radiofree.asia

Category: Russia

  • Russian Police Have Arrested More Than 8,000 Antiwar Protesters in 8 Days

    Russian Environmentalist Speaks Out on Putin’s Attack on Antiwar Protesters & Independent Media

    As the Russian military escalates its invasion in Ukraine, Russian police are cracking down on antiwar protesters at home, arresting more than 8,000 over the past eight days. Meanwhile, Russia’s lower house of parliament has passed a new law to criminalize the distribution of what the state considers to be “false news” about military operations, and remaining independent news outlets in the country are shutting down under pressure from the authorities. We speak with Vladimir Slivyak, co-chair for the leading Russian environmental organization Ecodefense, who won the 2021 Right Livelihood Award — the “alternative Nobel Peace Prize” — for defending the environment and mobilizing grassroots opposition to the coal and nuclear industries in Russia. Slivyak describes Putin’s attempts to shut down independent media within Russia and the “pure propaganda” his regime is spreading on state-sponsored media to justify the invasion of Ukraine.

    TRANSCRIPT

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

    AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, as we turn to look at Russia’s escalating crackdown domestically following its invasion of Ukraine. More than 8,000 antiwar protesters have been arrested since Russia began the attack. Meanwhile, Russia’s lower house of parliament has just passed a new law to criminalize the distribution of what the state considers to be “false news” about military operations, like calling the attack “war.” Violators of the law could face 15 years in prison.

    Still with us, Vladimir Slivyak. He is co-chair of the leading Russian environmental organization Ecodefense, won the 2021 Right Livelihood Award, the “alternative Nobel Peace Prize,” for defending the environment and mobilizing grassroots opposition to the coal and nuclear industries in Russia.

    Vlad, your response to the antiwar protests across Russia? Thousands have been arrested. And talk about what people understand, what is the feeling in Russia, and Putin’s crackdown.

    VLADIMIR SLIVYAK: Well, first of all, I think it’s very hard to imagine, for people in the West or in the U.S.A. or European Union, how Russian propaganda is working. I mean, you’ve got an access to different sources of information, to different TV channels, and Russians don’t have this. The big majority, like over 70% of Russians, are just watching the first channel on the TV, which is state-controlled and that put out all kinds of propaganda, anti-Ukrainian propaganda, to make people believe that in Ukraine something bad is happening to Russian-speaking people, which is absolutely not true and just a pure propaganda to justify this invasion.

    But, I mean, I was a bit surprised, actually, that even in a dictatorship country like Russia — and Russia is dictatorship today — people actually went to protest, and the thousands of people went on the street. And, I mean, although it’s still not that mass protest, but even this number — I mean, I think it’s well over 10,000 of people that went to protest since the beginning. Well, it’s pretty impressive, taking into account what’s going on in Russia, how media controlled, how much repression is there right now. That’s my take.

    AMY GOODMAN: And what about the media outlets that have been shut down, like Rain, like Echo of Moscow? Explain their significance.

    VLADIMIR SLIVYAK: Well, it is very significant. Independent media are not big, unfortunately. And that’s because over the last decade Putin was basically shutting down every influential independent media in the country. And those two are — well, right now we have only one more or less independent media in the country, which is Novaya Gazeta, or a New Newspaper, if you translate it, which still puts a lot of antiwar propaganda — or, not propaganda, but antiwar information. So, we are left with only one newspaper that presents alternative point of view. And I think it could be shut down, as well. But the Echo Moscow and the TV Rain being the main sources of information, of alternative to governmental information, to — well, in a country like Russia, with 150 million of people, now people cannot really get this alternative information anymore.

    AMY GOODMAN: And it’s also interesting to note that in occupied Kherson now, in the south of Ukraine, that the Ukrainian television has been turned off, and they’re now getting Russian government media.

    VLADIMIR SLIVYAK: Yeah. Well, I mean, Putin, for a very long time, been doing, well, a crackdown not only on the civil society but also on the free media. And, I mean, what we see today in Russia is a result of this policy, when all structures of a civil society are basically destroyed and there are now almost no organizations left who can actually organize mass protests, and Putin also shutting down free media so people cannot get independent information. And, yes, this is exactly what he will do to Ukraine if he will ever take it over.

    AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy head of Russia’s Security Council, chaired by Putin, who also warned that Moscow could restore the death penalty, after Russian was removed from Europe’s top rights group, the U.N. human rights group — a chilling statement that shocked human rights activists in a country that has not had capital punishment for a quarter of a century. I’m reading a report.

    VLADIMIR SLIVYAK: That is absolutely shocking. But looking at what Russian regime or Putin regime been doing over last decade, unfortunately, it doesn’t look like impossible. I think Russians can do — I mean, Russian regime can do this.

    AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to just comment that after Rain TV finished their final broadcast, they put on a loop of Swan Lake. This was an explicit reference to something Soviet authorities did when they wanted to bury bad news, including the 1991 coup attempt that led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Vlad?

    VLADIMIR SLIVYAK: Yeah, that’s correct. I mean, usually, TV was showing something like that when the leader of a country would be dead, actually. So, when something like that placed on the TV, people — I mean, a lot of people in Russia start to remember that back in the Soviet times they could see something like that on the television, when the big boss of the Soviet Union could be dead. So, now people — well, people still doing jokes about this. And, well, I would probably stop here, yeah.

    AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Vlad — we have 30 seconds — the significance of the increasing sanctions against the leadership in Russia?

    VLADIMIR SLIVYAK: That is very powerful sanctions. And it is very good that the international community introduced so powerful sanctions. It’s hitting Russian economy very much. And I think, in this situation, that’s the only way to stop war, to cut out resources for continuation of war for Putin regime.

    AMY GOODMAN: Are you concerned that increasing the sanctions could lead Putin to take more drastic action?

    VLADIMIR SLIVYAK: I think if the rest of the world will not cut out resources for Putin regime, this regime will go into more wars, and there will be bigger war in Europe. So I support every sanction against Putin regime.

    AMY GOODMAN: Are you afraid to go back to Russia?

    VLADIMIR SLIVYAK: Well, I’m afraid, but this is not the most important thing right now. The most important thing right now is peace.

    AMY GOODMAN: Vladimir Slivyak, I want to thank you for being with us, co-chair of the leading Russian environmental organization Ecodefense, Right Livelihood Award winner.

    When we come back, we’re going to go to where we started, and that’s Ukraine. We’re going to speak with a Ukrainian American journalist who says the Ukraine of his childhood is being erased. Stay with us.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Fire Is Out at Nuclear Plant Seized by Russian Forces, Officials Watch for Leaks

    A screen grab captured from a video shows a view of Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant during a fire following clashes around the site in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine, on March 4, 2022.

