The Department of Government Efficiency is sifting through $1.6 trillion worth of Social Security payments — records that include a person’s name, birth date and how much they earn — in an anti-fraud effort that has advocates worried the Trump administration could start denying payments to vulnerable older Americans.” It reported the lies by the Trump Administration to ‘justify’ what they are doing, but the matter will be settled in court, by politically-appointed judges; and, so, mere truth and falsity won’t necessarily deterrrmine the ruling, especially not if a billionaire is worth a thousand mere millionaires (and paupers are worth nothing).
What is supposed to happen when a Government represents ONLY an aristocracy? In 1776, the answer was Revolution. We are there again — or else we never will be again, and will instead continue to accept the continued systematic looting of the American people, this time by DOMESTIC (instead of English) billionaires. It’s not a conflict between Democrats versus Republicans; that’s merely the method to distract us. It is a conflict between the billionaires versus the public.
Liberal versus conservative makes little real difference nowadays, but is more of a difference in style, so as to distract the public from the REAL conflict. They do it all the time.
Campaigners from Pembrokeshire-based PARC Against DARCtravelled to the Senedd on Wednesday 5 March to give a presentation in opposition to Brawdy-proposed DARC space radar array, an AUKUS military proposal backed by President Trump the group argues could ratchet up tensions in space against China:
Campaigners said that they are now ‘ramping up efforts’ to stop DARC Radar.
Twelve Members of the Senedd from across the political spectrum have so far subscribed to a Statement of Opinion that recognises widespread local opposition to the proposal including a petition with nearly 17,000 signatures and concerns regarding DARC’s visual, health and regional security implications, and calls for a Welsh Government commission.
PARC Against DARC campaign steps up a gear
A PARC spokesperson said:
Today marks a big step change in the political impact of the campaign against DARC that has gone an incredibly long way very quickly, with now cross-party support from some Welsh Labour MSs, strong support from Plaid Cymru, and support also from the Welsh Liberal Democrats’ Senedd representative, Jane Dodds. For the many people opposing DARC in Pembrokeshire, this shows us the Senedd playing its best role: as a true reflection of the people that elect it. We strongly encourage MSs to heed our community’s call, and support the statement of opinion.
The spokesperson continued:
It’s right for politicians of all stripes to support this statement of opinion for all the reasons locals oppose DARC. Proposing a 27-dish DARC radar array on the skyline of a true jewel-in-the-crown natural wonder and headline Welsh tourism industry attraction like the St Davids peninsula has been a totally ill-conceived idea from the start, and the Senedd Members we spoke to today have certainly been some early adopters on the right side of history in reflecting that.
Global geopolitical instability
Sionedd Williams MS attended the event saying:
Yesterday I showed my support for the campaign against the DARC project in Pembrokeshire. Plaid Cymru has a proud tradition of promoting peace, and this US militaristic project has no place in Wales.
The campaign argues that DARC radar would also serve the current purposes of Trump’s US imperialist space domination agenda and Elon Musk’s massively expanding SpaceX space network.
PARC said:
This just heaps on the condemnation from local residents of a local area with a long and rich history of challenging such proposals.”
We now have an ‘untrustable Trump’ in the Oval office with a subordinate Starmer as UK partner. The rate Trump is going, we can’t even rely on the US being a UK ally by the time DARC would be built, so it must be stopped or we risk inviting the enemy inside the gate!
Titled ‘Highlighting Militarism in Wales’, the day’s presentations included speeches by local PARC campaigners Roy Jones and Jim Scott, and afternoon talks by Academi Heddwch, Cymdeithas y Cymod and Crynwyr Cymru/Quakers Wales, Cardiff UN Association and Stop the War Cardiff.
Symbolic peace doves released at the Senedd
The events were followed by a televised Vigil for Peace on the steps of the Senedd where Ali Lochhead from CND Cymru spoke of the group’s vision for Wales as a nation of peace. Côr Cochion Choir sang and closed the event as two Peace Doves were released as a symbol of the promotion of peace:
Heledd Fychan MS who sponsored the Peace Day said:
On this UN International Day for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Awareness and today I proudly sponsor an event at the Senedd, highlighting militarism in Wales, hosted by PARC Against DARC.
Plaid Cymru has a long-standing history of opposing militarism and advocating for peace. We remain committed to supporting the campaign by Pembrokeshire residents against the DARC proposals. A lot of interesting discussions and a valuable opportunity for Senedd Members to learn more and understand the strength of opposition and the reasons why this should be of concern to everyone in Wales.
