radiofree.asia

Category: Russia

  • Washington Rushes To Hide Its ‘Octopus’ NED Funding In Ukraine

    As Russia finally invaded Ukraine – on a rationale similar to that of the US invasion of Iraq, but with greater substance – Washington rushed to delete funding details of Ukraine groups through its Congress-funded ‘National Endowment for Democracy’ (NED).

    As US Professor John Mearsheimer said, Washington created the crisis in Ukraine, hoping to surround and fragment Russia, using NATO expansion and its Neo-Nazi allies. Instead, it seems that Russia will dismantle Ukraine. In the meantime, the U.S. in decline uses financial assets and networks to subvert most of the world.

    The post Washington Rushes To Hide Its ‘Octopus’ NED Funding In Ukraine appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Ukrainian journalist Viktoria Roshchina missing since March 11

    Paris, March 18, 2022 – In response to the disappearance of Hromadske journalist Viktoria Roshchina and reports that she is being held by Russian forces in Ukraine, the Committee to Protect Journalists issued the following statement on Friday:

    “Viktoria Roshchina is now the second journalist reported missing since the beginning of the Russian invasion,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York. ”Journalists who shed light on the situation in Ukraine should not be targets. We are deeply worried about her disappearance and call on anyone with information on her whereabouts to come forward at once.”

    Roshchina, a journalist for the independent Ukrainian television channel Hromadske, has been covering the situation in hotspots of eastern and southern Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale attack on Ukraine on February 24, according to Hromadske CEO Yuliia Fediv and chief editor Yevhenia Motorevska, who spoke to CPJ via messaging app.

    On March 11, Roshchina published an article about the situation in Russian-occupied Enerhodar, a city of southeast Ukraine.

    In a statement published on March 18, Hromadske editorial staff said  that they last spoke with Roshchina on March 11, but she had left Enerhodar by then and was on her way to Mariupol. On March 12, witnesses told Hromadskethat Roshchina was in Russian-occupied Berdyansk. On March 16, Hromadske was told by local sources that she had been detained by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB). Her current location remains unknown, according to Fediv.

    CPJ contacted the FSB for comment via email, but received an auto-response that the message had been blocked.

    On March 5, Russian forces in Ukraine’s southeastern Zaporozhye region fired on Roshchina’s vehicle, as CPJ reported.

    Oleh Baturyn, a journalist for the Ukrainian newspaper Novyi Den, has been missing since March 12, as CPJ reported. He was last seen in the southeastern Ukrainian city of Kakhovka, in the Kherson region.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Arlene Getz/CPJ Editorial Director.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Saudi executions are glossed over for oil | Brief letters

    Improved human rights | A chant for Putin | Dame Caroline Haslett | Boycotting P&O

    During his trip to Saudi Arabia, Boris Johnson praised the country’s improved human rights record (Boris Johnson upbeat on Saudi oil supply as kingdom executes three more, 16 March). As only three men were executed during his visit there, compared with 81 at the weekend, is that what Johnson means by an improving human rights record?
    Jim King
    Birmingham

    • During the Vietnam war, when Lyndon B Johnson was US president, demonstrators chanted daily outside the White House: “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” The same question would no doubt be asked of Putin by Russians (Survivors leaving basement of Mariupol theatre after airstrike, say officials, 17 March), if they did not live yet again under a repressive dictatorship.
    David Winnick
    London

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Amid War in Ukraine, Global South Faces Brunt of Rising Food Prices

    Amid War in Ukraine, Global South Faces Brunt of Rising Food Prices

    The United Nations is warning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could lead to a “hurricane of hunger and a meltdown of the global food system” that would be especially devastating for the Global South. Wheat and fertilizer prices have soared since the war began three weeks ago. Global food prices could jump by as much as 22% this year as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine disrupts exports from two of the world’s largest producers of wheat and fertilizer. Rising fuel prices will also contribute to higher food prices. To talk more about how Russia’s war in Ukraine is leading to a global food crisis, we are joined by Raj Patel, author of Stuffed and Starved and a research professor at the University of Texas at Austin, who explains how farmers and working-class people around the world will face the brunt of the impact of growing food prices. He notes the coronavirus, climate change, conflict and capitalism are working to compound one another and underscore the necessity to transition to sustainable, agroecological farming.

    TRANSCRIPT

    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

    AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

    The United Nations is warning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could lead to a, quote, “hurricane of hunger and a meltdown of the global food system.” Wheat and fertilizer prices have soared since the war began three weeks ago. The U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization warns global food prices could jump by 22% this year, which will have a devastating impact on the Global South. Russia is the world’s largest wheat and fertilizer exporter. Ukraine is the world’s fifth-largest wheat exporter. The two countries are also major exporters of corn and barley. Rising food prices will also contribute to higher food prices. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres addressed the crisis earlier this week. He said the breadbasket of the developing world is being bombed.

    SECRETARY–GENERAL ANTÓNIO GUTERRES: While war rains over Ukraine, a sword of Damocles hangs over the global economy, especially in the developing world. Even before the conflict, developing countries were struggling to recover from the pandemic, with record inflation, rising interest rates and looming debt burdens. Their ability to respond has been erased by exponential increases in the cost of financing. Now their breadbasket is being bombed.

    Russia and Ukraine represent more than half of the world’s supply of sunflower oil and about 30% of the world’s wheat. Ukraine alone provides more than half of the World Food Programme’s wheat supply. Food, fuel and fertilizer prices are skyrocketing. Supply chains are being disrupted. And the costs and delays of transportation of imported goods, when available, are at record levels.

    All of this is hitting the poorest the hardest and planting the seeds for political instability and unrest around the globe. Grain prices have already exceeded those at the start of the Arab Spring and the food riots of 2007, 2008. The FAO’s global food prices index is at its highest level ever. Forty-five African and least developed countries import at least one-third of their wheat from Ukraine and Russia; 18 of those countries import at least 50%. This includes countries like Burkina Faso, Egypt, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. We must do everything possible to avert a hurricane of hunger and a meltdown of the global food system.

    AMY GOODMAN: Those are the words of the U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres earlier this week.

    To talk more about how Russia’s war in Ukraine is leading to a global food crisis, we’re joined by Raj Patel, research professor at the University of Texas, Austin, author of Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System and co-director of the documentary The Ants and the Grasshopper, which focuses on agroecology, hunger and climate change. He also serves on the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems.

    So, Raj, together Ukraine and Russia provide something like a quarter of the world’s wheat. Can you talk about how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is threatening the Global South?

    RAJ PATEL: Well, you’re quite right, Amy. Between Russia and Ukraine, about 28% of the global wheat trade, measured by weight, comes from Russia and Ukraine. So, for some countries, like, for example, Eritrea — Eritrea imports 100% of its wheat from the combined sources of Russia and Ukraine. But it’s not just countries that import wheat directly from these countries that are feeling the impact, because, you know, what will happen is that with the absence of these stocks available, the global price in wheat will go up, and countries will try and source that wheat from other places. But what that means is that, globally, the price of wheat is going up and that the shocks of the Ukraine invasion get propagated everywhere. And that’s how you will be able to see an increase in hunger as a result of this.

    The United Nations has been modeling that now the global number of people who are suffering undernutrition will hit possibly 830 million people. And that’s driven by price increases, as you mentioned before, of up to 22% in global wheat markets. So what’s happening is that once the supply becomes uncertain, global markets price in the uncertainty. You see wheat trading at incredibly high levels, hitting record levels earlier on this month. And that means that with high prices, you’re likely to see the kind of instability that the secretary-general was mentioning earlier on.

    AMY GOODMAN: And talk about how the seasons work right now. I mean, we’re moving into, in just a few weeks, what would be planting season right in Ukraine and Russia.

    RAJ PATEL: Right. And so, what we’re seeing at the moment is that farmers — I mean, you may have seen some footage of farmers trying to get into their fields and to access some of the wheat, some of the winter wheat, that’s been ready for harvest, and getting ready for spring planting. All of that becomes much less certain. And again, that uncertainty propagates worldwide because of the other commodity that is under threat here or that’s affected, and that’s fertilizer. As you mentioned in the introduction, Russia is the world’s largest nitrogen fertilizer exporter, and it is also a significant exporter of potash and phosphorus. All of these are things that industrial agriculture requires in order to be able to get the yields that we’re accustomed to.

    With the price of all these fertilizers going up, it’s not just farmers in Ukraine who are suffering the impact. Globally, farmers who were dependent on these fertilizers are starting to make decisions about planting spring crops, for instance, in North America. And the supply response isn’t as robust as one might think. You know, it’s not as if farmers are heading off into the fields and deciding that they’re going to cover everything with wheat, in large part because it’s going to be expensive to fertilize that, and also in large part because we’re already seeing a drought in large parts of the Wheat Belt, spurred by climate change. And so, the sort of combination of the global network of international commodity prices driving up the prices everywhere mean that farmers are thinking twice about whether to vastly increase the number of acres they have under wheat production.

    AMY GOODMAN: Thirty percent of Yemen’s wheat imports comes from Ukraine. Shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, many Yemenis rushed to buy flour and expressed concern about rising food prices. This is an example.

    ALI AL-FAQIH: [translated] The Ukrainian-Russian war will affect the whole world and not just us. This war will affect import, export and trade, because we are an importer of wheat, and most of the foodstuffs are from abroad. So, undoubtedly, we will be affected. But we have great confidence in God that it will be resolved, God willing.

    MAHRAN AL-QADHI: [translated] Everything is available, whether wheat or wheat flour, but we were surprised by the citizens’ demand because of the Ukraine war, although it had no effect. Our country has a war, and prices are fixed as we suffer from war. But the war between Russia and Ukraine caused people’s demand for wheat to increase so much that some traders raised their prices because of the great demand, although wheat flour is available and everything is available, whether wheat or wheat flour.

    AMY GOODMAN: Food costs have already more than doubled in many areas of Yemen in the past year. According to the U.N., more than 17.4 million Yemenis are food insecure, 1.6 million in Yemen are expected to fall into emergency levels of hunger in coming months. Can you elaborate on this, Raj Patel?

    RAJ PATEL: Well, I mean, again, what we’ve seen is that this conflict is happening after a dismal two years of the pandemic and a sort of dismal 10 years of recovery after the last global recession. So, all of this is sort of compounding one another. I mean, let’s start with, you know, if we’re thinking about the drivers of hunger internationally, you can sort of help — you can remember them by thinking of four Cs — most recently, of course, COVID, which has caused global increases in levels of hunger, not because COVID attacked cereals or that COVID in some way destroys food directly, but because COVID had a massive impact on the economies of countries around the world, particularly in the Global South. And while we in the United States were able to dodge the worst of it, with merely 40 million people in this country being food insecure — and somehow that’s considered acceptable — globally, the number of people who are food insecure is in excess of 2.3 billion. That’s a huge increase on the figures before the pandemic. So, COVID, by generating poverty, also generated hunger.

    So, on top of COVID, you’ve got conflict. And again, the Ukraine is obviously a major conflict, but it’s not the only one. And the dynamics of conflict are invariably sort of similar, in that when conflict happens, farming is disrupted when the battlefield moves through rural areas, but it also has long-term implications for farmers not just in sort of destroying the land and the capacity to farm, but also through the human populations that move through the land. And all of that, again, drives up hunger.

    The third thing, of course, to worry about is climate change. Again, you mentioned this at the top of the hour. Climate change is just getting worse. And, you know, there are large parts of the world where you see — you know, 10 years ago, we had a range of food rebellions, people taking to the streets because of the high price, in particular, of wheat. But 10 years ago, the high price of wheat was generated by a once-in-500-year climatic event in Russia, a heat wave that killed tens of thousands of people directly but then propagated these huge spikes in the price of wheat around the world. And right now we’re in the middle of many severe weather events. You know, in Mozambique, where 10 years ago there were these food rebellions, Mozambique is just recovering from a Category 3 cyclone, Cyclone Gombe, that passed through the area and has left vast amounts of devastation. So, climate change is making not just the farming of food much harder — you know, again, I mentioned the drought earlier on in the United States, but these extreme weather events are happening everywhere — but they’re also generating displacement and generating the destruction of stocks that, again, is driving hunger.

    And so, the fourth C in global hunger, of course, is capitalism. The way that we grow food today is not with an ambition to make sure that everyone in the world is fed in a nutritious way. The reason to grow food is to make money. And as long as food is grown in order to generate profit rather than to end hunger, then we are structurally always going to have people who cannot afford that food. And tragically, as a result of the rise in prices, we are certain to see tens of millions more people fall into hunger, not just in Eritrea but throughout the Global South, particularly, actually, in Asia. The Asia-Pacific region is going to be much harder hit, just because of the levels of hunger that preexist there. But sub-Saharan Africa is going to have it pretty tough, too.

    AMY GOODMAN: You know, António Guterres, the U.N. secretary-general, mentioned the Arab Spring in his speech warning how the invasion of Ukraine can lead to deepening hunger in the world. A sharp rise in the cost of wheat coincided in 2011 with the Arab Spring. Can you talk about that juxtaposition?

    RAJ PATEL: So, the secretary-general actually mentioned two moments of high prices and low affordability of food. So, there was 2007, 2008 spike that saw protests in places like Haiti, for instance. And then, yes, in 2010, we saw the Arab Spring begin, triggered, in fact, by assaults on food vendors, and all of a sudden you saw massive movements of people taking to the streets at the end of 2010, beginning of 2011, driven in part by governments’ inability to be able to provide affordable food when people had come to expect that.

    It would be reasonable to expect more protests this time around. But in the intervening years, what we’ve — we’ve not seen governments necessarily flock to the idea that what we need is grain storage. And particularly with interest rates rising, grain storage becomes increasingly expensive for countries. And instead, what we’re seeing is, globally, a sort of turn to nationalism in a way that casts the working class and casts the poorest off. And so, wherever you look, you find these sort of strongmen around the world, whether it’s Putin or Modi in India, for instance, presiding over catastrophic outcomes, particularly in hunger, because of COVID and because of their mismanagement of the economy. And instead of admitting that in fact what is needed is a redistribution of wealth and resources to the poorest, you see this national turn, where it becomes criminalized to criticize the government, it becomes treasonous to say that anything other than fighting for the flag is the right thing to do, and under cover of this sort of bourgeois patriotism, the working class are being sold out.