    Russian forces reportedly seized control of a Ukrainian nuclear power plant on Friday shortly after a fire broke out at the facility, intensifying global fears of a massive and unprecedented radioactive disaster.

    The fire, which Ukrainian officials said was sparked by Russian shelling, was extinguished Friday morning, but concerns remained about the potential for a leak of radioactive material if operators at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant are unable to safely cool power units at the site.

    During a press conference Friday morning, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the blaze started after a “projectile” hit a building within the plant complex.

    “The physical integrity of the plant has been compromised,” said IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi, who stressed that the safety systems of the six nuclear reactors at the site were not affected by the fire and that the plant’s radiation monitoring infrastructure remains “fully functional.”

    As of yet, Grossi said, there has been no release of radioactive material. He added that as of Friday morning, a Ukrainian staff was still running the nuclear plant even after the Russian military took “effective control” of the site.

    In a televised address on Friday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accused Russia’s military forces of engaging in “nuclear terror” and called on the Russian people to “take to the streets and say that you want to live, you want to live on Earth without radioactive contamination.”

    “Radiation does not know where Russia is, radiation does not know where the borders of your country are,” Zelenskyy said, echoing concerns that the release of radioactive material could impact huge swaths of Europe, potentially rendering them uninhabitable for decades.

    The Russian Defense Ministry, for its part, blamed “a Ukrainian sabotage group” for the fire at the Zaporizhzhia plant.

    The world watched in horror overnight Friday as the Zaporizhzhia complex — the largest nuclear power facility in all of Europe — came under attack, a scenario that scientists and campaigners have been sounding alarms about since before Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine last week.

    “Fire is the biggest risk for core melt at a nuclear power plant. This is the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe,” the advocacy group Beyond Nuclear tweeted as reports of a blaze at the facility were confirmed. “We are perched on the precipice of catastrophe.”

    U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) voiced similar fears, declaring that “Russia’s horrifying attack on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant could result in a nuclear disaster spanning hundreds of square miles in all directions.”

    “Fallout doesn’t respect borders. This would be an international war crime by Putin that could result in incredible devastation,” said Markey. “First responders and nuclear safety personnel must be allowed to immediately address the situation at Zaporizhzhia. If this disaster is allowed to worsen then Putin will be putting his own people and those in countries across Europe at terrible risk.”

    In a series of Twitter posts, Matthew Bunn, a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School and a co-principal investigator at the Project on Managing the Atom, denounced Russia’s alleged shelling of the Zaporizhzhia complex as “shockingly reckless, and a violation of multiple agreements.”

    “The member states of the IAEA unanimously agreed years ago that attacking a nuclear power plant ‘constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the Statute of the Agency,’” Bunn observed. “This shelling COULD cause a major radioactive release, but it’s too soon to tell whether (a) that will happen, (b) that’s what Russian forces intended, or (c) if it does happen, how big the release will be.”

    Among other significant risks, Bunn highlighted the possibility that continued shelling could endanger the facility’s pools of spent nuclear fuel. Greenpeace International noted in an analysis earlier this week that, as of 2017, 855 tons of spent fuel were stored in the six pools at the Zaporizhzhia complex.

    “If the fuel building was shattered by shelling, then any fission products released from the melted fuel could get out into the surrounding countryside,” Bunn warned. “Shelling could also cause a water leak that could lead to fuel melting, even if the electricity stayed on.”

    “IF the fuel pool is really overstuffed with spent fuel, AND the hot fuel assemblies recently discharged from the reactor are stored next to each other (rather than interspersed throughout the pool) the fuel can get so hot it catches fire — that, plus a shattering of the building, is really the worst-case scenario,” he added. “That could release a quantity of radioactivity even worse than Chernobyl, potentially.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Racist rhetoric about which refugees deserve help needs to stop now

    There are “two species” of refugee in Europe, philosopher Slavoj Žižek has warned. He was talking about a tweet – now deleted – from the government of his home country, Slovenia. The tweet attempted to draw a line between those fleeing the war in Ukraine from those who were fleeing wars in other parts of the world.

    The tweet claimed:

    The refugees from Ukraine are coming from an environment which is in its cultural, religious, and historical sense something totally different from the environment out of which refugees from Afghanistan are coming.

    Describing this bizarre, racist position, Žižek wrote:

    After an outcry, the tweet was quickly deleted, but the obscene truth was out: Europe must defend itself from non-Europe.

    The evidence suggests this problem extends much wider, and goes much deeper, than just individual governments.

    Blatant racism

    Slovenia’s was just one – very open – example of a wider problem. Ukrainian refugees fleeing the criminal Russian invasion deserve our solidarity. So do Afghans, Iraqis, Yemenis, and Palestinians. The only fundamental difference between them is their place in a made-up racial hierarchy. And that is deplorable.

    As one Twitter user pointed out on 3 March, it’s possible to have solidarity with more than one group of people at the same time:

    Another was one of many sharing compilations of racist takes in the mainstream media:

    In most cases these involved a level of surprise that war had come to “relatively civilised” country, not a place like Iraq or North Africa. Places we can only assume are ‘uncivilised’.

    Little connection was made in these commentaries as to exactly why somewhere like Iraq, for example, has experienced years of war and violence. Did war magically appear in the Middle East? Or could it be connected to the US-led invasion in 2003? Or the centuries of colonialism beforehand?

    There seems to be no space to look at this vital context in the mainstream commentary on Ukraine.

    Shocking distinction

    Žižek wasn’t the only scholar pointing out this contradiction. Professor of Middle East Studies Ziad Majed said the “magnificent solidarity and humanism” shown toward Ukrainians was vastly different to the “dehumanization of refugees from the Middle East”.

    When you hear certain comments talking about ‘people like us’ it suggests that those who come from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan or Africa are not.

    “Orientalist and racist”

    The Arab and Middle East Journalist’s Association (AMEJA) also condemned the double standard. It listed many examples, including those in the viral video above:

    AMEJA condemns and categorically rejects orientalist [racist against Asian people] and racist implications that any population or country is ‘uncivilized’ or bears economic factors that make it worthy of conflict.

    AMEJA said these kinds of comment spoke to a deeper problem in Western media:

    This type of commentary reflects the pervasive mentality in Western journalism of normalizing tragedy in parts of the world such as the Middle East, Africa, South Asia, and Latin America.