Reduce military spending and stop DARC
PARC Against DARC concluded:
While Trump’s shock realignment of the World order is clearly dangerous, erratic and unpredictable, we support any efforts for peace and his indication that there should be a reduction in military spending by all the global superpowers.
Scrapping excessive AUKUS infrastructure like DARC would be a tangible commitment to slowing down that exact irrational cycle of militarisation. We and all campaigns in the Senedd today, as well as we are sure so many people, could so readily support a world where we commit our resources and our wealth as nations to improving lives and competing primarily on creating the technologies of the future, rather than harking back to the archaic, unaffordable international military stalemate culture of the past.
Campaigners urge all to sign their petition against DARC and call on Welsh residents to email Senedd Members and request they subscribe to the statement of opinion against DARC, using the campaign’s template on the campaign’s lobbying page.
One thing that instantly struck me watching the White House press conference February 28, 2025 with US President Donald Trump, Vice President J. D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was that the grand welcome accorded to Zelenskyy by the previous US government of Joe Biden and some Western European governments had gone to Zelenskyy’s head. He expected that as he was like an idol to warmongers like Biden and to reporters itching to see Russia defeated, that he would be so to Trump, too.
(Watch Biden/Zelenskyy bonhomie at a press conference with reporters from the dominant/major/traditional/legacy media, the war media, to whom Russia is the “evil empire,” per President Ronald Reagan’s label.)
Zelenskyy was told to put on a suit when visiting the White House. He showed up wearing a commando like stylish black sweatshirt with the logo of Ukrainian tryzub or trident and black pants, both from Ukrainian fashion designer Elvira Gasanova’s menswear label Damirli.
One should have the freedom to wear whatever one wants, however, Zelenskyy has not always worn such casual clothes. He used to wear suits till Russia attacked1 Ukraine, since then his attire has been military/commando style clothes which he says he’ll wear till the war ends. Zelenskyy is not always on the war front, but his clothing creates an impression that he is just coming from the war front, this in turn deludes him into believing that he is kind of a commando. This commando mentality proved almost fatal for the United States-Ukraine relations when he acted as one during the meeting. On March 3, Trump ordered a pause to all military aid to Ukraine — the first wise step to stop the war. Intelligence sharing is also on pause. Zelenskyy needs to come out of this commando mentality.
If Zelenskyy was more powerful than Trump, he could do, wear, say, whatever he wanted to. But he is not. He met Trump for Ukraine, not for himself. If the meeting was a personal one, no one will give a damn even if he blew it up. No. This interaction was for Ukraine and he should have remembered that. As the saying goes: Beggars can’t be choosers. Or as Trump put it: “You don’t have the cards. With us, you have the cards. Without us, you don’t have any cards.”
Zelenskyy badly needs a class in 101 diplomacy. You don’t cut off the branch you’re sitting on; Zelenskyy almost cut off the branch (of the US aid tree) on which Ukraine depends. During the meeting, he constantly argued rather than try and take the conversation towards a more agreeable path.
Despite the fact that US Senator Lindsey Graham, a strong Trump supporter, had warned Zelenskyy beforehand: “Don’t take the bait. Don’t let the media or anyone else get you into an argument with President Trump.”
Zelenskyy’s arguments wouldn’t have mattered if he was arguing with the Biden team, because it was the Biden regime’s war.
Another thing one can deduce from Zelenskyy’s behavior is that he’s not smart like Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu or India’s Narendra Modi (both have big egos and cruel mentality, and wouldn’t hesitate to unleash violence to achieve the desired goals). But neither argue or show any displeasure when they meet Trump because they know they are weak partners vis-a-vis the US which is very strong — I would say too strong for our world, not a very good thing. Israeli leaders are famous for insulting, bypassing, or ordering US leaders but they can’t do that with Trump — of course, instead, they get things done with flattery.
Invited for lunch, but humiliated and shown the door without lunch from the White House, Zelenskyy flew into London in the warm and comforting embrace (albeit, a momentary one) of Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the UK. (Britain, once the greatest empire in the world, now has not much power except, every now and then, it makes some noise to draw attention.)
A conference of 18 leaders: Europeans and Canada’s Justin Trudeau, were called to support Ukraine which Starmer called “coalition of the willing.” The unwilling ones will be crushed or maligned. But the leaders were aware that without the US not much can be accomplished.
Tusk should have added: We are all together but still alone unless the Globo Cop US joins in.