    So, I would fully expect to see far more protests of people taking to the street. And it’s not a particular prophesy that I’m making here. We’ve already seen protests in countries that have defaulted on their debt under the pandemic. We’ve seen big protests in Sri Lanka, for instance. And I think it’s easy to see a moment in which the forces of nationalism are up against the forces and demands of working-class members of society, who are up against a fairly robust patriotic and militarized response. And I worry that we will see a return, as we did in 2010, of police forces opening fire on unarmed working-class people who are making a demand simply for their daily bread.

    AMY GOODMAN: I mean, in Egypt, you have typically the world’s largest wheat importer buying more than 60% of its wheat abroad. Eighty percent of that is from Russia and Ukraine.

    RAJ PATEL: And exactly. Although some of those shipments have managed to get through, the short-to-medium-term prognosis is not good. And because governments have failed to learn the lesson of the past two supply shocks, and because the international development agencies have generally not said, “Well, you know, the wise thing to do is for you to withdraw from the international trading system and make sure your domestic supply chains are robust,” we’re seeing — I worry with you, Amy, that we’re being set up to see many more protests, and without — you know, in the intervening 10 years, the left has been eroded — not eroded, but has been under assault so systematically that I worry that the outcome is going to be a sort of revival of a certain kind of nationalism that portends violence towards the working class rather than their liberation.

    AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about here at home. The Financial Times has reported the U.S. Farm Service Agency is thinking about loosening federal restrictions on land. Can you explain what exactly that means and what the effects of this would be if it happens?

    RAJ PATEL: Well, it’s a little too early to say. I mean, I was struck by this almost throwaway line in the Financial Times, where the Financial Times was investigating: Well, is the response to be able to plant more wheat here in the United States? And someone from the federal government was saying, “Well, we’re monitoring the situation very closely.” But what this might mean is that conservation easements can be violated and that more land can be put under planting.

    But what I’m also seeing and hearing is that farmers are not in a position to be able to take full advantage of that, because, again, high fertilizer prices mean that, you know, if you start planting something, you’ll have to take care of the crop in order to be able to make it economical. But if fertilizer prices are high, that’s a problem. And then, again, because of climate change here in the United States, and because of drought in some of the grain baskets, and because of the sort of violence of industrial agriculture really draining aquifers, it’s not immediately clear that even if the federal government were to open up its lands to “plant, baby, plant” — in a sort of echo of 2008’s “drill, baby, drill” — it’s not clear that the supply response is going to be adequate. And even if farmers did do that, it would still be four months until spring wheat came in.

    So, you know, in the short term, there’s very little relief that the United States is in a position to provide. But the worry, again, is that under cover of a certain kind of patriotism, there will be transfers of resources to certain kinds of stakeholders without a concomitant fall in the level of hunger globally or even here in the United States.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, Raj Patel, we only have a minute, and I wanted to ask how the world food system can be changed to better be prepared for crises like these, failing, if it was at all possible, to prevent war from happening at all.

    RAJ PATEL: Well, certainly, a transition towards more agroecological farming, I think, is wise for so many reasons. It increases our resilience to climate change. It shortens supply chains. It makes our food system more robust against extreme weather. It relocalizes the economy in a way that can support many more jobs and ensure that there is a return to a certain kind of commitment to making sure that everyone gets fed. And, of course, this will require a real commitment, not just a land reform, but to gender equality, because, again, hunger is a globally gendered phenomenon. And this will also require reparations from the Global North to the Global South for the damage we’ve caused these global agricultural systems to be so vulnerable in the first place. We have the solutions. But I think embracing the full sweep of a transformative agroecological shift in food systems is very doable. We have the policies. We know what to do. And what we have to do is fight for the political change to make that possible.

    AMY GOODMAN: Raj Patel, we want to thank you for being with us, research professor at University of Texas, Austin, author of Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System.

    Coming up, we speak to Matthieu Aikins, author of the new book, The Naked Don’t Fear the Water: An Underground Journey with Afghan Refugees. Stay with us.

  • International Law Is A Meaningless Concept When It Only Ahttps://realprogressives.org/wp-admin/edit.phppplies To US Enemies

    International law only exists to the extent to which the nations of the world are willing and able to enforce it,

    This post was originally published on Real Progressives.

  • Republicans Supporting a No-Fly Zone Are Putting Us at Risk of Nuclear War

    House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy wears a Ukrainian flag before the State of the Union address by President Joe Biden during a joint session of Congress in the U.S. Capitol’s House Chamber on March 1, 2022, in Washington, D.C.

    As Vladimir Putin’s wretched war against Ukraine grinds on with no definitive end in sight, Republicans have found a way to once again be disruptive and destructive at the worst possible juncture. After voting against $13.6 billion in assistance for Ukraine last week, dozens of GOP senators have demanded the U.S. send more weapons.

    “‘We should send more lethal aid to Ukraine which I voted against last week’ is making my brain melt,” tweeted Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz.

    Among the more belligerent Republicans — and more than a few Democrats who should damn well know better by now — the idea of establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine has become a rallying cry.

    Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy set the stage for this with an impassioned plea for such help to Congress on Wednesday.

    As Noam Chomsky explained in Truthout last week, a no-fly zone is not simply a rule or guideline: “A no-fly zone means that the U.S. Air Force would not only be attacking Russian planes but would also be bombing Russian ground installations that provide anti-aircraft support for Russian forces, with whatever ‘collateral damage’ ensues. Is it really difficult to comprehend what follows?”

    Noah Y. Kim of Mother Jones breaks it down:

    A no-fly zone is essentially a commitment to ensure that no enemy aircraft can enter a designated area. In order to make good on this pledge, the U.S. and NATO would have to patrol the skies above Ukraine with thousands of flights and shoot down any Russian planes that violated the banned airspace. Given that Putin has already ignored America’s warnings not to invade Ukraine and not to target Ukrainian civilians, it’s exceptionally unlikely that he would suddenly heed threats to stop sending planes into Ukraine. And destroying Russian aircraft would trigger all-out war between Russia and the West.

    Plus, a no-fly zone could end up provoking a war even before American planes entered Ukrainian airspace. According to the Atlantic Council’s Damir Marusic, America would most likely build up to a no-fly zone by destroying the Russian military’s substantial anti-aircraft batteries in Belarus and Russia so that American pilots could fly without the constant threat of being shot down. Violating Russia’s sovereignty and bombing Russian military bases outside of Ukraine would also result in direct conflict.

    To boil it down, implementing a no-fly zone would amount to a declaration of war with Russia. There’s virtually no other way to slice it.

    Of course, this simple fact won’t preclude Republican wreckers from trying to shove President Biden into a shooting war to make him look weak in an election year, just as hundreds of thousands of deaths did not preclude them from deranging COVID policy to score points with their benighted base.

    One might ask, what’s the big deal? Much media coverage has depicted Russia’s vaunted military might as turning out to be a lot of shadows and noise. Russian forces are bogging down all over Ukraine, losing vital supply lines, and its troops — a great many of whom are young conscripts — are beginning to cotton to the notion that something is out of joint. In short, this mighty power is looking awfully shaky out where the metal meets the meat. Let’s go kick Putin’s ass, right? ‘MURICA-STYLE BABY!

    Reality, as ever, intrudes. Most of the damage being done by Russia to Ukraine’s civilian population has come by way of artillery barrages fired from within Russian and Belarusian territory. To be “successful,” U.S. warplanes would not only have to attack two sovereign countries within their borders in order to disable the batteries, but would also have to take out any and all surface-to-air missile defense emplacements in order to keep the skies safe for their jets. There is nothing “limited” about any aspect of this scenario.

    …and the problem with no limits is where you might find yourself without them. I give you, for your edification, Anthony Faiola of The Washington Post and the most terrifying paragraph I have read in years:

    The advent of tactical nuclear weapons — a term generally applied to lower-yield devices designed for battlefield use, which can have a fraction of the strength of the Hiroshima bomb — reduced their lethality, limiting the extent of absolute destruction and deadly radiation fields. That’s also made their use less unthinkable, raising the specter that the Russians could opt to use a smaller device without leveling an entire city. Detonate a one kiloton weapon on one side of Kyiv’s Zhuliany airport, for instance, and Russian President Vladimir Putin sends a next-level message with a fireball, shock waves and deadly radiation. But the blast radius wouldn’t reach the end of the runway.

    Leaving aside the potential doomsday scenario emerging from a U.S./Russia shooting war, there is the fact that a no-fly zone or other aggressive NATO action would play directly into Putin’s hands. He knows his war is not going as planned. This propaganda coup would help him consolidate support back home as he intensifies his misleading cries of victimhood.

    Of course, watching Putin’s monstrous attacks on civilians makes most folks want to do something, by God, and soon. However, responding with support for escalating military action would pivot this conflict into a cascading confrontation between nuclear powers that could easily spin out of control. Responding, instead, with support for the courageous antiwar activists who are organizing against Russia’s invasion from within Russia, Ukraine and across the globe, is a far better course of action.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Women Are Leading Russia’s Antiwar Protests — and They’re in Putin’s Crosshairs

    Participants of a rally in the center of St. Petersburg, Russia, protest against military actions on the territory of Ukraine on February 27, 2022.

    As thousands of antiwar Russians flee their country or remain trapped there due to devastating economic sanctions, President Vladimir Putin made a chilling video address to the Russian people on Thursday in an attempt to justify his disastrous war in Ukraine. He urged a “self-cleansing of society” to rid it of unpatriotic “scum and traitors.”

    Putin is directing nationalist vitriol against an antiwar movement that has bravely defied state censorship and a violent police crackdown to protest the war in Ukraine. The autocrat appeared to conflate antiwar resistance with support for Russia’s perceived enemies in the West as he seeks to paint the conflict as a clash of civilizations that threatens Russia’s very existence.

    Antiwar Russians come from all walks of life, but activists say many organizers and protesters are women, and now thousands of antiwar feminists, mothers, sisters, grandmothers and queer people across Russia are standing in the crosshairs of pro-Putin vigilantes and the Russian police state.

    “They say antiwar protests, they have a woman’s face in Russia,” said Asya Maruket, a Russian antiwar and women’s rights activist during a Zoom call with fellow activists across central and Eastern Europe this week. In 2014, when war between Russia, Ukraine and Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas regions first broke out, antiwar protests in Russia were also led by women, Maruket said.

    Maruket, who, like many others, has fled Russia to speak freely about the war, presented a recent picture of a young woman holding a protest sign and being led away by police. The sign reads “peace to the world” in Russian.

    “This woman was arrested for the words, ‘peace to the world,’” Maruket said.

    Putin’s government has effectively criminalized antiwar activism with a law that punishes Russians for statements that challenge the Russian military and the Kremlin’s narratives about the war, which it still calls a “special military operation” despite the escalating bloodshed and attacks on civilians. Activists who violate the law can face up to 15 years in prison for treason.

    “The voices of antiwar activists are not heard, we cannot even say it is a war, because according to the new law, we can only name it as a ‘special operation,’” Maruket said.

    Still, Maruket said millions of Russians do not support the so-called “special operation” in Ukraine, and activists are getting “creative” to avoid punishment under the harsh dissent law.

    Women have been leading silent pickets to avoid arrest and holding signs calling for peace instead of an end to “war.” Activists offer emotional, psychological and legal support to those who are detained by police, and organize “peace-building” actions for women in Ukraine by sharing contacts and linking activists and refugees from both countries.

    The distribution of leaflets, antiwar publications and reliable independent media challenge the Kremlin’s propaganda.

    Maruket is a member of the Russian Feminist Antiwar Resistance, which she said has 20,000 participants and has organized initiatives and actions in 190 cities across the world.

    Maruket, who is a psychologist, stressed that the antiwar movement must be international, and all wars waged across the world — not just the war in Ukraine — are reason for global solidarity.

    “Any war affects all of us and our psychological conditions, and threatens the health of our planet,” Maruket said.

    Russian activists, intellectuals and members of civil society are also helping each other evacuate the country to avoid repression and arrest, which Maruket said has become increasingly difficult due to crushing economic sanctions placed on Russia by the United States and its allies. The value of the ruble has tumbled, and people cannot easily access the money needed to flee. In Ukraine, more than 3.1 million people have fled the violence to neighboring countries, according to the United Nations.

    “All these people said that they are refugees from their country too, because it’s not safe for them to stay in Russia,” Maruket said.

    Internationally, the most famous challenge to the war and the anti-dissent law has come from Marina Ovsyannikova, a journalist who interrupted a news broadcast on a leading state-run television network this week with an antiwar sign warning Russians that they are being lied to about the conflict.

    “Come out and protest. Don’t be afraid. They can’t jail us all,” Ovsyannikova said in a video statement recorded before her protest. Ovsyannikova was quickly arrested and interrogated for 14 hours before being fined $280 for inciting people to protest. However, Ovsyannikova continues to speak out, including to Western media outlets, putting her at risk of further prosecution.

    As of Thursday, nearly 15,000 Russians had been detained or arrested for protesting the war, including lawyers, children and journalists, according to the Russian human rights watchdog OVD-Info. Many of those who’ve been arrested are women, including two women who recently leaked recordings of violent interrogations by police in Moscow to independent media outlets. OVD-Info reports that various criminal trials for antiwar activists continued this week, and several activists were fined, arrested or sentenced to compulsory labor.

    Iva, a resident of Nizhny Novgorod, the sixth-largest city in Russia, told OVD-Info that a group of people arrested during an antiwar action on March 6 were jailed in a “special detention center” and “were forced to squat naked and were not allowed to sleep.” The group included eight women, Iva said. The next day the activists were taken to court and released from there.

    “We were cold and sleepy. They started and one by one, forced us to strip naked and squat,” Iva said in a translated statement, adding “what else can be expected from Russia?”