    “Two species”

    The outpourings of concern for refugees from Ukraine are justified and welcome. Russia’s illegal invasion, as Noam Chomsky has pointed out, is a war crime akin to the US invasion of Iraq and Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939:

    For those of us who’ve opposed wars and supported refugees for longer than a week, our job is to point out that putting a flag in your profile picture isn’t enough. Because every refugee is worthy of our support, and all wars of aggression should be opposed.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/President of Ukraine, cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under CC BY-SA 4.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The History of Sanctions

    Nicholas Mulder’s account of the modern economic sanctions regime sheds new light on an era of extreme destabilization and destruction.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  • Warning: Human rights defenders in Ukraine and in exile will be danger

    Isabel Linzer and Yana Gorokhovskaia in Just Security of 3 March 2022 state that “Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Imperils Human Rights Defenders and Political Exiles“:

    It is not just human rights defenders in Russia who are at risk [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/02/27/anti-war-human-rights-defenders-in-russia/] but (soon?) also those based in Ukraine or exile:

    .. while general humanitarian aid is essential to accommodate the expected millions fleeing the conflict, Ukraine’s allies should also provide immediate, strategic support to individuals who may be targeted for reprisals by Russian authorities, specifically human rights defenders, journalists, as well as political exiles from authoritarian states. As intelligence reports have suggested, Ukrainian and foreign activists – democracy’s vocal defenders – may be singled out for attacks by Russia.

    As of 2021, Freedom House documented over thirty physical acts of transnational repression – attempts to silence dissent beyond its borders through physical violence or other coercion – committed by Russia since 2014. Increasingly, Russian authorities have also helped other repressive States, including Belarus, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan, reach political activists and dissidents who reside in Russia. Among other dangers, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine threatens to extend the reach of these authoritarian practices and endanger civil society activists who had previously found safe haven in Ukraine.

    Ukraine’s civil society is exceptionally vibrant. Widespread civic mobilization was crucial during both the Orange Revolution in 2005 and the Maidan Revolution in 2014. A dozen activists who participated in protests in 2014 were elected to the Rada (Ukraine’s parliament) and others joined regional and local councils around the country. Ukrainian civil society was instrumental in providing military supplies to the under-resourced Ukrainian army when Russian-backed forces began an armed conflict in the east of the county in 2014. Since then, non-governmental groups have worked hard to help internally displaced people including through programs that support young people and women. Though it has faced challenges, today Ukraine’s civic sector represents a wide range of causes and identities, including free expression, anti-corruption, and LGBT+ rights. Many of these same civic causes have been under attack in Russia for years.

    Last week, reporting revealed that U.S. intelligence was aware of lists, drafted by the Russian government, of people in Ukraine who would be arrested or assassinated following the invasion. Russian and Belarusian dissidents, journalists, activists, religious and ethnic minorities, and LGBTQI+ individuals were identified as potential targets, and the U.S. government has reportedly warned individuals of the threats against them. Russian President Vladimir Putin seemed to confirm these chilling reports when he declared the invasion on Feb. 24, saying, “We will hand over everyone who committed bloody crimes against civilians, including Russian citizens, to court,” in a thinly-veiled threat to people his government broadly defines as opposition.

    In addition to Ukrainian activists, the country is also home to many foreign activists. Ease of entry facilitated by Ukraine’s visa-free entry regime for citizens of dozens of countries makes it a natural refuge for people escaping repressive regimes and a hub of diaspora activism. Now, Ukraine’s uniquely inclusive civil society landscape may provide the Kremlin with an abundance of individuals it views as politically threatening to target for repression.

    These are credible threats. …

    Russia not only engages in transnational repression directly. It also helps other States to pursue their dissidents within its sphere of control.  Wherever the Russian government controls territory, activists, members of civil society, and political dissidents are at risk. Following a mass protest movement in response to fraudulent elections, Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko undertook an aggressive campaign to pursue opponents within Belarus and abroad, relying especially on Russian assistance. The world was stunned when Minsk forced the landing of a RyanAir flight to arrest a dissident journalist on board, but Belarus has also extracted dozens of its citizens from Russian territory, with the full cooperation of Russian authorities. Many had been living in Russia for years and had done little except post messages of support for pro-democracy protests in their home country. Ukraine today is home to thousands of Belarusians who fled Minsk’s brutal repression. Their safety has been stripped from them by the invasion. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/11/05/joint-statement-on-the-sentencing-of-two-members-of-human-rights-group-viasna-in-belarus/

    Protecting civilians, and especially human rights defenders both Ukrainian and foreign, is one of the most urgent non-military actions Ukraine’s allies can take. They should coordinate to warn and, when desired by the individuals in question, extract and resettle vulnerable individuals. Family members of potential Russian targets should also be relocated, to prevent them becoming leverage points used against those who are evacuated. Given the Kremlin’s track record of transnational repression across Europe, at-risk individuals should be given the option of swift relocation to geographically distant countries, like the United States, rather than remaining in border States where they are more vulnerable. Civil society organizations in a position to offer digital security training and socio-psychological assistance to members of civil society should be given ample funding to do this work…

    Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Imperils Human Rights Defenders and Political Exiles

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • 10 Questions about Russia, Ukraine and “World War III”

    1. Wouldn’t a new “Cold War” simply work wonders for Corporate America and keep that upward transfer of wealth thing going strong?

    2. Could it be that the Russian Army is moving so “slowly” because it has no interest in destroying Ukraine but rather in transforming it into an intact puppet state?

    3. Did you know that the Ukrainian government broke the Minsk Protocol first by bombing the Donbass region?

    4. Did you know there’s such a thing as the Minsk Protocol or Donbass region?5. Are you aware that Ukraine belongs to that list of “major countries with abounding mineral resources” and now that you know, do you still think this is about “democracy” and “sovereignty”?

    6. Since Germany signed a huge deal to get natural gas from Russia via the Nord Stream pipeline, do you think it’s possible the U.S. (government and corporations) goaded Putin into an invasion that has led to Germany pulling out of the pipeline deal and thus not getting too cozy with the Russians and being more likely to purchase fracked U.S. gas?

    7. Could it be that Ukraine is randomly arming civilians and forcibly conscripting all men because dead Ukrainian civilians make for a great photo op to manipulate ignorant, uninformed Westerners?

    8. How hard did you laugh (or cry) when you heard Justin Trudeau speak of Canada’s pledge to “defend democracy”?

    9. People should always be outraged by the invasion of any sovereign nation but how “sovereign” and “independent” is a state if it was created by the U.S. overthrow of an elected leader in 2014?

    10. Do you actually believe that changing your Facebook profile picture or lighting the Empire State Building in the colors of the Ukrainian flag do anything other than reinforce the propaganda as the powers-that-shouldn’t-be attempt to smoothly transition from fake COVID fear to fake World World III fear?