It seems like Zelenskyy came his senses. On March 4, he said:
“None of us wants an endless war. Ukraine is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer. Nobody wants peace more than Ukrainians.” “My team and I stand ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts.”
Zelenskyy must be feeling very humiliated: first for being dressed down by Trump, and, then for accepting “Trump’s strong leadership.”
Advice for Zelenskyy, if he’s allowed to stay in power, or any other leader who takes over: Try to stay neutral, avoid joining NATO, be friendly, as much as possible, with your neighbors, including Russia, and prevent being a proxy in the hands of US/European warmongers. The devastating result in the form of death and destruction for both Ukraine and Russia is in front of you, due to your prolongation of the war.
Ukrainians must watch the following video of a speech given by Jeffrey Sachs to the European Parliament.
Business-being Trump
The effective rate for many anti-bacterial, disinfectant, and other products is advertised as 99.99% effective. In other words, it’s not absolutely effective and not totally potent.
The same analogy can also be applied to Trump. One could say Trump is 99.99% nasty, greedy, cruel, or whatever. That, however, leaves room for some uprightness in Trump.
Trump’s figure for US support of $350 billion dollars to Ukraine was, as usual, exaggerated, the actual amount is about $183 billion — huge sum of money for the war, for which major support comes only from the Democratic Party’s “affluent upper-middle class base.” However, the total amount Ukraine received from the US, European Union institutes, several countries, and groups amounts to $380 billion.
For Trump, Zelenskyy is not a hero. Trump is a different entity with a diverse agenda; he has been talking about ending the Russia/Ukraine war for a long time and so it was counterproductive to argue and throw tantrums rather than listening to Trump and then requesting a favor here and a favor there. Of course, Trump has his own interest in facilitating a ceasefire, he is eyeing Ukraine’s rare earth minerals.
After all, Trump is business-being and like most businesspersons, his motive is always a financial one.
Trump is right when he points out the danger of the Russian Ukraine war:
“You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War Three2.”
Trump attacked
The war news media and many European leaders instead of thanking Trump for his efforts in working for a ceasefire, which would not only prevent loss of life and destruction in Ukraine and Russia but would also save US and European taxpayers’ money, lambasted him for being a “bully” and termed discussion with Zelenskyy an “ambush.”
Financial Times’ Europe editor Ben Hall said Trump and Vance “were spoiling for a fight” with Zelenskyy. Marc Polymeropoulus, MSNBC’s National Security & Intelligence Analyst noted that Trump and Vance “have humiliated the United States” when they shouted at Zelenskyy.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) accused Trump and Vance of “doing Putin’s dirty work.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) described Trump’s berating of Zelenskyy “utter embarrassment” for the US.
Trump is wrong on a huge number of issues but not on this one. All those criticizing him are foes of Ukrainian people; it’s they who are paying the price for this meaningless war.
1 The former USSR’s (now Russia) request for NATO membership in mid 1950s was rejected. Why? two logical reasons: one, if Russia is in NATO then you have no enemy to fight with. That is a no, no. Also, there wouldn’t be a war lobby and no arms-related corruption; not a good thing for lobbyists, Congresspersons, weapons producers who always get their cuts, profit, and so on. The other reason was a united Europe wouldn’t be as vulnerable to US dictates as it is now.
2 The World War I and the World War II started by Europeans and the world was dragged in because most countries were under European colonial rule. (The name World War is a misnomer — actually it should be called European World War.) How wise are these idiot European leaders whose insanity could drive Europe towards the European World War III.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will introduce 27 European Union members with her “ReArm Europe” costing $840 billion.
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 U.S. Government had engaged the Gallup polling organization, bothbefore 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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…
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.
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…
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:
"The Conservatives had 14 years, they hollowed out our defence forces"
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:
Brigitte Phillipson very impressive on Sky & BBC, holding her cool under some fair grilling on the one channel & some really quite aggressive stuff on the other. She stood up really well to provocation in both cases. Can't remember Kuenssberg going after Tories with that gusto.
— @johnandi#FBPE#GTTO#LetsTryUBI#FollowBackFriday (@johnandi) February 23, 2025
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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:
Cutting disability benefits here, to spend on bombs to make people disabled in other countries, is depraved#Kuenssberg#bbclaurak
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.
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’sStatement 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.
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.
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.”
_02.jpg%2F440px-Debates_of_Petro_Poroshenko_and_Vladimir_Zelensky_(2019-04-19)_02.jpg){kind=link}