    The Russian government has responded to antiwar protests and efforts to raise money for Ukrainians suffering under Putin’s invasion with “new repressions” and “tightening censorship,” according to OVD-Info. People who signed petitions against the war “faced dismissals or expulsions from universities, threats and other types of persecution for expressing their antiwar position.”

    Most independent news outlets in Russia have stopped covering the war due to the anti-dissent law, activists say, and social media is censored, leaving millions of Russia reliant on state-run media.

    Markut and other activists emphasize that the Russian people are not the Russian government, and anti-Russian sentiment, or Russophobia, in the United States and across Europe — exacerbated by the war — is also a problem for antiwar movements. Russian expats and refugees face judgement in other countries, and when people abroad assume that all Russians support Putin’s aggression, “it’s additional pain for us,” Maruket said.

    “Millions of people who are not seen and not heard want to stop this war,” Maruket said.

    Maruket said severing connections between Russians and the rest of the world is not a solution to the war. In fact, antiwar organizers from countries across the world are trying to do the opposite, creating new political formations to support antiwar protests in Russia as well as the people of Ukraine while demanding that all parties of the war — including Ukraine’s allies in the U.S., which is supplying the country with weapons — deescalate the conflict, end international sanctions and negotiate an immediate ceasefire.

    “We need to build new ways of connection and build something beautiful and strong and healing,” Maruket said. “We need to build something new.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • It’s Not Okay For Grown Adults To Think This Way About Ukraine

    Listen to a reading of this article:

    ❖

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and believe the US is pouring weapons into a foreign nation to defend freedom and democracy.

    ❖

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and believe serious military conflicts consist of Good Guys fighting Bad Guys like a children’s cartoon show.

    ❖

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and believe a war is being fought between an evil monster who is the same as Hitler and a virtuous sexy comedian of surpassing bravery and wisdom.

    ❖

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and believe the same western media institutions who’ve lied about every war are now telling the truth about this one.

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and believe we’re seeing an unprecedented wave of censorship because the European Union, Silicon Valley megacorporations, and TV service providers want to protect everyone from “disinformation”.

    ❖

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and believe a government the US doesn’t like is behaving aggressively for no other reason than because its leader is evil and hates freedom.

    ❖

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and believe Ukraine is just a scrappy little underdog acting completely independently of the dictates of the largest power structure on this planet.

    ❖

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and believe the globe-spanning power structure centralized around the United States is merely a passive witness to this war and not a key player in creating its emergence.

    ❖

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and believe the US empire is ever the innocent little flower it pretends to be.

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and believe that governments who’d have every incentive to lie to the public about what’s happening on the ground in Ukraine are simply choosing not to do so.

    ❖

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and believe the politicians who’ve demonstrated ice cold indifference to their own citizens dying of poverty and disease care passionately about the plight of the Ukrainian people.

    ❖

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and believe the most powerful and murderous government in the world is orchestrating the economic collapse of a nation it has long targeted for destruction in order to defend Ukrainians.

    ❖

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and believe the “anti-war” position is to support pouring weapons into a foreign country and cold war brinkmanship that could lead to World War 3 while shouting down anyone who advocates de-escalation, diplomacy and detente.

    ❖

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and believe anything which doesn’t align with what the TV tells you about this war is “Russian propaganda”.

    ❖

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and believe anyone who disputes the TV narrative about this war is defending Putin or thinks he is awesome.

    ❖

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and accuse people who disagree with you of working for a foreign government.

    ❖

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and find it strange and outlandish when someone criticizes the most powerful empire that has ever existed for its role in starting a war.

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and not understand that starvation sanctions are acts of war deliberately designed to hurt civilians.

    ❖

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and be fine with only knowing one side of the story.

    ❖

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and still not know that extremely powerful people have a vested interest in manipulating your understanding of what’s going on in the world and are doing so constantly with varying degrees of success.

    ❖

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and view a narrative being pushed in perfect unison by all the most powerful government and media institutions in the western world with anything other than white hot skepticism.

    ❖

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 and still believe your government is on the side of truth, justice and righteousness.

    ❖

    It’s not okay to be a grown adult in 2022 without reflecting on the possibility that things are not as they seem.

    _______________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. 

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • The Awesome Power Of US Propaganda: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

    Listen to a reading of this article:

    ❖

    Sometimes I can only stop and stare in awe at the power of the US propaganda machine. Almost the entire global north has been paced into perfect alignment with cold war agendas geared toward securing US unipolar dominance by an unprecedented propaganda and censorship campaign.

    There’s nothing intrinsic in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine which says the nation must be strangled to death by unheard-of levels of economic warfare from Washington-loyal governments. A huge international consensus needed to be manufactured for that specific response, and the public needed to go along with it. Just absolutely incredible.

    By securing control of global narratives via Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and plutocratic “news” outlets, the US empire has effectively supplanted the UN and international law in its ability to get whole groups of nations moving in a certain way with the consent of the governed. The human species is being led around like a dog on a leash by a collective mind control system of unparalleled and unprecedented sophistication that hardly anyone even notices. Imperial propaganda is the single most overlooked and underappreciated aspect of our society.

    ❖

    What is the functional difference between state media broadcasters uncritically reporting what the government tells them to report and western news media outlets which always uncritically report “scoops” that are fed to them by government officials?

    ❖

    ❖

    The fawning hero worship of Zelensky is the most embarrassing and self-debasing thing liberals have done since those pink pussy hats.

    ❖

    War is without exception the very worst thing in the world. The most insane, the most traumatizing, the most self-destructive, the least sustainable. All of the parties involved in this war should have done everything possible to avoid it, and any who claim they did so are lying.

    ❖

    The hawks from the first cold war claimed the collapse of the Soviet Union vindicated their brinkmanship, which meant all those nuclear close calls we had during that period were worth it, but it turns out all that happened was a short break before resuming the insane nuclear brinkmanship.

    We see now that this is set up to go on for a very, very long time. This completely invalidates the belief that these “great power competition” games of nuclear chicken are sane and worthwhile, because if you keep rolling the dice on nuclear war day after day and year after year, eventually they’re going to come up snake eyes. The only sane choice on the table is therefore to move into a cooperative, friendly relationship with these powers, because facts in evidence show very clearly that trying to dominate and subvert each other will keep going and going until it eventually results in a nuclear conflict.

    We came close to wiping ourselves out many times during the last cold war; very close in some cases (look up Vasili Arkhipov). And now we’re back at the most dangerous levels of nuclear brinkmanship since the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is unsustainable.

    ❖

    ❖

    It says so much about the madness of our species that half the controversies surrounding this war exist because we made up a rule that killing people with chemical and biological weapons is illegal but killing them with bullets and military explosives is perfectly fine.

    ❖

    If you have a problem with someone highlighting the culpability of the most powerful government on earth in giving rise to this war, it’s because imperial propaganda has turned you into a power-worshipping bootlicker.

    ❖

    “Aha I see you’ve been speaking critically of the most powerful government on earth. That looks very strange and suspicious to me. Perhaps you are a secret agent working for a foreign government. I am very intelligent.”

    ❖

    Empire loyalists hold that the US empire may stage coups and threaten foreign nations in ways it would never allow itself to be threatened, and that if those nations retaliate against those actions the empire bears no responsibility whatsoever.

    ❖

    There’s a common unexamined assumption that the US can’t possibly have a villainous role in every major world conflict, that sometimes it’s just other governments being evil and that’s it. But there really is one uniquely evil asshole on the world stage who fucks with everything.

    Few people have trouble believing there’s a uniquely evil tyrant in the world. They just have a hard time accepting that it’s their own government.

    __________________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. 

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • We Are in a Period of Great Tectonic Shifts

    Chiharu Shiota (Japan), Navigating the Unknown, 2020.

    Chiharu Shiota (Japan), Navigating the Unknown, 2020.

    The war in Ukraine has focused attention on the shifts taking place in the world order. Russia’s military intervention has been met with sanctions from the West as well as with the transport of arms and mercenaries to Ukraine. These sanctions will have a major impact on the Russian economy as well as the Central Asian states, but they will also negatively impact the European population who will see energy and food prices rise further. Until now, the West has decided not to intervene with direct military force or to try and establish a ‘no-fly zone’. It is recognised, sanely, that such an intervention could escalate into a full-scale war between the United States and Russia, the consequences of which are unthinkable given the nuclear weapons capacities of both countries. Short of any other kind of response, the West – as with the Russian intervention in Syria in 2015 – has had to accept Moscow’s actions.

    To understand the current global situation, here are six theses about the establishment of the US-shaped world order from 1990 to the current fragility of that order in the face of growing Russian and Chinese power. These theses are drawn from our analysis in dossier no. 36 (January 2021), Twilight: The Erosion of US Control and the Multipolar Future; they are intended for discussion and so feedback on them is very welcome.

    Lawrence Paul Yuxweluptun (Canada), The One Percent, 2015.

    Lawrence Paul Yuxweluptun (Canada), The One Percent, 2015.

    Thesis One: Unipolarity. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, between 1990 and 2013–15, the United States developed a world system that benefitted multinational corporations based in the United States and in the other G7 countries (Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Canada). The events that defined overwhelming US power were the invasions of Iraq (1991) and Yugoslavia (1999) as well as the creation of the World Trade Organisation (1994). Russia, weakened by the collapse of the USSR, sought entry into this system by joining the G7 and collaborating with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) as a ‘Partner for Peace’. Meanwhile, China, under presidents Jiang Zemin (1993–2003) and Hu Jintao (2003–2013), played a careful game by inserting its labour into the US-dominated global system and not challenging the US in its operations.

    Thesis Two: Signal Crisis. The US overreached its power through two dynamics: first, by overleveraging its own domestic economy (overleveraged banks, higher non-productive assets than productive assets); and second, by trying to fight several wars at the same time (Afghanistan, Iraq, Sahel) during the first two decades of the 21st century. The signal crises for the weakness of US power were illustrated by the invasion of Iraq (2003) and the debacle of that war for US power projection, and the credit crisis (2007–08). Internal political polarisation in the US and a crisis of legitimacy in Europe followed these developments.

    Olga Bulgakova (Russia), Blind Men, 1992.

    Thesis Three: Sino-Russian Emergence. By the second decade of the 2000s, for different reasons, both China and Russia emerged from their relative dormancy.

    China’s emergence has two legs:

    1. China’s domestic economy. China built up massive trade surpluses and, alongside these, it built up scientific and technological knowledge through its trade agreements and its investment in higher education. Chinese firms in robotics, high-tech, high-speed rail, and green energy leapfrogged over Western firms.
    2. China’s external relations. In 2013, China announced the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which proposed an alternative to the US-driven International Monetary Fund’s development and trade agenda. The BRI extended out of Asia into Europe as well as into Africa and Latin America.

    Russia emerged on two legs as well:

    1. Russia’s domestic economy. President Vladimir Putin fought some sections of the large capitalists to assert state control of key commodity export sectors and used these to build up state assets (notably oil and gas). Rather than merely leech Russian assets for their overseas bank accounts, these Russian capitalists agreed to subordinate part of their ambitions to rebuilding the power and influence of the Russian state.
    2. Russia’s external relations. Since 2007, Russia began to edge away from the Western global agenda and drive its own project, first through the BRICS (Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa) agenda and then later through increasingly close relations with China. Russia leveraged its export of energy to assert control of its borders, which it had not done when NATO expanded in 2004 to absorb seven countries that are near its western boundary. Russian intervention into Crimea (2014) and Syria (2015) used its military force to create a shield around its warm water ports in Sebastopol (Crimea) and Tartus (Syria). This was the first military challenge to the US since 1990.

    In this period, China and Russia deepened their cooperation in all fields.

    Ibrahim el-Salahi (Sudan), Reborn Sounds of Childhood Dreams I, (1961-65).

    Ibrahim el-Salahi (Sudan), Reborn Sounds of Childhood Dreams I, (1961-65).

    Thesis Four: Global Monroe Doctrine. The United States took its 1823 Monroe Doctrine (that asserted its control over the Americas) global and proposed in this post-Soviet era that the entire world was its dominion. It began to push back against the assertion of China (Obama’s Pivot to Asia) and Russia (Russiagate and Ukraine). This New Cold War driven by the US, which includes hybrid warfare through sanctions against thirty countries such as Iran and Venezuela, has destabilised the world.

    Thesis Five: Confrontations. The confrontations hastened by the New Cold War have inflamed the situation in Asia – where the Taiwan Strait remains a hot zone – and in Latin America – where the United States attempted to create a hot war in Venezuela (and attempted but failed to project its power in places such as Bolivia). The current conflict in Ukraine – which has its origins in many factors, including the demise of the Ukrainian pluri-national compact – is also over the question of European independence. The US has used ‘Global NATO’ as a Trojan horse to exercise its power over Europe and keep it subordinated to US interests even if it harms Europeans as they lose energy supply and natural gas for the food economy. Russia violated the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine, but NATO created some of the conditions which accelerated this confrontation – not for Ukraine but for its project in Europe.

    Olga Blinder (Paraguay), A mi maestra (‘To My Teacher’), 1970.

    Olga Blinder (Paraguay), A mi maestra (‘To My Teacher’), 1970.

    Thesis Six: Terminal Crisis. Fragility is the key to understanding US power today. It has not declined dramatically, nor does it remain unscathed. There are three sources of US power that are relatively untouched:

    (1) Overwhelming Military Power. The United States remains the only country in the world that is able to bomb any of the other UN member states into the stone age.
    (2) The Dollar-Wall Street-IMF regime. Due to the global reliance on the dollar and to the dollar-denominated global financial system, the US can wield its sanctions as a weapon of war to weaken countries at its whim.
    (3) Informational Power. No country has as decisive control over the internet, both its physical infrastructure and its near monopoly companies (such as Facebook and YouTube, which remove any content and any provider at will); no country has as much control over the shaping of world news due to the power of its wire services (Reuters and the Associated Press) as well as the major news networks (such as CNN).

    There are other sources of US power that are deeply weakened, such as its political landscape, which is deeply polarised, and its inability to marshal its resources to send China and Russia back inside their borders.