    Keep yer guard up…

    The post 10 Questions about Russia, Ukraine and “World War III” first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Ukraine War and the “Good” Refugee

    These people are not people we are used to… these people are Europeans.

    — Kiril Petkov, Bulgarian Prime Minister, Associated Press, March 1, 2022

    In the history of accepting refugees, countries have shown more than an erratic streak.  Universal human characteristics have often been overlooked in favour of the particular: race, cultural habits, religion.  Even immigration nations, such as the United States and Australia, have had their xenophobic twists and turns on the issue of who to accept, be they victims of pogroms, war crimes, genocide, or famine.

    The Russian attack on Ukraine has already produced refugees in the hundreds of thousands.  By March 2, with the war one week old, 874,000 people were estimated to have left Ukraine.  The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that up to four million may leave, while the European Union adds a further three million to the figure.

    This is already producing a growing capital of hypocrisy on the part of receiving states who have shown deep reluctance in accepting refugees of other backgrounds from other conflicts.  Tellingly, some of these conflicts have also been the noxious fruit of campaigns or interventions waged by Western states.

    Offers of generosity – least to fair Ukrainians – are everywhere.  Poland, which will be a major recipient and country of passage for many Ukrainians, is showing ample consideration to the arrivals as they make their way across the border.  They find themselves playing moral priests of salvation.

    A report from the UNHCR notes facilities at various border crossings stocked with “food, water, clothes, sleeping bags, shoes, blankets, nappies and sanitary products for people arriving with only what they can carry.”  Anna Dąbrowska, head of Homo Faber, notes the sentiment.  “Our two peoples have always had close relations… Of course, we help our neighbours!”

    Such solidarity has been selective. Those of African and Middle Eastern background have faced rather different treatment at the border – if and when they have gotten there.  The number of accounts of obstructions and violence both within Ukraine and at the border, are growing.

    Polish authorities have also been accused of explicitly targeting African students by refusing them entry in preference for Ukrainians, though the Polish Ambassador to the UN told the General Assembly on February 28 that this was “a complete lie and a terrible insult to us.”  According to Krzysztof Szczerski, as many as 125 nationalities have been admitted into Poland from Ukraine.

    The sceptics have every reason to be doubtful.  Only last year, Minister of the Interior Mariusz Kamiński, and the National Defence Minister, Mariusz Błaszczak, gave a very different impression of welcome, suggesting that refugees of swarthier disposition – those from the Middle East, in particular – were immoral types tending towards bestiality.  Such arrivals were also accused of being weapons used by the Lukashenko regime in Belarus as part of a program of “hybrid warfare”.  President Adrzej Duda also signed a bill into law to construct what has been described as “a high-tech barrier on the border with Belarus to guard against an influx of irregular migrants.”

    It’s all well to accuse the Russians of disinformation, but Polish authorities have not been averse to sowing their own sordid variants, targeting vulnerable arrivals and demonising them in the process.  In 2021, those fleeing Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Yemen were left stranded by their hundreds in the freezing woods along the Polish-Belarusian border.  Eight individuals perished.

    In this cruel farce of inhumanity, the European Union, along with Poland and the Baltic States, notably Lithuania, must shoulder the blame.  The President of the European Council, Charles Michel, has been openly calling Lukashenko’s fashioning of irregular arrivals as “a hybrid attack, a brutal attack, a violent attack and a shameful attack.” Doing so makes it easier to care less.

    Globally, the war in Ukraine is now giving countries a chance to be very moral to the right type of refugee.  They are fleeing the ravages and viciousness of the Russian Bear, the bully of history; this is an opportunity to show more accommodating colours.  If nothing else, it also provides a distracting cover for the more brutal policies used against other, less desirable irregular arrivals.

    This is a strategy that is working, with media outlets such as USA Today running amnesiac pieces claiming that Ukrainian families, in fighting “Putin’s murderous regime”, were engaged in a “battle … for life and death; there is no time for debates about political correctness.”

    Countries in Western Europe are also showing a different face to those fleeing Ukraine.  The UK, which is seeking to adopt an Australian version of refugee processing – the use of distant offshore islands and third countries, lengthy detention spells and the frustrating of asylum claims – has now opened arms for 200,000 Ukrainian refugees.

    Distant Australia, whose participation in the illegal war against Iraq which produced refugees and asylum seekers that would eventually head towards the antipodes, is now offering to accept a higher intake of refugees from Ukraine and “fast track” their applications.  The same politicians speak approvingly of a system that imprisons asylum seekers and refugees indefinitely in Pacific outposts, promising to never resettle them in Australia.  The subtext here is that those sorts – the Behrouz Boochani-types – deserve it.

    In the words of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC), “The Morrison Government has presided over the dismantling of Australia’s refugee intake, leaving Australia unable to adequately respond to emergencies”, with 2022 “marking the lowest refugee intake in nearly 50 years.”  True, the global pandemic did not aid matters, but COVID-19 did little in terms of seeing a precipitous decline in refugee places.  Australia’s refugee intake cap was lowered from 18,750 persons in 2018-2019 to 13,750 in 2020-2021.

    The reduction of such places has taken place despite Canberra’s role in a range of conflicts that have fed the global refugee crisis.  Australia’s failure in Afghanistan, and its imperilling of hundreds of local translators and security personnel, only saw a half-hearted effort in opening the doors.  The effort was characterised by incompetence and poorly deployed resources.

    The grim reality in refugee politics is that governments always make choices and show preferences.  “Talk of moving some applications ‘to the top of the pile’ pits the most vulnerable against each other,” opines the critical founder of the ASRC, Kon Karapanagiotidis. “This is a moral aberration and completely out of step with the Australian public.”

    Sadly, the good people at the ASRC are misreading public sentiment.  This is an election year; accepting Ukrainian refugees will be seen as good politics, just as indefinitely detaining boat arrivals from impoverished and war-ravaged lands – many Muslim majority states affected by the policies of Western states – will continue to be praised.

    The post The Ukraine War and the “Good” Refugee first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Overton Window Is Being Shoved Toward Warmongering Extremism

    Listen to a reading of this article:

    ❖

    A substitute teacher at an Arlington, Virginia middle school has been suspended for teaching an insufficiently one-sided perspective on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Apparently one of the students recorded the lesson and showed it to their parents who complained to the school.

    This happens as RT America shuts its doors following an astonishingly aggressive censorship campaign against Russia-backed media outlets throughout the western world.

    The virulent post-9/11-like hysteria about Russia that has been promoted by one-sided mass media reporting on the war, and by the five years of fact-free conspiracy mongering which preceded it, has created an environment where you’ll get shouted down on social media for voicing any opinion about this conflict apart from saying Putin invaded because he is evil and hates freedom. Voices calling for diplomacy, de-escalation and detente are being systematically drowned out.

    Meanwhile you’ve got massively influential pundits like Sean Hannity calling for a direct NATO airstrike on a Russian military convoy in Ukraine, without the slightest risk of losing his immense platform for advocating a move that would probably lead to a very fast, very radioactive third world war.

    “You know, if we can see on satellite imagery where the convoy is, I don’t know, maybe some smart country, maybe NATO might take some of their fighter jets, or maybe they can use some drone strikes and take out the whole damn convoy,” Hannity said on Premiere Radio Networks’ The Sean Hannity Show on Wednesday. “And then nobody takes credit for it, so then Putin won’t know who to hit back.”

    Hannity hastily adds that he’s “not talking about nuclear war,” but then adds a “but” which completely contradicts him.

    “But at what point is this gonna end?” Hannity asks. “Cuz nobody did anything after Georgia was taken in ’08, nobody cared about Crimea being annexed in 2014.”

    On the other side of illusory US partisan divide you’ve got MSNBC pundits like Richard Engel and Clint Watts also calling for direct hot war with Russia.

    “Perhaps the biggest risk-calculation/moral dilemma of the war so far,” tweeted Engel on Monday. “A massive Russian convoy is about 30 miles from Kyiv. The US/NATO could likely destroy it. But that would be direct involvement against Russia and risk, everything. Does the West watch in silence as it rolls?”

    “Strangest thing – entire world watching a massive Russian armor formation plow towards Kyiv, we cheer on Ukraine, but we’re holding ourselves back,” tweeted Watts less than two hours later. “NATO Air Force could end this in 48 hrs. Understand handwringing about what Putin would do, but we can see what’s coming.”

    “Putin knows stop the West throw ‘nuclear’ into discussion and we’ll come to a stop, but the world should not be held hostage to a killer of societies, the west has nuclear weapons too, and Putin’s track record is clear, every war he wins is followed by another war,” Watts added.

    You’ve also got increasingly bold calls for no-fly zones and close air support from the western political/media class, which would also mean hot war with Russia.

    Now, theoretically, the actual decision-makers of the imperial war machine know better than to initiate a hot war with Russia because it would likely lead to an unthinkable chain of events in which everyone loses. But what these insane Strangelovian calls for nuclear armageddon do, even if they never come to fruition, is push the acceptable spectrum of debate far toward the most hawkish extremes possible.

    When you’ve got the hawks screaming that Putin is Hitler and calling for airstrikes on the Russian military while the doves are using extremely mitigated both-sides language and taking great pains to forcefully condemn Putin to avoid being shouted down and censored, what you wind up with is a spectrum of debate that has been pulled so far toward insanity that the “moderate” position becomes support for unprecedented acts of economic warfare and funding a brutal insurgency in Ukraine.

    As a result, advocating for western powers to initiate de-escalation, diplomacy and detente becomes an extremist position, comparable to or worse than advocating for hot war with a nuclear superpower. In reality it’s the obvious moderate, sane position on the table, but taking that position unequivocally would be disastrous for the career of any mainstream politician or pundit in today’s environment, because the spectrum of debate has been pulled so far toward hawkish brinkmanship.

    Noam Chomsky outlined this problem clearly when he said, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”

    And that’s exactly what we are seeing here. Look at this soup-brained take by comedian Tim Dillon, for example:

    Ideally this kind of insane extremist talk would get you chased out of every town and forced to live alone in a cave eating bats, but because the Overton window of acceptable debate has been dragged so far away from its center, people think it’s a moderate, heterodox position. Dovish, even.

    This spectrum of debate has been further shoved away from moderation with the help of pseudo-left narrative managers like  George Monbiot and The Intercept, who have both published obnoxious finger-wagging articles scolding leftists who’ve been insufficiently servile to the US/NATO line on Ukraine. As though there’s somehow not enough promotion of the State Department narrative on this subject by every single one of the most powerful governments and media institutions in the entire western world, rather than far, far too much.

    The worst people in the world have their foot on the accelerator driving us toward escalations that should terrify anyone with gray matter between their ears, while those who want to tap the breaks get their foot immediately slapped away. This is not leading good places. And we know from experience how profoundly unwise the power structure overseeing all this can be.

    Treasure each moment, my lovelies.

    _____________________________

    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.

  • Invasion of Ukraine a ‘turning point’ for Putin’s Russia

    Russia expert Tony Wood told Federico Fuentes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine represents “a turning point” for his regime.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • ACTION ALERT: NBC Off by 18 Years on US’s Last Use of Cluster Bombs

     

    NBC: Ukraine's Major Cities Under Siege

    NBC Nightly News (2/28/22) depicts cluster bombs dropped by Russia on Ukraine, which it falsely claimed have not been used by the United States since 1991.

    NBC Nightly News (2/28/22) falsely reported that the United States has not used cluster bombs since 1991—when it fact the US has employed the weapons as recently at 2009, and has even more recently sold them to allied countries that have dropped them.

    Cluster bombs are munitions that include numerous small explosive devices that land separately; the bomblets frequently explode long after they land, with devastating effects on civilians.

    In the report, NBC correspondent Matt Bradley described possible war crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine, and noted that Russia appears to be using cluster bombs there. After quoting Steve Goose of Human Rights Watch (“We think that cluster munitions should never be used at all”), Bradley added:

    They’re banned by 110 countries, though not by Russia or the US. Still, the US hasn’t used them since the first Gulf War, over 30 years ago. They’re used by the Russians in Ukraine, another sign of this war’s growing savagery.

    This claim is inaccurate. Since the 1990–91 Gulf War, the US has dropped cluster bombs on Bosnia (1995), Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001–02) and Iraq (2003), according to the Landmine & Cluster Munition Monitor. The last reported US use of cluster munitions was against Yemen in 2009. (Before the Gulf War, the US used cluster bombs in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Grenada, Lebanon, Libya and Iran.)

    Moreover, the US has refused to join the 123 countries that have signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions that bans the use, production, transfer or stockpiling of these weapons. In 2017, the Trump administration canceled a plan to end the US military’s use of most cluster munitions, saying they are a “vital military capability” (Washington Post, 11/30/17). In 2019, the US abstained from a UN vote endorsing the ban.

    The US military was buying cluster bombs until 2007, and US armsmakers were building them for foreign sale as late as 2016. According to a 2015 Human Rights Watch report (5/3/15), credible evidence indicated that the Saudi-led coalition used US-made and -supplied cluster munitions in airstrikes against Houthi forces in Yemen.