    People’s movements need to grow our own power, by organising the people into powerful organisations and around a programme that has the capacity to both answer the immediate problems of our time and the long-term question of how to transition to a system that can transcend the apartheids of our time: food apartheid, medical apartheid, education apartheid, and money apartheid. To transcend these apartheids leads us out of this capitalist system to socialism.

    In the past week, we have lost many comrades, old and young. Amongst them, our Senior Fellow Aijaz Ahmad (1941–2022), one of the great Marxists of our time, left us at the age of 81. When Marxism was under attack after the fall of the USSR, Aijaz held the line, teaching generations of us about the necessity of Marxist theory; that theory remains necessary because it continues to be the most powerful critique of capitalism and, as long as capitalism continues to structure our lives, that critique remains boundless. For us at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, Aijaz’s mentorship was invaluable. In fact, the dossier Twilight, which helped us orient ourselves in the current conjuncture, was written after substantial discussion with Aijaz.

    We also lost Ayanda Ngila (1992–2022), who was the deputy chairperson of eKhenana land occupation, part of South Africa’s militant shack dwellers movement, Abahlali baseMjondolo (AbM). Ayanda was a courageous leader of AbM who had recently been released from a second spell of being held in prison on trumped up charges. He was a kind comrade to his peers and a student and teacher at the Frantz Fanon School. When he was gunned down by his adversaries in the African National Congress, Ayanda was wearing a t-shirt with a quote from Steve Biko: ‘It’s better to die for an idea that is going to live than to live for an idea that is going to die’. On the walls of the Frantz Fanon School, the comrades at AbM painted their ideals clearly: Land, Decent Housing, Dignity, Freedom, and Socialism.

    We concur. So would Aijaz.

    The post We Are in a Period of Great Tectonic Shifts first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Russia-Ukraine Talks Continue Amid Contradictory Signals From Volodymyr Zelensky

    Zelensky continues to demand more sanctions on Russia and a no-fly zone over Ukraine to be implemented by NATO, while also expressing that his country will not be a member of the grouping.

    The post Russia-Ukraine Talks Continue Amid Contradictory Signals From Volodymyr Zelensky appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • How Neo-Nazis Are Pushing To “Ukrainize” Brazil

    A Small Group Of Brazilian Bolsonaristas Have Become Social Media Celebrities As They Crossed The Border Into Ukraine To Fight Against Russia, But As Brian Meir Reports, Ukrainian Neo-Nazi Groups Have Had Influence In Brazil For Years.

    The post How Neo-Nazis Are Pushing To “Ukrainize” Brazil appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Neo-Nazis In Ukraine Fake Incidents To Gain More ‘Western’ Support

    “Striking satellite imagery taken on Monday of the Mariupol Drama Theatre—hit by an air strike today. 1,200 civilians were sheltering in it. The image shows that the word “children” is written in Russian in large white letters in front of & behind the theatre.” The Ukraine claims that such an attack took place. Russia says that the Azov battalion blew up the building.

    The post Neo-Nazis In Ukraine Fake Incidents To Gain More ‘Western’ Support appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • US Peace Activists Must Keep Pressure on Biden to Prevent No-Fly Zone in Ukraine

    President Biden announced $800 million in new military aid for Ukraine on Wednesday, just days after Congress cleared a $1.5 trillion spending bill that included nearly $14 billion for Ukrainian humanitarian aid and security assistance. Experts warn that sending more lethal weapons could escalate war and result in more losses for Ukraine. “The cost on civilian lives is horrific,” says Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, who says increasing military aid in Ukraine could thwart peace talks between Russia and Ukraine — which appeared to be making progress in the past few days. Her latest piece is headlined “The Best Way to Help Ukraine Is Diplomacy, Not War.”

    TRANSCRIPT

    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

    AMY GOODMAN: As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine enters its fourth week, President Biden has announced $800 million in new military aid for Ukraine. According to the White House, the package will include over 20 million rounds of ammunition, 100 unmanned drones, 2,000 Javelin anti-armor missiles and 800 Stinger anti-aircraft systems. Biden spoke at the White House Wednesday.

    PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Our new assistance package also includes 9,000 anti-armor systems. These are portable, high — high accurately — high-accuracy shoulder-mounted missiles that the Ukrainian forces have been using with great effect to destroy invading tanks and armored vehicles. It’ll include 7,000 small arms — machine guns, shotguns, grenade launchers — to equip the Ukrainians, including the brave women and men who are defending their cities as civilians, and they’re on the countryside, as well. And as well as the ammunition, artillery and mortar rounds to go with small arms, 20 million rounds in total. Twenty million rounds. And this will include drones, which — which demonstrates our commitment to sending our most cutting-edge systems to Ukraine for its defense.

    AMY GOODMAN: Biden’s remarks came hours after the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, gave a virtual address to Congress. While repeating his call for a NATO no-fly zone, Zelensky invoked the attacks on 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. While most of Zelensky’s speech was in Ukrainian, he delivered part in English directly to President Biden.

    PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY: As the leader of my nation, I am addressing the President Biden. You are the leader of the nation, of your great nation. I wish you to be the leader of the world. Being the leader of the world means to be the leader of peace.

    AMY GOODMAN: While the Biden administration has so far rejected calls for a no-fly zone, more details are emerging of how the U.S. has covertly aided Ukraine. Yahoo News is reporting a small group of veteran CIA paramilitaries helped train Ukrainian special forces prepare for fighting against Russian forces.

    As the United States is pouring arms into Ukraine, there are signs that progress is being made on the diplomatic front to end the war. The Financial Times is reporting that Ukrainian and Russian delegates have discussed a 15-point deal under which Russia would withdraw troops in exchange for Ukraine renouncing its ambitions to join NATO and agreeing not to host foreign military bases or weapons — to remain neutral.

    To talk more about these latest developments, we’re joined by Phyllis Bennis, author and fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, her recent piece headlined “The Best Way to Help Ukraine Is Diplomacy, Not War.”

    So, Phyllis, thanks so much for rejoining Democracy Now! to talk about this issue now. Can you respond to what’s happening on the ground in Ukraine and what President Biden announced yesterday, the massive infusion of weapons to Ukraine?

    PHYLLIS BENNIS: Well, you know, Amy — and good morning to you both — the $800 million that was just announced in new weapons comes on top of an almost $15 billion aid package that has — much of which will go to Ukraine for a combination of humanitarian and military support. So this is something that’s been going on for several months now, the massive arming of Ukraine in this war.

    And I think that what we’re seeing in terms of the diplomatic possibilities is very much a way to see what — the term they like to use is an “off-ramp,” an off-ramp for Russia, but also an off-ramp for the Ukrainian authorities to get out from under this constant escalation that we’re seeing, that the cost on civilian lives is horrific. And although we don’t have good numbers, it does seem clear that the numbers of Russian troops that are being killed is also rising at a very, very fast rate. And both of these leaders are going to have a hard time continuing that level of casualties. So the question of whether this will be the beginning of an actual diplomatic solution becomes very, very important.

    The new weapons obviously could shift somewhat the conditions on the ground. As we’ve all seen, the Russian military assault has not played out the way Biden — sorry, the way Putin presumably intended it to. The Russian troops have been bogged down, partly physically bogged down in a number of parts of the convoys trying to get to take over Kyiv. But, on the other hand, the attacks, the continuing bombings, missile attacks, has created enormous civilian casualties, and the ability of the Ukrainian forces, both the military and the volunteer forces, to protect civilians is somewhat limited in that context. So the deal becomes very, very important.

    What we’re hearing about this deal is not different than what has been anticipated in recent days, that a deal would have to include a Russian withdrawal and, of course, a ceasefire, that Ukraine would have to give up its claim to be intending to join NATO. The language that we’re hearing now may be included is some definition of a separate protection, a Ukrainian protection alliance, which would essentially allow an official legal treaty to be signed between Ukraine and a number of other countries, probably including the U.S., the U.K., Turkey, maybe a couple of other European countries, who would agree that if Ukraine were to be invaded or threatened again, they would come directly to the aid of Ukraine. So it would almost be like a sort of NATO countries lite, without the official political consequences of being an official member of NATO. And the theory is — and this may well work — that for the political goals that Putin has had, he would be able to say, “I won. I got what I wanted. I got what I wanted when I sent in the troops. This is what they were sent in for, to be sure that Ukraine does not join NATO and that it emerges as a neutral country.”

    So, the question of Ukraine being neutral is apparently on the agenda. It’s not one of the items that at least the initial reporting is saying Ukraine has already agreed to, but it’s a likely possibility. There are different versions of neutrality. There’s the existing European versions in Finland, Switzerland, Norway, and they all differ somewhat in what kind of militaries they can have, what kind of relationships they can have with other military forces. The Ukrainian authorities who have been involved in the diplomacy have said that the issue of maintaining a separate, independent military is not up for grabs, that that’s a definite commitment that they will have, that they will have a Ukrainian military, and that the question of not allowing any foreign bases or foreign troops to be stationed in the country is not an issue because those are already prohibited under the Ukrainian Constitution. So, what’s changed is not so much the terms of a possible agreement, but the fact that both sides — and most notably Russia, which has been much more resistant to a diplomatic solution — appears to be moving closer to that possibility.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Phyllis, could you respond specifically — to go back to the question of the U.S. sending arms to Ukraine — the provision, in particular, of these 100 so-called killer drones, Switchblade drones? This is the first time since the Russian invasion that the U.S. will be providing drones, though Ukraine has been using, apparently to great effect, Turkish — armed drones provided by Turkey. Could you speak specifically about these drones that the U.S. is going to supply?

    PHYLLIS BENNIS: Yeah, this is a serious escalation of what the U.S. is sending. As you say, Nermeen, the Turkish drones have been in use by the Ukrainians for some time now. But these drones are significantly more powerful, and the expectation is that they would be used against groupings of Russian soldiers on the ground. And they could result in the deaths of large numbers of soldiers if they were used effectively.

    The question of drone extension, where drones are being used, is a very serious global question as we look at the militarization that is increasing in the context of this war. Countries across Europe are talking about remilitarizing. Germany, in particular, is saying they are going to spend a lot more money on their military, that they’re going to start spending 2% of their GDP on military forces, something that has been a goal of NATO, that has so far has only been reached by about 10 European countries, not including Germany, which is of course the wealthiest country in Europe. So, this is a very serious level of escalation. Whether it will have a qualitative shift in the battlefield situation in terms of the balance of forces, I don’t think we know yet, but it does represent a serious U.S. commitment.

    It’s important, I think, to keep it in the context of what we’re so far seeing as a continued commitment by the Biden administration to say no to the continued call for a no-fly zone. And this is important, because after President Zelensky’s speech yesterday at the joint session of Congress — that was a major focus of his demand, although his language, I think, indicated some recognition that he’s really not likely to get that. But it is something that he has called for continuously, and I think he, presumably, felt that he had to continue to call for this kind of support, for a no-fly zone, because it’s such a popular demand inside Ukraine. And that’s absolutely understandable. People in Ukraine are desperate with these attacks from the air. Most of the attacks so far have not come from Russian planes. Some have. And a no-fly zone, in theory, would be able to stop some of that. But most of the air attacks are coming from missiles and rockets that are coming from other ground-launched and other Russian military forces.

    The other thing that we have to keep in mind here is what the cost would be of a no-fly zone. This is something that I think sounds so intriguing. It sounds like such a great idea. It sounds like something out of Star Wars, that it’s sort of a magical shield that will protect people on the ground. And it leaves out the reality of: How does a no-fly zone start? We can remember back a decade ago in the Libya crisis when U.S. diplomats — it was centered in the State Department. There was a call for a no-fly zone. The opposition came from the secretary of defense, came from the Pentagon, ironically enough, saying — and this was Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who said, “We should be clear that a no-fly zone in Libya starts with attacking Libya.” It starts with, you have to take out the anti-aircraft forces on the ground; you have to take out the Russian, in this case, planes that are flying around, potentially dropping bombs. So it’s a major attack by the United States directly on Russia: the two most powerful nuclear-armed countries going to war with each other. That’s the beginning. That’s just the beginning of a no-fly zone.

    So, it’s very, very important that the pressure remain on the Biden administration to maintain the opposition to a no-fly zone. It’s going to be increasingly difficult, I think, because in Congress there is — there’s certainly not a majority, thankfully, but there are increasing members of Congress that are calling for a no-fly zone. Some of that is presumably political posturing. But if that rises and if there’s a public call because there’s this sense of, “Well, let’s just do that, let’s just have a no-fly zone,” as if it was this magical shield, I think that it will become increasingly difficult for the Biden administration. So that becomes increasingly important.

    It’s taking place, this debate is taking place, in the context of what I mentioned earlier, the increasing militarization that is one of the consequences of this war. We’re seeing that certainly across Europe, but we’re also seeing it in the United States — the new $800 billion [sic], parts of the $14.5 billion — sorry, the $800 million for the new package, the $14.5 billion package that has already been underway for Ukraine. The arms dealers are the ones who are thrilled with this war. They’re the ones that are making a killing. And that will continue. That will continue with a newly militarized Europe in the aftermath of this war. So the consequences are going to be very, very severe.

    And the potential, if there is anything remotely resembling a no-fly zone, not only holds the threat of escalation, up to and including a nuclear exchange — not something that I think the main forces on either side want, but is something that might be impossible to prevent if there were to be an escalation in a direct conflict between the U.S. and Russia. And in that context, again, the call may return for European countries to want U.S. nuclear arms in their countries. Right now there are five NATO nations that host nuclear weapons, that are under the control of the United States. That’s in complete violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. None of the nonproliferation and abolition treaties across Europe are working right now. There needs to be new arms control treaties. And right now the trajectory is in the opposite direction.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: Phyllis, on the question of, you said, increasing pressure, that there may be increasing pressure on the U.S. to impose a no-fly zone, one question: Is it possible for the U.S. to become involved in imposing a no-fly zone without the consent of NATO countries? Because so far it’s not just the U.S., the Biden administration, that’s ruled that out, but also the EU, also NATO countries. And then, second, despite the fact that there may have been progress in these negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, there’s been a simultaneous escalation of rhetoric, with Biden calling Putin a war criminal, and Putin, in a televised speech yesterday, talking about scum and traitors in Russia, those who are pro-Western, who are not patriots, and rooting them out. Could you talk about both these issues?