    FAIR Action Alert: NYT Gives a False Pass to US on Cluster Bomb Sales

    The New York Times (9/3/15) corrected the record on US cluster bomb sales in response to this 2015 FAIR Action Alert (9/3/15).

    In 2015, following a FAIR Action Alert (9/3/15), the New York Times corrected a report that inaccurately claimed that the US was following the provisions of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, despite manufacturing and selling them.

    Because these weapons release smaller bombs, they can’t be fired precisely and put civilians at a devastating risk. Additionally, when the smaller bomblets don’t detonate, they can pose postwar risk to civilians as de facto landmines. A 2003 Human Rights Watch report (3/03) estimated 14% of these bomblets are “duds” that put civilians at a grave risk.

    Leftover bombs the US dropped during the Vietnam War in Laos are still being removed by humanitarian groups. The HALO Trust reports that about 20,000 people—40% of them children—have been killed or injured by dormant cluster bombs or other unexploded items since the war ended.

    NBC described Russia’s use of these bombs as “savagery”—a word corporate media rarely if ever applied to the US’s use of these same weapons. In 2003, US TV news did no in-depth reporting on the US’s use of cluster bombs during the Iraq War (FAIR.org, 5/6/03). In 2011, FAIR (4/16/11) criticized the New York Times (4/15/11) for describing cluster bombs used by Libya’s Col. Moammar Gadhafi as “indiscriminate weapons” that “place civilians at grave risk,” while at the same time falsely claiming that the US only used them “in battlefield situations.”

    ACTION ALERT:

    Please tell NBC to correct its misstatement that the US hasn’t used cluster bombs since 1991.

    CONTACT:

    You can send messages to NBC Nightly News at nightly@nbcuni.com (or via Twitter: @NBCNightlyNews).

     

    Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your message in the comments thread of this post.

     

    The post ACTION ALERT: NBC Off by 18 Years on US’s Last Use of Cluster Bombs appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • US Must Not Use Ukrainians as a Foreign Policy “Tool,” Sanders Adviser Says

    While President Biden has ruled out sending troops into Ukraine, the U.S. is directly aiding Ukraine militarily and has imposed unprecedented sanctions on Russia amounting to what some have called “economic warfare.” We look at Biden’s response with Senator Bernie Sanders’s foreign policy adviser Matt Duss, who is also Ukrainian American. He says the U.S. should continue to exhaust all diplomatic avenues in order to stop violence in Ukraine. Duss also details the U.S. role in setting the stage for Putin’s oligarchical government and says the U.S. must not use “Ukrainians as a tool for our foreign policy and our conflict with Russia.”

    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, with Nermeen Shaikh.

    As the Russian invasion of Ukraine enters its second week, we turn now to look at how the Biden administration is responding to the crisis. Biden has repeatedly condemned Russia’s invasion and opposed unprecedented sanctions on Russia in what some have described as a form of “economic warfare.” While President Biden has ruled out sending troops into Ukraine, the U.S. is directly aiding Ukraine militarily. CNN is reporting the U.S. has recently delivered hundreds of Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to Ukraine for the first time. President Biden took questions outside the White House Wednesday.

    REPORTER 1: Do you support permanent U.S. military presence in Poland and other Eastern European countries now, after what’s happening in Ukraine?

    PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: We’ve always been there. We’ve always been in all the NATO countries.

    REPORTER 1: I’m talking about permanent bases.

    PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: No, that’s a decision for NATO to make.

    REPORTER 2: Do you think that —

    REPORTER 3: Mr. President, what did you mean when you said —

    REPORTER 4: Will you consider getting rid of vaccine mandates?

    PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I’m sorry.

    REPORTER 5: Mr. President, are you considering banning Russian oil imports?

    PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Nothing is off the table.

    AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined now by Matt Duss, foreign policy adviser for Senator Bernie Sanders. He’s also a Ukrainian American. His father was born in Germany in a displaced persons camp after World War II after his family fled Ukraine.

    Matt Duss, welcome to Democracy Now! Can respond, first of all, just to the overall situation, then particularly to the U.S. response and what needs to be done?

    MATT DUSS: Well, I mean, I think your previous guests described the horrifying situation in Ukraine right now, which is just — we’ve just passed over a week of this Russian invasion. We’re seeing more shelling of Ukrainian cities. And this is from — you know, Putin justified this invasion claiming that he was there to liberate Russians and Ukrainians from a fascist government. We don’t need to tick through all the various justifications he has given, but I think Ukrainians, obviously, knew that was false, but I think Russian soldiers themselves now should be questioning whether that’s false.

    As for the U.S. response, I think we’ve seen, you know, even in the months and certainly the weeks leading up to the invasion, a very energetic diplomatic response from the United States to work with allies in Europe, NATO allies, but not only NATO allies, with allies in Asia, to prepare a sanctions response. I think that sanctions response has been extremely aggressive. It’s become not just sanctions on Putin and his government and oligarchs around Putin, but over the week we saw serious sanctions cutting off a number of banks from the SWIFT system, as your previous guest mentioned, but also effectively blocking sanctions on the central bank of Russia. So, these are very, very serious measures, and I think we’ll have to watch now how Putin decides to respond.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Matt, as you know, many have called for more — many in Ukraine have called for, minimally, more punitive sanctions, including an embargo on oil and gas exports. Europe is, of course, dependent for most of its gas and oil — 40 and 30%, respectively — from Russia. And Russia’s revenues, of course, also come from the sale of these oil and gas reserves. Could you talk about whether you think that’s likely, and, even if these sanctions are imposed, whether that is likely to deter Russia?

    MATT DUSS: Right. No, I think there are two things here. One, that is it likely? And I want to say it’s very possible, although that is something that is going to hit European countries much, much harder, and, frankly, it’s going to hit the United States much harder. And, you know, it’s going to raise the price of gas. It’s going to raise the price of goods. That’s certainly not an argument against it. I mean, I think if we are serious about imposing costs on the Russian government and on Vladimir Putin, that is, as President Biden said in the press remarks that you just played, everything is on the table. I think it also gets at the importance, ultimately — and this is something my boss, Senator Sanders, has talked about — to use this moment to shift more aggressively to green energy and deny these authoritarian regimes, not just Putin but a broader set of petrostates, the revenues they require to rule.

    But getting to the second point: How does this impact Putin’s calculation, the Russian government’s calculation? That is a real — you know, that’s a question I have, as well. I think Putin has, unfortunately, laid out a number of very, very expansive goals and has not really left himself — I mean, it’s hard to see how he would climb down from the very expansive agenda he’s laid out. Many of your listeners are probably aware of the speech that he gave last week on the eve of the invasion, where he kind of laid out his theory that Ukraine is not a real country and this is part of the kind of Russian imperium, as he defines it. You know, and he would not be the first leader to walk back from some very wild — you know, this kind of wild agenda. But as of right now, it’s unclear to me how he might do that.

    And we should also be very mindful of the impact that these sanctions are going to make, not just on the regime but on Russian working people themselves. This is, I think, a broader concern that progressives have about these kinds of sanctions tools, because if the theory of the case is that you will put pressure on the people who will, in turn, put pressure on their rulers, it’s not quite clear how exactly that works when you’re dealing with governments that are simply not responsive to the will of their people, as is the case in Russia.

    AMY GOODMAN: Matt, I wanted to ask you about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comments on MSNBC Monday, talking about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    HILLARY CLINTON: Remember, the Russians invaded Afghanistan back in 1980. And although no country went in, they certainly had a lot of countries supplying arms and advice and even some advisers to those who were recruited to fight Russia. It didn’t end well for the Russians. There were other unintended consequences, as we know. But the fact is that a very motivated and then funded and armed insurgency basically drove the Russians out of Afghanistan. … I think that is the model that people are now looking toward.

    AMY GOODMAN: “Unintended consequences,” Matt Duss?

    MATT DUSS: Yeah.

    AMY GOODMAN: Again, that’s the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

    MATT DUSS: Yeah, I would just respond to that by saying it didn’t end well for the Russians; it really didn’t end well for anyone, least of all the people of Afghanistan themselves. So, I certainly understand this may — you know, this invasion may backfire, ultimately, on Putin and on the Russian government, but I think we should not see this in terms simply of using the Ukrainians as a tool of our foreign policy and our conflict with Russia. I think the goal needs to be to end this fighting as quickly as we possibly can, to use every diplomatic lever we can to end this fighting. I think that should be our focus.

    AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to quickly ask you about oligarchs. You referred to the Russian oligarchs. But you talk about the oligarchs on both sides.

    MATT DUSS: Mm-hmm, yeah, that’s right. I mean, what is an oligarch? It’s a very wealthy and politically influential person, just in its broadest definition. Certainly, there is a set of oligarchs that have a lot of influence in Russia. And let’s understand, one of the reasons why these oligarchs do have such power and wealth and influence is in large part because of the kind of neoliberal shock therapy that was applied to Russia in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, backed often by U.S. economists, who effectively auctioned off — who urged Russia to auction off the people’s property, and it was gathered up by these oligarchs for their own wealth. And Putin — you know, this led to such an economic collapse and economic hardship that this, in turn, enabled the rise of a strongman like Putin, who gathered the oligarchs under his own control.

    And this is certainly not the first time the United States has run this scam. Let’s understand, this kind of shock therapy has been applied in a number of countries around the world and has produced similar authoritarian outcomes. Now, having said that, I think we also have — you know, in our political system, while it is certainly not the same as Russia’s, to say the least, we have a problem here of large concentrations of wealth and the political influence that that can buy in our system.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: Matt, I’d like to conclude by asking you about what you imagine the trajectory of this conflict might be. I mean, what Hillary Clinton said about unintended consequences and, of course, also about the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan by — the Soviets at the time in Afghanistan is wrong. There are people who are expecting that this may turn out the same way, because even though the Americans and the Europeans have ruled out a no-fly zone, they are flooding Ukraine with weapons. And Russia, Putin doesn’t show any indication of backing down, because, as you pointed out, it’s not clear how he would save face or, indeed, how at this point the Russians can extract themselves. What do you think a resolution would look like? And do you think it’s likely?

    MATT DUSS: Yeah, well, hopefully — I mean, the goal here, whether one agrees with it or not, I would say that the Biden administration’s approach here has been fairly consistent for some time, which is to make clear to Putin that this invasion will be much more costly than he might have imagined. And I certainly think that Putin is seeing that right now, both in terms of the strength and the breadth of the sanctions that have been applied on Russia, with the U.S. working with its allies around the world, but also in terms of the Ukrainian resistance. I think some of the casualties that you read out earlier, these are pretty remarkable. I think there are some estimates that put the number of Russian troops killed at around 7,000. We should be cautious about those numbers right now. But let’s just understand, 7,000 would be as many troops as the U.S. lost in Afghanistan and Iraq, almost combined, in nearly 20 years.

    So, in terms — so, the logic here is, you know, understanding that the Ukrainians themselves are resisting the Russian invasion. I think they have a right to do so, certainly. I think the goal should continue to be, or our focus should continue to be: What are the steps that end this fighting quickest, that continue to support diplomacy? Yes, the Ukrainians are agreeing to meet once again with the Russians, as you noted, on the Belarus border to find some diplomatic resolution here that ends the fighting. But, to be very honest, as I said earlier, given the aims that Putin has laid out, it’s unclear to me if he is ready to take that offramp. So, for the time being, unfortunately — and it’s enormously painful to say this — but it’s hard for me to see how this stops anytime soon.

    AMY GOODMAN: Matt Duss, we want to thank you so much for being with us, foreign policy adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders. Matt Duss is a Ukrainian American.

    Coming up, could Russia’s war in Ukraine spark a nuclear catastrophe? Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned if a Third World War is to take place, it’ll be nuclear. Stay with us.

    [break]

    AMY GOODMAN: “Gonna Be an Engineer” by Peggy Seeger. It is Women’s History Month.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Ukraine Exposes White Supremacist Foreign Policy

    The quiet part is now being spoken out loud. We are told that Ukrainians are more deserving of concern because they are Europeans. An NBC reporter was asked why Poland was willing to admit Ukrainians even as it turned away other refugees. “Just to put it bluntly, these are not refugees from Syria, these are refugees from neighboring Ukraine. That, quite frankly, is part of it. These are Christians, they are white, they’re … um… very similar to the people that live in Poland.”

    The post Ukraine Exposes White Supremacist Foreign Policy appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Tears For Ukraine, Sanctions For Russia, Yawns For Yemen, Arms For Saudis

    “We’re brutally bombed every day. So why doesn’t the Western world care like it does about Ukraine?!!… Is it because we don’t have blonde hair and blue eyes like Ukrainians?”  Ahmed Tamri, a Yemeni father of four, asked with furrowed brows about the outpouring of international support and media coverage of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the lack of such a reaction to the war in Yemen.