    PHYLLIS BENNIS: Yeah. On your first point, Nermeen, you know, the question of “Could the U.S. do something that the other NATO members don’t like?” the answer is, of course, they could. They are by far the most powerful part of NATO, and the notion that NATO members are somehow equal within NATO is almost as absurd as the notion that members of the U.N. Security Council are somehow all equal, or members of the General Assembly are all equal. The realities of world politics, that includes military strength, economic clout, all of those things, obviously play a role here.

    Now, the question of “Would the U.S. engage in creation of a no-fly zone with the significant opposition of their allies?” I think is unlikely, but I think it’s unlikely the U.S. wants to do it anyway. I think that people in Washington, particularly in the Pentagon, recognize what the dangers might be of this. But it’s also — it’s certainly possible that the U.S. could move unilaterally to engage in Ukraine. Ironically, it would presumably have the permission, or even a request, as it’s already had, from the government of Ukraine. So, the governments of surrounding countries would not be in that position, unless they were prepared to say that they were going to deny their airspace to the United States, which is simply not a reasonable thing to anticipate. So I don’t think that NATO opposition in the face of a U.S. determination is likely to work. But again, I don’t think that the U.S., at this stage at least, is intending to move towards a no-fly zone.

    I’m sorry, and I’m forgetting what the second question was.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: [inaudible] negotiations to succeed, given the escalating rhetoric.

    PHYLLIS BENNIS: Yeah. On the one hand, you know, this would not be the first time that escalations, both, unfortunately, on the ground, as we’re seeing in this horrific attack on the theater in Ukraine — escalation in force before negotiations succeed is a common reality. Escalation in rhetoric before negotiations succeed is even more common. So, on a certain perverse level, this might actually be a good sign.

    One of the challenges that we’re facing here is that these negotiations that are underway are direct bilateral talks between the two major parties, Russia and Ukraine. The U.S. has not engaged yet and said explicitly what would they be willing to accept in a deal, what would they be willing to give up. The U.S. has said, in the past, that it wants Ukraine to be a member of NATO. It has also said — government officials have also said, quietly, privately, that they have no intention of allowing Ukraine to become a member of NATO, because they know what a provocation that would be on Russia. But they have not said explicitly, “We are taking that off the table.” Are they prepared to do that? Are they prepared to back a Ukrainian concession on that issue? That would be very important for the Biden administration to make clear, what the U.S. is prepared to give up in its own positioning and, crucially, what it’s prepared to accept from Ukraine. Is it prepared to accept all concessions that are made by Ukraine, whether it involves Ukraine as a neutral country, Ukraine permanently staying out of NATO?

    The possibility — the two tricky issues, I would say, that are not yet — there’s not even a report that they might be resolved — they might be put off — is the recognition of Crimea as belonging to Russia, something that Russia says it’s insisting on — in the past, the Ukrainian government has said that’s not acceptable — and also the question of the status, whether independence, autonomy or something else, of the eastern provinces in Donbas. Both of those seem to be unresolved, but there is an indication that they might agree to put those off and not resolve those in the midst of a broader — this 15-point agreement that we’re hearing about being underway, that would, crucially, begin with a ceasefire and the withdrawal of Russian forces. So those remain uncertain, but they may not ultimately prevent some kind of an agreement from being reached, hopefully soon.

    AMY GOODMAN: Phyllis Bennis, we want to thank you for being with us, author and fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. We’ll link to your piece, “The Best Way to Help Ukraine Is Diplomacy, Not War.”

    Coming up, we talk to a Syrian filmmaker about how many of Russia’s military tactics in Ukraine resemble what she witnessed in her home city of Aleppo. Stay with us.

    [break]

    AMY GOODMAN: John Lennon’s “Imagine,” performed in Russian by Nailskey. Interestingly, Russia’s prima ballerina Olga Smirnova has quit Moscow’s world-renowned Bolshoi Ballet after denouncing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Oil, tanks, and a 2am tweet: what the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe affair tells us

    Six years after it started, the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe affair has come to a close. Sort of. Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a dual-citizen of Iran and Britain, was first arrested in April 2016. Since then she has spent periods both in jail and under house arrest accused of espionage by the Iranian authorities. She denied the charges.

    Insiders have long claimed that Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s imprisonment was less about espionage and more about debt. Specifically a long-running row between the British and Iranian governments about an arms deal for British tanks dating back to the 70s.

    Richard Ratcliffe, Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s husband, fought a long public campaign for her release. On 16 March 2022 she was finally released and flown home alongside another released prisoner, Anoosheh Ashoori.

    The current foreign secretary Liz Truss was on hand for a photo opportunity. Perhaps tellingly, the image was tweeted from her account at 2.16am. Hardly ‘Prime Time’ – but then the Tories have a lot to hide when it comes to this case:

    Foreign Office

    It’s not clear if the Ratcliffe’s will meet the prime minister Boris Johnson too. Any such gathering would likely be emotionally charged. The Tories – and the Foreign Office in particular – have good reason to avoid too much scrutiny. It was, after all, during the prime minister’s stint as foreign secretary that Johnson made Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s situation much worse.

    In 2017, Johnson made comments that Zaghari-Ratcliffe had been in Tehran training journalists. A suggestion which the Iranians claimed supported their view that she was a spy.

    It was suggested, including by her husband, that Johnson’s comments directly compounded her predicament. During his hunger strike outside the Foreign Office in 2021, Richard Ratcliffe told the press that Johnson’s words were used by Iran to propagandise against his jailed wife.

    Debt

    Context matters here. The images of the Ratcliffe’s reunited are heartwarming. But there have to be questions about timing. For one thing, it appears the UK has finally paid its debt to Iran. The Guardian reports that £394m was paid on Monday

    The debt related to a £650m order for Chieftain tanks and support vehicles by the Shah of Iran ahead of the 1979 revolution. These were never delivered. According to the Commons Library the UK recognised the debt was owed:

    The UK Government accepts liability for an estimated £400 million debt owed to Iran. The debt is for undelivered armoured vehicles and tanks, originally ordered by the Shah but cancelled by the UK in response to his overthrow in the Iranian revolution of 1979.

    But, they rejected the claim that the detention of Zaghari-Ratcliffe was linked to the deal:

    However, the Government argues this is a separate issue to the detention of British-Iranian dual nationals and also rejects any link between detainees and the nuclear talks.

    Now it seems that the UK has accepted that without payment, its highest profile detainees were going nowhere.

    A danger to us all

    Richard Ratcliffe himself wrote last year that Britain’s highly unaccountable arms trade is a danger to all citizens. He told Declassified UK in May 2021 that:

    the money withheld by the British government is the reason Nazanin has been detained in Iran since her arrest in 2016 while on a family holiday with our then 22-month old daughter, Gabriella.

    He claims the Iranian authorities themselves said so:

    A few weeks after she was arrested, Nazanin was told by her interrogators from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) that while there was “nothing in her case”, she was going to be held for leverage with the UK. Gradually they revealed she was being held to recover a debt.

    That someone can be held for leverage in an arms deal that went sour decades ago should concern us all. And the UK’s arms trading is highly indiscriminate. We sell to virtually anyone: be they authoritarian allies like Saudi Arabia and notional enemies like Russia.

    Oil politics

    Yet payment of the debt is only part of the story. And a glance at the headlines will tell you why. Russian oil is going to be less accessible as sanctions pile up following the Putin regime’s invasion of Ukraine. Other sources must be found. It follows that a thaw between the West and Iran is on the cards.

    Certainly, Iranian politicians seem to think so. A statement published by Al Jazeera Wednesday, and signed by 160 parliamentarians, said due to Ukraine, Iran had the upper hand:

    Now that the Ukraine crisis has increased the West’s need for the Iranian energy sector, the US need for reduced oil prices must not be accommodated without considering Iran’s righteous demands.

    The sense seems to be that Iran is now well positioned to push for, and benefit from, refreshed nuclear talks with the US and others.

    Pawns in a game

    It is heartening to see Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe back home with her family. And her story can tell us much about geopolitics today. Hers is an extreme example of how all ours fates turn on the whims of global capital – in this case, the fossil fuel and arms trades – and of a set of blundering ruling class buffoons, for whom we are all just pawns in a game.

    Featured image via screenshot/On Demand News, cropped to 770×403

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • UN Says 3.1 Million Ukrainians Have Become Refugees Since Start of War

    People cross a destroyed bridge as they evacuate the city of Irpin, northwest of Kyiv, during heavy shelling and bombing on March 5, 2022, 10 days after Russia launched a military invasion on Ukraine.

    As of Thursday, more than 3.1 million Ukrainian refugees have left the country since the Russian invasion ordered by President Vladimir Putin began, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency.

    Most refugees have fled the country to Poland, but large numbers of Ukrainians have also sought refuge from the conflict in Romania, Moldova, Hungary and Slovakia.

    Children make up almost half of all the refugees counted, the agency overseeing the refugee crisis said. More than 1.5 million children have left Ukraine since February 24, the UN said, amounting to around 75,000 kids fleeing the country daily on average.

    “Every single minute, 55 children have fled their country. That is, a Ukrainian child has become a refugee almost every single second since the start of the war,” UNICEF spokesperson James Elder noted.

    Other UN officials recognized the large number of refugees leaving Ukraine.

    “Today we have passed another terrible milestone: three million refugees have fled from Ukraine,” Filippo Grandi, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, tweeted earlier this week. “The war has to stop. Now.”

    “The people of Ukraine desperately need peace,” UN Secretary General António Guterres said on Wednesday. “And the people around the world demand it. Russia must stop this war now.”

    In addition to the 3.1 million who have left the country, there are an estimated 2 million Ukrainians who have been internally displaced. The UN is working “to ensure safe passage from besieged areas, and to provide aid where security permits,” Guterres said in a separate statement.

    Still, as of Monday, only around 600,000 Ukrainian refugees have received some form of aid from the UN. To increase that number, Guterres announced that the UN would release $40 million from the organization’s Central Emergency Response Fund.

    The international community’s response to the refugee crisis has generally been positive, with several neighboring nations welcoming Ukrainians at their borders. In the United States, politicians from all political stripes have expressed the need to help and welcome Ukrainian refugees, leading some to point out the disparity in the treatment of refugees from Ukraine and from the Global South.

    “How the world treats Ukraine and Ukrainian refugees should be how we are treating all refugees in the United States,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) said earlier this month, “especially when you look at such stark juxtapositions where so many of the factors are in common.”

    Refugee aid workers from around the world have also noted the hypocrisy in how different peoples have been treated.

    “The situation is very different,” compared to previous years, Warsaw-based human rights lawyer Marta Górczyńska said to Al Jazeera. In 2021, for instance, while trying to help Iraqi refugees enter Poland, “you had to deal with the hostility from the authorities, harassing and intimidating you, telling you that actually, it’s not legal to help people who are crossing the border from Belarus to Poland.”

    “There was a state of emergency introduced and a ban of entry to the border area, which meant that no humanitarian organizations, human rights organizations, or even journalists were allowed to enter,” Górczyńska added. “[Now], the Polish authorities [are] welcoming refugees fleeing Ukraine with open arms and providing them with assistance.”

    The refugee crisis is also highlighting hypocrisy and racism in a different way: nonwhite refugees from Ukraine say they’re being treated much differently than their white counterparts. African students attempting to flee Ukraine noted that white residents got preferential treatment as they crossed the Ukraine border, CBS News reported.

    “Mostly they would, they would consider White people first. White people first, Indian people, Arabic people before Black people,” a student from Ghana, Ethel Ansaeh Otto, said.

    “We went to the train station and they will not let us in,” said Selma El Alaui, a student from Morocco. “And when they did let us in, they were like, ‘You have to give us money because this is, this is not for free for you because you are foreign. This is not free for you.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Syrian Activist Condemns Russia for Targeting Civilians & Hospitals from Aleppo to Mariupol

    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

  • Criticism of Russia, support for Ukraine surface on Chinese social media

    Cracks have started to appear in the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP)’s online censorship of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with social media users posting video footage showing downed Russian aircraft, Ukrainian civilians killed by Russian troops, and Russian soldiers requisitioning food from local stores to stave off hunger in recent days.

    In defiance of CCP propaganda directives banning anti-Russian content from Chinese social media platforms, the Weibo account Ukraine Super Chat on Thursday reposted a subtitled video clip of a Ukrainian man warning Russians not to come and join the war, following the death of his 23-year-old son in Kharkiv.

    “Boys, don’t come here,” the man says, facing to camera, addressing Russians. “You will die. You killed my son. I will kill your son.”

    The Weibo user who posted the video commented: “A father’s heartbreak … That’s why nobody should start a war casually; there is no way to control the monster once it is out of the box.”

    User @Xiaoqiwj commented on the repost: “Shouldn’t we be condemning the aggressors and murderers [not] the other people who are staying in their homes to protect their homes!”

    @Jun Weitonghui added: “Curse the evil spirit[s] who started and instigated this war!,” while @Yueying_R wrote: “Kill the common thief.”

    “Justice must prevail! Ukraine must win!” @Willing 07621 wrote, while @Ping_Ping_An_Jing_Jing_Huang_Huang wanted to know if Russian president Vladimir Putin would be prosecuted at the International War Crimes Tribunal, asking: “When does Putin go to The Hague?”

    Strict guidelines on coverage

    Internet censors in China ordered news outlets and social media accounts to avoid posting anything critical of Russia or favorable to NATO after Russia began moving troops across the border into Ukraine last week.

    All copy about the war is to be approved by the CCP’s propaganda department prior to posting, while social media platforms are required to delete “inappropriate” comments about the situation in Ukraine.

    A current affairs commentator surnamed Jiang said pro-CCP Little Pink commentators are still trying to “guide public opinion” on such videos.

    “A large number of people are applauding the invader Russia,” Jiang said. “They are ridiculing and even gloating over the Ukrainian people who were invaded, which made me very sad to see.”

    Some are establishment intellectuals who should know better, Jiang said, while the rest are just following the crowd.

    “There is a group who don’t know much, and just follow the guidance of the government to root for Russia,” he said.

    Biased but truthful

    Former journalist Zhao Ping said he was taught that most journalism is biased, but should still be truthful.

    “Someone once said when I was a journalism student … [that we] report the truth, but only the truth that we choose to report,” Zhao said. “This was a saying that was very popular in journalism training back then in China.”

    “But that meant that we were still reporting the truth, even though we were choosing it. Nowadays, we don’t report the truth at all,” he said. “Now, even the official media is tampering with the truth.”

    He said state media in China had cut out certain qualifiers from Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s remarks regarding NATO membership.

    “President Zelenskyy said [Ukraine] would have to face up to the fact that it can’t be a member of NATO in the near future … but [Chinese state media] cut the part about the near future out,” he said.

    “Chinese news is basically a joke.”

    At risk of greater isolation

    Wang Jiahao, a doctoral student at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, said whether or not Beijing actually provides Russia with military aid as reportedly requested, will depend on how the situation develops.

    “If Russia is successful in taking Kyiv, it would show that they are capable of completing military operations without China’s help, so the logic would be that China doesn’t need to provide assistance to Russia,” Wang said.

    “But if Russia fails to capture Kyiv, there will be a situation of relative stalemate,” he said, adding that China would then have to figure out whether its help would reverse the situation.

    Wang said China, in making its allegiance to Moscow, risks greater isolation in the international community.

    “If Sino-Russian ties continue to get closer, it will get linked with anti-Russian sentiment, and the European Union will take tougher measures against China,” he said, warning that the war could undermine CCP leader Xi Jinping’s international infrastructure and influence project.

    “This will have a huge impact on Chinese investments in Europe, including the Belt and Road initiative,” Wang said.

    “Chinese leaders at the National People’s Congress annual session [earlier this month] were very nervous about the impact of the situation in Russia and Ukraine on global economic recovery,” he added.

    Chinese journalist Lu Nan said China is unlikely to rethink its relationship with Russia, however.

    “Their position isn’t going to change, regardless of whether they support this war implicitly or explicitly,” Lu said. “The Chinese government and Russia are in this together, with this unlimited cooperation agreement, which includes military cooperation.”

    Translated and edited by Luisetta Mudie.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • U.S. Accuses Russia of Using Cluster Bombs in Ukraine as Both Refuse to Endorse International Ban


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • U.S. Accuses Russia of Using Cluster Bombs in Ukraine as Both Refuse to Endorse International Ban

    Seg3 new split

    President Biden called Russian President Vladimir Putin a war criminal for the first time Wednesday for atrocities in Ukraine, as the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing on whether Russian forces have been using cluster munitions in populated areas in Ukraine. Cluster bombs explode in midair and spew hundreds of smaller “bomblets.” The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights said the use of cluster munitions in Ukraine may amount to war crimes. We speak to Stephen Goose, director of Human Rights Watch’s Arms Division, about the use of cluster bombs in the war in Ukraine and how Russia, Ukraine and the United States are not signatories to the international treaty banning cluster bombs. “It’s willing to criticize other peoples’ use but insists on the right to use them itself,” Goose says of the U.S.

    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

  • Syrian Activist Condemns Russia for Targeting Civilians & Hospitals from Aleppo to Mariupol

    Seg2 guest split

    As the war in Ukraine enters its fourth week, Ukrainian officials say Russian forces have increasingly attacked civilian areas to pound Ukrainian cities into submission, a strategy Russia has employed to devastating effect in Syria, where the Russian Air Force has bombed many cities to rubble in an effort to support the government of Bashar al-Assad since entering the war in 2015. However, the international response to suffering in Ukraine signals a “very clear difference” than in Syria, says Waad Al-Kateab, the award-winning filmmaker whose 2019 Oscar-nominated documentary “For Sama” shows how she and her family lived through five years of fighting in Aleppo. “We really see that what’s happening today in Ukraine might and should be a whole reframing for all the world” to take a stance against Russia’s wars around the world and not just in Ukraine, says Al-Kateab. She is also the founder of the #StopBombingHospitals campaign, which led a protest outside the Russian Embassy in London.


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • War and a “Hurricane of Hunger”: Transforming Food Systems  

    On Monday, 14 March, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned of a “hurricane of hunger and a meltdown of the global food system” in the wake of the crisis in Ukraine.

    Guterres said:

    Food, fuel and fertilizer prices are skyrocketing. Supply chains are being disrupted. And the costs and delays of transportation of imported goods – when available – are at record levels.

    He added that this is hitting the poorest the hardest and planting the seeds for political instability and unrest around the globe.

    Poorer countries had already been struggling to recover from the lockdowns and the closing down of much of the global economy. There is now rising inflation and interest rates and increased debt burdens.

    Ukraine is the world’s largest exporter of sunflower oil, the fourth largest exporter of corn and the fifth largest exporter of wheat. Together, Russia and Ukraine produce more than half of the world’s supply of sunflower oil and 30% of the world’s wheat. Some 45 African and least-developed countries import at least a third of their wheat from Ukraine or Russia with 18 of them importing at least 50%.

    Prior to the current crisis, prices for fuel and fertilizer had been rising. It was clear before COVID and the war in Ukraine that long global supply chains and dependency on (imported) inputs and fossil fuels made the prevailing food system vulnerable to regional and global shocks.

    The coronavirus lockdowns disrupted transport and production activities, exposing the weaknesses of the system. Now, due to a combination of supply disruption, sanctions and Russia restricting exports of inorganic fertilisers, the global food regime is again facing potential turmoil, resulting in food price increases and possible shortages.

    Aside from it being a major producer and exporter of natural gas (required for manufacturing certain fertilizers), Russia is the world’s third-largest oil producer and the world’s largest exporter of crude.

    The fragility of an oil-dependent globalised food system is acutely apparent at this particular time, when Russian fossil-fuel energy supplies are threatened.

    Writing in 2005, Norman J Church stated:

    Vast amounts of oil and gas are used as raw materials and energy in the manufacture of fertilisers and pesticides and as cheap and readily available energy at all stages of food production: from planting, irrigation, feeding and harvesting, through to processing, distribution and packaging. In addition, fossil fuels are essential in the construction and the repair of equipment and infrastructure needed to facilitate this industry, including farm machinery, processing facilities, storage, ships, trucks and roads.

    The Russia-Ukraine conflict has also affected global fertilizer supply chains, with both countries moving to suspend their fertilizer exports. The major markets for Russian fertilizers include Brazil and the EU and US. In 2021, Russia was the largest exporter of urea, NPKs, ammonia, urea/ammonium nitrate solution and ammonium nitrate and the third-largest potash exporter. Fertilizer prices for farmers have spiked and could lead to an increase in food costs.

    It all indicates that regional and local community-owned food systems based on short(er) food supply chains that can cope with future shocks are required. How we cultivate food also needs to change.

    A recent article on the Agricultural and Rural Convention website (ACR2020) states:

    What we urgently need now to invest in is a new local and territorial infrastructure for food production and processing which transforms the agro-industrial food system into a resilient decentralized food supply system. The war in Ukraine reveals the extreme vulnerability of food supply, far from the food security of actual food sovereignty.

    The agri-food and global trade system is heavily reliant on synthetic fertilizers and fossil fuels. However, agroecological and regionally resilient approaches would result in less dependency on such commodities.

    The 2017 report Towards a Food Revolution: Food Hubs and Cooperatives in the US and Italy offers some pointers for creating sustainable support systems for small food producers and food distribution. These systems would be based on short supply chains and community-supported agriculture. This involves a policy paradigm shift that prioritises the local over the global: small farms, local markets, renewable on-farm resources, diverse agroecological cropping and food sovereignty.

    An approach based on local and regional food self-sufficiency rather than dependency on costly far away imported supplies and off-farm (proprietary) inputs.

    The 2020 paper Reshaping the European Agro-food System and Closing its Nitrogen Cycle says an organic-based, agri-food system could be implemented in Europe that would reinforce the continent’s autonomy, feed the predicted population in 2050 and allow the continent to continue to export cereals to countries which need them for human consumption.

    The question is how can this be achieved, especially when influential agribusiness and retail conglomerates regard such an approach as a threat to their business models.

    The 2021 report A Long Food Movement: Transforming Food Systems by 2045 offers useful insights. Authored by ETC Group and the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES), the document says grassroots organisations, international NGOs, farmers’ and fishers’ groups, cooperatives and unions need to collaborate more closely to transform financial flows, governance structures and food systems from the ground up.

    During times of war, sanctions or environmental disaster, systems of production and consumption often undergo radical transformation. If the past two years have told us anything, it is that transforming food systems is required now more than ever.

    Colin Todhunter’s new e-book Food, Dependency and Dispossession: Resisting the New World Order can be read for free here

    The post War and a “Hurricane of Hunger”: Transforming Food Systems   first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Weathering the Global Storm: Why Neutrality is Not an Option for Palestinians

    A new global geopolitical game is in formation, and the Middle East, as is often the case, will be directly impacted by it in terms of possible new alliances and resulting power paradigms. While it is too early to fully appreciate the impact of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war on the region, it is obvious that some countries are placed in relatively comfortable positions in terms of leveraging their strong economies, strategic location and political influence. Others, especially non-state actors, like the Palestinians, are in an unenviable position.

    Despite repeated calls on the Palestinian Authority by the US Biden Administration and some EU countries to condemn Russia following its military intervention in Ukraine on February 24, the PA has refrained from doing so. Analyst Hani al-Masri was quoted in Axios as saying that the Palestinian leadership understands that condemning Russia “means that the Palestinians would lose a major ally and supporter of their political positions.” Indeed, joining the anti-Russia western chorus would further isolate an already isolated Palestine, desperate for allies who are capable of balancing out the pro-Israel agenda at US-controlled international institutions, like the UN Security Council.

    Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dismantling of its Eastern Bloc in the late 1980s, Russia was allowed to play a role, however minor, in the US political agenda in Palestine and Israel. It participated, as a co-sponsor, in the Madrid peace talks in 1991, and in the 1993 Oslo accords. Since then a Russian representative took part in every major agreement related to the ‘peace process,’ to the extent that Russia was one of the main parties in the so-called Middle East Quartet which, in 2016, purportedly attempted to negotiate a political breakthrough between the Israeli government and the Palestinian leadership.

    Despite the permanent presence of Russia at the Palestine-Israel political table, Moscow has played a subordinate position. It was Washington that largely determined the momentum, time, place and even the outcomes of the ‘peace talks.’ Considering Washington’s strong support for Tel Aviv, Palestinians remained occupied and oppressed, while Israel’s colonial settlement enterprises grew exponentially in terms of size, population and economic power.

    Palestinians, however, continued to see Moscow as an ally. Within the largely defunct Quartet – which, aside from Russia, includes the US, the European Union and the United Nations – Russia is the only party that, from a Palestinian viewpoint, was trustworthy. However, considering the US near complete hegemony on international decision-making, through its UN vetoes, massive funding of the Israeli military and relentless pressure on the Palestinians, Russia’s role proved ultimately immaterial, if not symbolic.

    There were exceptions to this rule. In recent years, Russia has attempted to challenge its traditional role in the peace process as a supporting political actor, by offering to mediate, not just between Israel and the PA, but also between Palestinian political groups, Hamas and Fatah. Using the political space that presented itself following the Trump Administration’s cutting of funds to the PA in February 2019, Moscow drew even closer to the Palestinian leadership.

    A more independent Russian position in Palestine and Israel has been taking shape for years. In February 2017, for example, Russia hosted a national dialogue conference between Palestinian rivals. Though the Moscow conference did not lead to anything substantive, it allowed Russia to challenge its old position in Palestine, and the US’ proclaimed role as an ‘honest peace broker.’

    Wary of Russia’s infringement on its political territory in the Middle East, US President Joe Biden was quick to restore his government’s funding of the PA in April 2021. The American President, however, did not reverse some of the major US concessions to Israel made by the Trump Administration, including the recognition of Jerusalem, contrary to international law, as Israel’s capital. Moreover, under Israeli pressure, the US is yet to restore its Consulate in East Jerusalem, which was shut down by Trump in 2019. The Consulate served the role of Washington’s diplomatic mission in Palestine.

    Washington’s significance to Palestinians, at present, is confined to financial support. Concurrently, the US continues to serve the role of Israel’s main benefactor financially, militarily, politically and diplomatically.

    While Palestinian groups, whether Islamists or socialists, have repeatedly called on the PA to liberate itself from its near-total dependency on Washington, the Palestinian leadership refused. For the PA, defying the US in the current geopolitical order is a form of political suicide.

    But the Middle East has been rapidly changing. The US political divestment from the region in recent years has allowed other political actors, like China and Russia, to slowly immerse themselves as political, military and economic alternatives and partners.

    The Russian and Chinese influence can now be felt across the Middle East. However, their impact on the balances of power in the Palestine-Israel issue, in particular, remains largely minimal. Despite its strategic ‘pivot to Asia’ in 2012, Washington remained entrenched behind Israel, because American support for Israel is no longer a matter of foreign policy priorities, but an internal American issue involving both parties, powerful pro-Israel lobby and pressure groups, and a massive right-wing, Christian constituency across the US.

    Palestinians – people, leadership and political parties – have little trust or faith in Washington. In fact, much of the political discord among Palestinians is directly linked to this very issue. Alas, walking away from the US camp requires a strong political will that the PA does not possess.

    Since the rise of the US as the world’s only superpower over three decades ago, the Palestinian leadership reoriented itself entirely to be part of the ‘new world order’. The Palestinian people, however, gained little from their leadership’s strategic choice. To the contrary, since then the Palestinian cause suffered numerous losses – factionalism and disunity at home, and a confused regional and international political outlook, thus the hemorrhaging of Palestine’s historic allies, including many African, Asian and South American countries.

    The Russia-Ukraine war, however, is placing the Palestinians before one of their greatest foreign policy challenges since the collapse of the Soviet Union. For Palestinians, neutrality is not an option since the latter is a privilege that can only be obtained by those who can navigate global polarization using their own political leverage. The Palestinian leadership, thanks to its selfish choices and lack of a collective strategy, has no such leverage. 

    Common sense dictates that Palestinians must develop a unified front to cope with the massive changes underway in the world, changes that will eventually yield a whole new geopolitical reality.

    The Palestinians cannot afford to stand aside and pretend that they will magically be able to weather the storm.

    The post Weathering the Global Storm: Why Neutrality is Not an Option for Palestinians first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • International Law Is A Meaningless Concept When It Only Applies To US Enemies

    Listen to a reading of this article:

    ❖

    Australian whistleblower David McBride just made the following statement on Twitter:

    “I’ve been asked if I think the invasion of Ukraine is illegal.

    My answer is: If we don’t hold our own leaders to account, we can’t hold other leaders to account.

    If the law is not applied consistently, it is not the law.

    It is simply an excuse we use to target our enemies.

    We will pay a heavy price for our hubris of 2003 in the future.

    We didn’t just fail to punish Bush and Blair: we rewarded them. We re-elected them. We knighted them.

    If you want to see Putin in his true light imagine him landing a jet and then saying ‘Mission Accomplished’.”

    As far as I can tell this point is logically unassailable. International law is a meaningless concept when it only applies to people the US power alliance doesn’t like. This point is driven home by the life of McBride himself, whose own government responded to his publicizing suppressed information about war crimes committed by Australian forces in Afghanistan by charging him as a criminal.

    Neither George W Bush nor Tony Blair are in prison cells at The Hague where international law says they ought to be. Bush is still painting away from the comfort of his home, issuing proclamations comparing Putin to Hitler and platforming arguments for more interventionism in Ukraine. Blair is still merily warmongering his charred little heart out, saying NATO should not rule out directly attacking Russian forces in what amounts to a call for a thermonuclear world war.

    They are free as birds, singing their same old demonic songs from the rooftops.

    When you point out this obvious plot hole in discussions about the legality of Vladimir Putin’s invasion you’ll often get accused of “whataboutism”, which is a noise that empire loyalists like to make when you have just highlighted damning evidence that their government’s behaviors entirely invalidate their position on an issue. This is not a “whataboutism”; it’s a direct accusation that is completely devastating to the argument being made, because there really is no counter-argument.

    The Iraq invasion bypassed the laws and protocols for military action laid out in the founding charter of the United Nations. The current US military occupation of Syria violates international law. International law only exists to the extent to which the nations of the world are willing and able to enforce it, and because of the US empire’s military power — and more importantly because of its narrative control power — this means international law is only ever enforced with the approval of that empire.

    This is why the people indicted and detained by the International Criminal Court (ICC) are always from weaker nations — overwhelmingly African — while the USA can get away with actually sanctioning ICC personnel if they so much as talk about investigating American war crimes and suffer no consequences for it whatsoever. It is also why Noam Chomsky famously said that if the Nuremberg laws had continued to be applied with fairness and consistency, then every post-WWII U.S. president would have been hanged.

    This is also why former US National Security Advisor John Bolton once said that the US war machine is “dealing in the anarchic environment internationally where different rules apply,” which “does require actions that in a normal business environment in the United States we would find unprofessional.”

    Bolton would certainly know. In his bloodthirsty push to manufacture consent for the Iraq invasion he spearheaded the removal of the director-general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), a crucial institution for the enforcement of international law, using measures which included threatening the director-general’s children. The OPCW is now subject to the dictates of the US government, as evidenced by the organisation’s coverup of a 2018 false flag incident in Syria which resulted in airstrikes by the US, UK and France during Bolton’s tenure as a senior Trump advisor.

    The US continually works to subvert international law enforcement institutions to advance its own interests. When the US was seeking UN authorization for the Gulf War in 1991, Yemen dared to vote against it, after which a member of the US delegation told Yemen’s ambassador, “That’s the most expensive vote you ever cast.” Yemen lost not just 70 million dollars in US foreign aid but also a valuable labor contract with Saudi Arabia, and a million Yemeni immigrants were sent home by America’s Gulf state allies.

    Simple observation of who is subject to international law enforcement and who is not makes it clear that the very concept of international law is now functionally nothing more than a narrative construct that’s used to bludgeon and undermine governments who disobey the US-centralized empire. That’s why in the lead-up to this confrontation with Russia we saw a push among empire managers to swap out the term “international law” with “rules-based international order”, which can mean anything and is entirely up to the interpretation of the world’s dominant power structure.

    It is entirely possible that we may see Putin ousted and brought before a war crimes tribunal one day, but that won’t make it valid. You can argue with logical consistency that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is wrong and will have disastrous consequences far beyond the bloodshed it has already inflicted, but what you can’t do with any logical consistency whatsoever is claim that it is illegal. Because there is no authentically enforced framework for such a concept to apply.

    As US law professor Dale Carpenter has said, “If citizens cannot trust that laws will be enforced in an evenhanded and honest fashion, they cannot be said to live under the rule of law. Instead, they live under the rule of men corrupted by the law.” This is all the more true of laws which would exist between nations.

    You don’t get to make international law meaningless and then claim that an invasion is “illegal”. That’s not a legitimate thing to do. As long as we are living in a Wild West environment created by a murderous globe-spanning empire which benefits from it, claims about the legality of foreign invasions are just empty sounds.

    ____________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. 

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • Ukraine, Russian Negotiators Say They’re Inching Closer to Peace Deal

    A girl with an anti-war message takes part in a protest in support for Ukraine following Russia's invasion of the country, in Zagreb's main city square on March 5, 2022.

    Negotiators said they’ve made progress on a potential peace deal to end the war in Ukraine.

    The deal would require a number of concessions from both Ukraine and Russia — chief among them, Ukraine would have to agree to drop any intention of joining the NATO military alliance, and would also have to agree to not host any foreign military bases or foreign-based weapons within its borders.

    In exchange, Russia will withdraw from Ukraine and accept new military agreements between Ukraine and the U.S. and European nations to ensure Kyiv is protected against the threat of future invasions.

    There are still some major bumps in the road before a peace deal is brokered. Russian negotiators had also wanted Ukraine to declare itself a “neutral” nation, a proposition that Ukrainian leaders have rejected. But with guarantees of western protection pacts, the idea is now being “seriously discussed,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.

    Earlier this week, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky also described the talks as progressing and becoming “more realistic” for reaching a deal. Wednesday also marks the third straight day of negotiations — the first time they’ve lasted more than one day since the conflict began.

    But other sticking points remain unresolved — the status of Crimea, a peninsula formerly under the control of Ukraine that was annexed by Russia in 2014. Continued requests from Zelensky for military assistance and a “no-fly zone,” as well as weapons pledges from other nations, could also disrupt negotiations.

    On Wednesday, President Joe Biden announced $800 million in military aid to Ukraine — including hundreds of anti-aircraft systems, thousands of anti-armor systems, more than 7,000 weapons (such as guns and grenade launchers), as well as military drones.

    Many pundits and hawks are also calling on Washington to help create a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine, an action that antiwar groups and experts say would be an extremely dangerous escalation. CODEPINK, a women-led grassroots group dedicated to expanding human rights and ending U.S. wars and militarism, protested against an increase in U.S. militarized involvement at steps of Capitol building on Wednesday — including urging Biden to reject calls for a “no-fly zone,” which the group said could lead to World War III.

    “A No-Fly Zone would only exacerbate this conflict ten-fold, putting all of humanity at risk of annihilation,” the organization said.

    While many are critical of militarization-based solutions, others are calling on the U.S. to participate in peace negotiations. In a recent Truthout interview, Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor Emeritus at MIT and currently Laureate Professor at the University of Arizona, explained that Washington needed to take part in those talks in order for them to succeed.

    “Negotiations will get nowhere if the U.S. persists in its adamant refusal to join,” Chomsky said.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • ‘The Most Vulnerable People Lose When the US Imposes Sanctions’

     

    Janine Jackson interviewed IPS’s Khury Petersen-Smith about economic sanctions for the March 11, 2022, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

          CounterSpin220311PetersenSmith.mp3

     

    Atlantic: The Russian Elite Can’t Stand the Sanctions

    Atlantic (3/5/22)

    Janine Jackson: “The Russian Elite Can’t Stand the Sanctions,” crowed a recent piece in the Atlantic. The “whine and protest” from the country’s oligarchs meant that the US and European sanctions were “working as intended, to punish Russia’s elites for supporting President Vladimir Putin.” They “won’t starve,” the story elaborated, but they “will be unable to maintain their jetsetting luxury lifestyle.”

    Meanwhile, CNBC viewers were told, “The West is trying to destroy Russia’s economy. And analysts think it could succeed.” That piece cited the French finance minister’s statement that the aim of the latest round of sanctions was “to cause the collapse of the Russian economy.”

    So which is it? Inconvenience a few Richie Riches, or bring a country of 145 million people to its knees? Or is there a secret way to immiserate a country without incurring grievous human harm?

    The current moment provides another chance to examine the role of economic sanctions in conflict. And here to help us think about that is Khury Petersen-Smith. He’s the Michael Ratner Middle East Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. He joins us now by phone from Boston. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Khury Petersen-Smith.

    Khury Petersen-Smith: I’m so grateful to be here, Janine.

    JJ: Well, thank you.

    Truthout (Sanctions May Sound “Nonviolent,” But They Quietly Hurt the Most Vulnerable

    Truthout (3/6/22)

    Just like we are told by politicians and by media that weapons like bombs and drones are surgical, and that they’re targeted, we’re also told that sanctions are carefully aimed to hurt only the powerful, in order to influence them. Your recent writing engages that storyline, because it just doesn’t play out that way, does it?

    KP: It doesn’t. And I think that, particularly with sanctions, they’re not designed to play out that way. You know, when the Biden administration first was talking about doing sanctions on Russia, they simultaneously talked about targeting Putin and a few oligarchs, and they would use phrases like, to use their language, “crippling sanctions.” And, as you said, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that this is targeted and specific, and also talk about attacking the entire Russian economy, which the kind of sanctions that they have pursued intend to take out an economy. When you cut the Russian economy out of the international banking system, for example, that’s not just going to affect the billionaires, that’s going to affect the whole population. And as we’ve seen, the ruble has been crashing. So that does affect the population. So this is the design. It’s how sanctions are intended.

    JJ: And that’s the heart of your piece, is the fact that sanctions are framed for the public, the people who are going to be asked to support a particular invasion or a particular policy—sanctions are framed as an alternative to war. And I hear you saying, that’s not just imprecise, that’s a wrong way to think about it.

    Khury Petersen-Smith

    Khury Petersen-Smith: “The first thing is that sanctions, their impact is devastating in ways that are at least similar and often worse than armed combat.”

    KP: Yeah, that’s absolutely right. The first thing is that sanctions, their impact is devastating in ways that are at least similar and often worse than armed combat. We think about the sanctions that the US imposed on Iraq in the 1990s. When we think about the decades long US embargo on Cuba, these have had drastic impacts on the populations. When we think about the way that the Iranian population has been impacted right now, and has been for years.

    The other thing, though, is that often and actually, in the three cases I just named—Iran, Iraq and Cuba—the US government deploying sanctions is not posing them as an alternative to military action. It actually combines them with military action. So we know that the US embargoing Cuba has coincided with various attempts to overthrow the Cuban government since the Cuban Revolution. The sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s were bookended by US invasions, in 1991 and 2003. And then with Iran, the sanctions that have been imposed for several years, coincide with all kinds of military pressure as well.

    And Trump was maybe the most honest about this. Folks will remember his “maximum pressure” regime, which was a combination of intense sanctions and parking aircraft carriers off the coast of Iran, threatening airstrikes and so on. So the actual practice is to really combine sanctions and combat or armed force. They’re really just tools in the same toolbox.

    JJ: When folks are transparent about it, they will say that sanctions are aimed at regime change. And what I often talk about is, accepting the US legitimacy in changing the leadership of other countries is the price of admission to serious people conversation about geopolitics and news media. You don’t have to concede the right of global powers like the US to force regime change. But even beyond the illegitimacy of that goal, sanctions don’t appear to work toward that end.

    KP: Right. Yeah, that’s exactly right. The first thing, what you said is so important, because it’s a pretty incredible thing that policymakers, US officials and journalists in mainstream media talk openly and casually about how the intended impact of sanctions is to immiserate a country’s population such that they overthrow the government in a way that is favorable to the United States. And if that isn’t shocking, then I ask people to consider what it would be like, or how the US government would react, if that kind of conversation was happening casually in Moscow, or in other countries that the US deems as enemies. It’s really incredible that US officials demonize Putin for being undemocratic, which certainly, he is undemocratic.

    JJ: Absolutely.

    KP: But to support overthrowing the government, and not just support it rhetorically, but pursue a policy whose thinly veiled objective is that—it’s a profoundly anti-democratic act.

    But, as you say, as wrong as the intention is, it’s also been ineffective. I mean, the US has had sanctions on Cuba for how many decades? And that government remains in power.

    If anything, sanctions tend to strengthen the government that the US is targeting. When the US imposed sanctions on Iraq, for example, again, with the hope that that would lead to a coup within Iraq against Saddam Hussein’s regime, because of the way that the Iraqi economy was devastated, and the resulting limited access to things like food and medicine, it made Iraqis more dependent on the Iraqi government, actually, and so it strengthened that government, for what it’s worth. So the US has no right, anyway, to meddle in the affairs of another country’s society, to target not only the country’s population, but the most vulnerable people in the population, who are always the people who lose when the US imposes sanctions. But also, for what it’s worth, it’s an ineffective approach.

    Twitter: Russia Sanctions Must Hit Elites Around Putin the Hardest

    Detroit Free Press (2/28/22—subscription required)

    JJ: US media translate it into what they imagine as “news you can use” for their US audience. I saw an op-ed in the Detroit News by a former diplomat that said that the West needed to pull together to “change Putin’s path.” And that

    that unity may well depend on the willingness of citizens of the West to suffer some economic costs of the broad economic sanctions. If inflation or gas prices go up and your 401(k) goes down as a result, give some thought to what democracy is worth to you.

    There’s a lot going on there, obviously.

    KP: There is.

    JJ: I mean, that could take us all day. But let me just say, all right, let’s think about what democracy means to us. And also international solidarity and human rights and justice and sustainability and peace. Let’s think about those things. What could we be thinking about as other ways forward, in what is admittedly a frightening time?

    KP: Right. Well, the way you’re putting things in an international context, I think that’s extremely important, because while US officials and US media cast countries that they deem as enemies as so foreign that you couldn’t possibly relate to them, that there’s something about Russia, or something about Iran, or something about China, there’s something about the kind of internal nature of those societies. When we talk about Iran, it’s these Islamophobic tropes, or something about “those people,” that democracy is a problem. And the only solution is for democracy to be imposed by the United States and the West.

    And let’s remind ourselves that among the many things happening in this country, we had an armed attack on the Capitol last year, led by an outgoing president who refused to accept the election results. We have an open campaign by the Republican Party to pass laws to restrict democracy, democratic rights at the state level, targeting the people who are always targeted: Black people, other people of color, immigrants and so on.

    And so there are plenty of problems in terms of democratic rights here. And the notion that there’s something exceptional about Russia that requires the US to step in and do something, whereas this is a bastion of democracy, is false. Instead, I think that we the people, the ordinary people of this place and of the world, need to ask, what are we all doing within and across borders to make a more democratic world?

    I have to say, I’m quite inspired by the people in Russia dissenting against this war in their thousands in cities across the country. They are pointing the way in terms of democracy, not only in Russia, but actually they’re pointing the way for all of us. So what are we doing to build popular democracy, in other words?

    And the challenge of having more democratic societies is not a Russian challenge. It’s not an Iranian challenge or a Chinese challenge. It’s also a US challenge, and it’s a challenge that we are facing all across the world. I think that it means a very different orientation that we have to have.

    JJ: All right then, we’ll end there for now. We’ve been speaking with Khury Petersen-Smith. He’s the Michael Ratner Middle East Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. And his article, “Sanctions May Sound ‘Nonviolent,’ but They Quietly Hurt the Most Vulnerable,” can be found at Truthout.org. Khury Petersen-Smith, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

    KP: Thank you. It’s an honor.

     

    The post ‘The Most Vulnerable People Lose When the US Imposes Sanctions’ appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • No-Fly Zone in Ukraine Would Be “Direct Involvement in the War,” Experts Warn

    A NATO No-Fly Zone in Ukraine Would Be “Direct Involvement in the War Against Russia,” Experts Warn

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky continues to demand the U.S. and NATO allies impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine, an idea that President Biden has rejected even as a growing number of Republicans embrace the idea despite the risk it could draw the U.S. directly into the war against Russia and possibly spark a nuclear confrontation. Stephen Wertheim, a senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, co-authored an open letter signed by foreign policy experts who oppose a no-fly zone over Ukraine. It urges leaders to continue diplomatic and economic measures to end the conflict. “As you start thinking about how a no-fly zone would actually unfold, it becomes very obvious this would be direct involvement in the war against Russia, and rather than end the war, a no-fly zone would enlarge the war and escalate the war,” says Wertheim.

    TRANSCRIPT

    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

    AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

    The Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is giving a virtual address to both chambers of the U.S. Congress today. He is expected to repeat his call for NATO to impose a no-fly zone. President Biden has so far rejected his request, but some in Congress and former officials have embraced the idea.

    Meanwhile, a group of foreign policy experts have signed on to an open letter opposing a no-fly zone. The letter was co-written by our next guest, Stephen Wertheim. He’s senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the author of the book Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of U.S. Global Supremacy.

    Stephen, welcome back to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us. Talk about what it means to impose a no-fly zone and why you’re opposed, what this letter is all about.

    STEPHEN WERTHEIM: Well, a no-fly zone strikes many people as a humanitarian measure or a technical measure. Our experience with no-fly zones comes from the last three decades, in which a small number of no-fly zones have been imposed against much weaker enemies than Russia. But what it means is that the United States and NATO forces would commit to shoot down enemy planes, any enemy plane that enters the zone. It’s quite clear Russia would not voluntarily comply with our verbal declaration of a no-fly zone, so we’d have to shoot those planes down. And to do that, we’d have to patrol the area with our own planes to gain supremacy in the skies over Ukraine. And to do that safely, we would have to destroy the enemy’s air defense systems on the ground, as well. Many of those are located in Belarus, and some potentially may be located in Russia. Indeed, Russians could fire at U.S. and NATO forces from Russia.

    And then the question would become: Would we go to war, go to war and exchange fire with Russians who are located inside Russian territory? So, as you start thinking about how a no-fly zone would actually unfold, it becomes very obvious this would be direct involvement in the war against Russia. And rather than end the war, a no-fly zone would enlarge the war and escalate the war. And that’s why the Biden administration has, rightly, been very clear throughout this conflict that a no-fly zone would be escalatory and is not something that it wants to do.

    AMY GOODMAN: And we’re talking about a war between nuclear powers, and what Putin has said is clearly suggesting people should be very careful about moving forward — threatening, in fact.

    STEPHEN WERTHEIM: And as President Obama himself noted as he prepared to leave office, that with respect to Ukraine, Russia would have escalation dominance, meaning because the value of Ukraine to Russia is so much higher than it is to the West, that Putin would be prepared to go much further. This would be a kind of existential struggle for him. And now it is even more so than when he initially invaded, given the sanctions that have been imposed on Russia.

    AMY GOODMAN: And can you —

    STEPHEN WERTHEIM: So, he may resort to nuclear use.

    AMY GOODMAN: Can you address the suggestion of a, quote-unquote, “limited” no-fly zone?

    STEPHEN WERTHEIM: It’s hard to know what that would mean exactly. One has to specify where a limited no-fly zone would be imposed. But, again, there is no really limited no-fly zone. A no-fly zone means a commitment not just to declare something, but to enforce it, by making sure that Russian planes cannot fly within that zone. And so, it would clearly be viewed as an act of war and an escalation by Russia. Russia wouldn’t be wrong to view it that way. And in every case, the basically three cases in which no-fly zones have been imposed in recent decades — and again, imposed against enemies much, much weaker than Russia — the mission has expanded.

    For example, if we impose a no-fly zone, whether it’s called limited or not, and our pilots actually do gain superiority in the air, and they’re watching Russians inflict terrible violence on Ukrainians below them, then we’re faced with a question: Should we actually attack Russian forces on the ground? And if not, what was the point of establishing a no-fly zone, if it’s making little difference in the war itself? So, a no-fly zone would not, in and of itself, do very much to alleviate the suffering that Ukrainians are experiencing at the hands of Russian aggression. What it really would be is an intermediate step toward a much wider war.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, I wanted to ask you about the state of negotiations to end this war. The Ukrainian President Zelensky suggested earlier today that Russian demands are becoming more realistic.

    PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY: [translated] Everyone should work, including our representatives, our delegation, for negotiations with the Russian Federation. It is difficult but important, as any war ends with an agreement. The meetings continue, and I am informed the positions during the negotiations already sound more realistic. But time is still needed for the decisions to be in the interests of Ukraine.

    AMY GOODMAN: Zelensky’s remarks came a day after he acknowledged he doesn’t expect Ukraine to join NATO anytime soon, which is very significant. And during a news conference yesterday, The Intercept’s Ryan Grim asked White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki what the U.S. is doing to advance peace negotiations and whether the U.S. would lift its sanctions on Russia if it reached a peace deal with Ukraine. This is just a small part of what she said.

    RYAN GRIM: Aside from the request for weapons, President Zelensky has also requested that the U.S. be more involved in negotiations toward a peaceful resolution to the war. What is the U.S. doing to push those negotiations forward?

    PRESS SECRETARY JEN PSAKI: Well, one of the steps we’ve taken, a significant one, is to be the largest provider of military and humanitarian and economic assistance in the world, to put them in a greater position of strength as they go into these negotiations.

    AMY GOODMAN: That’s a part of what Jen Psaki — that’s a part of what Jen Psaki said. Your response to this, Stephen?

    STEPHEN WERTHEIM: Well, it is encouraging that President Zelensky is now being even more explicit, continuing a string of remarks over the past week or so in which he has expressed a real openness to making a settlement to the war, suggesting that he’s open to committing to neutrality for Ukraine with respect to NATO. And that has been a core demand of Russia, a consistent demand going back a long time.

    And there are also some encouraging words coming out of the Biden administration, as well. Secretary of State Tony Blinken just recently suggested that the sanctions that have been imposed on Russia were not intended to be permanent. And what that signals is perhaps a willingness on the part of the United States to drop some of the most draconian sanctions on Russia if that becomes necessary in order to secure a peace settlement that the legitimate government of Ukraine, led by Zelensky, would desire. And so, that’s the key. If the Zelensky government believes it’s in the interest of Ukraine to stop the bloodshed, accept what will surely be some painful concessions, but nevertheless preserve the sovereignty and independence of Ukraine in a peaceful way, what I think will be important from the United States and its allies is to be able to be part of those negotiations and make certain concessions with respect to sanctions, that would be surely necessary to reach a peaceful resolution to the war.

    AMY GOODMAN: One of —

    STEPHEN WERTHEIM: Whether —

    AMY GOODMAN: Go ahead.

    STEPHEN WERTHEIM: Whether we’re at the point where in fact Russia is willing to make an agreement, that is hard to judge. But we may get there in the coming weeks.

    AMY GOODMAN: One of the key demands from Russia so far has been no intermediate- or shorter-range missiles deployed close enough to hit the territory of the other side. Explain this. And we just have 30 seconds.

    STEPHEN WERTHEIM: Actually, prior to Russia’s full-scale invasion several weeks ago, it seemed as though the United States and Russia were making some progress in diplomacy on issues like the one you mentioned, on arms control agreements, which would involve reciprocal measures whereby NATO forces in the east of NATO and Russia would both seek to revive the kinds of limitations on their armaments, that were built up actually during the Cold War, were built up a little bit after the Cold War, but have atrophied over the last several decades. So this is also —

    AMY GOODMAN: We just have 10 seconds.

    STEPHEN WERTHEIM: This is also something that could be part of an ultimate peace agreement.

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, Stephen Wertheim, we’re going to do Part 2 of our conversation with you and post it online at democracynow.org. Stephen Wertheim is senior fellow at the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He’s a visiting fellow at Yale Law School and author of the book Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of U.S. Global Supremacy.

    That does it for our show. Democracy Now! is produced with a remarkable group of people. I’m Amy Goodman. Stay safe.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The US, NATO & The Article IV Trap In Ukraine

    The ongoing Russian invasion has torn asunder whatever passed for geopolitical stability in Eastern Europe in the years since NATO expansion brought Poland and the three former Soviet Baltic Republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into its membership. While peeved, Russia had accepted the resulting equilibrium with stoic grace, bristling at every NATO effort at muscle flexing, but not overreacting. The Russo-Ukrainian War has changed this equation, with Poland and the three Baltic States using the conflict as an excuse to trigger Article IV of the NATO Charter to call for consultations among the NATO membership regarding a situation the four Eastern European nations view as a pressing national security matter.

    The post The US, NATO & The Article IV Trap In Ukraine appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Marina Ovsyannikova Refuses to Retract Antiwar Statements in Moscow Court

    Marina Ovsyannikova, the editor at the state broadcaster Channel One who protested against Russian military action in Ukraine during the evening news broadcast at the station, speaks to the media as she leaves the Ostankinsky District Court after being fined for breaching protest laws in Moscow on March 15, 2022.

    Marina Ovsyannikova, a former employee of the state-run Channel One television station in Russia who protested the invasion of Ukraine by holding up a “No War” sign on the air, was offered the chance to retract her antiwar statements in a Moscow court on Tuesday.

    She refused to do so, and pleaded not guilty to administrative law charges that were filed against her.

    Those charges did not stem from her protest, but from the content of a pre-recorded video she made ahead of her action, in which she explained her antiwar views and how she was “embarrassed” for being part of the propaganda machine on Channel One.

    “What’s happening in Ukraine right now is a true crime. And Russia is the aggressor,” she said in that video. “And the responsibility for this crime lies only on the conscience of one person, and that person is [Russia President] Vladimir Putin.”

    Ovsyannikova was found guilty of violating the administrative law and fined 30,000 rubles (the equivalent of $280 USD). She could face future criminal charges for her on-air protest.

    Ovsyannikova’s lawyers pointed out that her rights were being denied to her during her detainment — under Russian law, women who have children under the age of 14 cannot be detained for violating administrative laws (Ovsyannikova has two children under that age limit).

    In addition to refusing to retract her statements and pleading not guilty, Ovsyannikova reiterated her viewpoints on the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine to the judge overseeing her case.

    “I still believe that Russia committed a crime by attacking Ukraine,” she said. “I do not retract any of my words, it was indeed an antiwar statement.”

    Speaking outside of the courthouse after being fined, Ovsyannikova shared her experience in detention, during which her lawyers presumed she was missing due to the fact that she wasn’t allowed to contact them. The dissident, whose father is Ukrainian and mother is Russian, explained that she was interrogated for more than 14 hours while under arrest, and wasn’t allowed to call any of her family to tell them what was going on.

    “I spent two days without sleep,” she added.

    Ovsyannikova’s protest is but one example out of thousands of Russians in the country speaking out against the Putin-ordered invasion of Ukraine. Protests have sprung up in dozens of cities across the nation, with dissidents risking their livelihoods to showcase their opposition to the war.

    Earlier this month, the Kremlin made it illegal to independently report on the war or for citizens to protest against it, threatening those who violated the law with up to 15 years in prison if found guilty.

    As of last week, more than 13,000 Russians have been arrested for protesting the invasion of Ukraine, according to a protest monitoring group called OVD-Info.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Former Top Pentagon Advisor Col. Doug Macgregor On Russia-Ukraine War

    Former senior advisor the Secretary of Defense Col. Doug Macgregor joins Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate for a candid, live discussion of the Russia-Ukraine war and his time in the Trump administration when an Afghan withdrawal was sabotaged and conflict with Iran and Syria continued.

    The post Former Top Pentagon Advisor Col. Doug Macgregor On Russia-Ukraine War appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.