    The post Tears For Ukraine, Sanctions For Russia, Yawns For Yemen, Arms For Saudis appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Zelenskiy: Talks With Russia Needed To Stop The Killing But Compromise Has Limits


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • 1 Million People Have Fled Ukraine in the Past Week, UN Says

    Ukrainian refugees arrive at the railway station in Przemyśl, Poland, on March 3, 2022.

    The United Nations Refugee Agency said late Wednesday that Russia’s deadly assault on Ukraine has forced more than a million people to flee the country in just a week, a humanitarian crisis that the organization warned will get exponentially worse if the war continues.

    “In just seven days, one million people have fled Ukraine, uprooted by this senseless war,” Filippo Grandi, the U.N. high commissioner for refugees, said in a statement. “I have worked in refugee emergencies for almost 40 years, and rarely have I seen an exodus as rapid as this one. Hour by hour, minute by minute, more people are fleeing the terrifying reality of violence. Countless have been displaced inside the country.”

    “And unless there is an immediate end to the conflict, millions more are likely to be forced to flee Ukraine,” added Grandi. “International solidarity has been heartwarming. But nothing — nothing — can replace the need for the guns to be silenced; for dialogue and diplomacy to succeed. Peace is the only way to halt this tragedy.”

    The agency’s stark assessment of the crisis in Ukraine came as Russia ramped up its attack on the country, seizing control of a major port city, hammering densely populated areas with shelling and airstrikes, and continuing its advance on the capital Kyiv. Russian bombs and artillery fire have reportedly damaged and destroyed Ukrainian schools, residential and administrative buildings, and hospitals.

    The U.N. human rights office said Wednesday that through March 1, at least 227 civilians were killed and more than 500 were injured in Russia’s invasion, which shows no signs of abating despite the West’s intensifying financial sanctions targeting aspects of Russia’s economy as well as the country’s political leaders and oligarchs.

    “In the cities and streets of Ukraine today, innocent civilians are bearing witness to our Age of Impunity,” David Miliband, president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee (IRC), said Wednesday. “The fact that 1 million refugees have already been forced to flee is a grim testament to barbaric military tactics taking aim at homes and hospitals. The IRC is calling on the Russian government to immediately cease all violations of the laws of war to spare additional harm to civilians and avoid further displacement.”

    “As war rages across Ukraine and the world bears witness to a displacement crisis at a scale rarely seen in history,” Miliband continued, “it is urgent that Europe not just offer protection to Ukrainian nationals who have visa-free access to the E.U., but to also grant non-discriminatory pathways to safety to people of all citizenship and nationalities facing grave dangers inside Ukraine.”

    Human Rights Watch echoed that sentiment in a statement earlier this week, declaring that it is “vitally important for all countries neighboring Ukraine to allow everyone to enter with a minimum of bureaucratic procedures.” The group also pointed with alarm to reports that Africans and other foreign nationals have faced racist abuse and discrimination from authorities as they’ve attempted to escape violence in Ukraine.

    “This is a landmark moment for Europe, and an opportunity for the European Union to remedy the wrongs of the past and rise to the occasion with genuine compassion and solidarity,” said Judith Sunderland, associate Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “That requires a truly collective commitment to keeping the door and our hearts open to everyone fleeing Ukraine.”

    On Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) argued in an interview that the United States should join European countries in welcoming Ukrainian refugees.

    “The world is watching, and many immigrants and refugees are watching,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “How the world treats Ukraine and Ukrainian refugees should be how we are treating all refugees in the United States.”

    “We really need to make sure that, when we talk about accepting refugees, that we are meaning it, for everybody, no matter where you come from,” the New York Democrat added.

    During a press briefing last week, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters that the Biden administration is “working in close lockstep with our European counterparts about what the needs are and how to help, from our end, meet those needs.”

    “Our assessment is that the majority of refugees will want to go to neighboring countries in Europe, many of which have already conveyed publicly that they will accept any refugee who needs a home, whether it’s Poland or Germany, and there are probably others who have made those comments,” Psaki added. “That certainly means an openness to accepting refugees from Ukraine but also making sure that all of these neighboring countries who are willing to welcome these refugees, you know, have our support in that effort.”

    Psaki declined to provide an “anticipated number” of Ukrainian refugees that the Biden administration would be ready to accept.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • What’s Gone Wrong For Russia? A Former Top NATO General Explains


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Sanders Adviser Matt Duss on Ending Ukraine Crisis & How U.S. Shock Therapy in Russia Enabled Putin


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Spotify Purges Dissident Voices In Latest Censorship Escalation

    Listen to a reading of this article:

    ❖

    Multiple American podcasters who speak critically of the political status quo in their country are reporting that their channels have been shut down as the censorship campaign against Russia-backed media continues to escalate. These include Moment of Clarity with Lee Camp, The Politics of Survival with Tara Reade, and By Any Means Necessary on Radio Sputnik.

    “My podcast ‘Moment of Clarity’ has been removed from Spotify,” Camp tweeted Wednesday. “Let it be known – you can do anti-women, anti-trans or racist content on Spotify but you can’t be anti-war. That’s not allowed.”

    “Without explanation or notice, Spotify has removed By Any Means Necessary from their platform, but we’re not going anywhere!” said the program’s Twitter account. “There’s a clear effort in motion to suppress anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist voices, join us in the fight by spreading the word!”

    “You can still find my podcast on other platforms even though Spotify inexplicably removed it,” tweeted Reade.

    This comes as Spotify closes its office in Russia in response to the invasion of Ukraine.

    It is true that these podcasters have been platformed by Russian state-sponsored media. It is also true that their grievances against their government are authentic, legitimate, and frequently excellent, as you can easily ascertain by listening to them for yourself. It’s easy to tell that these are nothing other than Americans who know about the malfeasance of their government and its allies and want to talk about it, and accepted a platform from the only place that would let them speak.

    There’s this bizarre, stupid notion people have accepted that socialist and antiwar voices should never allow Russian media to platform them, and should instead wait until they are given a large platform by western mainstream media, and keep waiting, and waiting, and just keep on waiting until we all die in a nuclear holocaust. Like it’s your job to help the oligarchic empire marginalize and silence you, even when you know you’re right and you’re speaking the truth. Like you’re obligated to collaborate with their narrative management.

    If you have something important to say and you know it’s a true and helpful message, then it doesn’t matter if it’s the Russian government who’s giving you your platform or anyone else, because the message itself is intrinsically valuable. Lee Camp did a great bit on this back in 2017 when people were beginning to shriek about the fact that his show Redacted Tonight is on RT America, mocking the idea that an American in America sharing his own ideas about America could somehow be a horrifying psychological weapon of the Russians.

    Unfortunately the link I have for it is on YouTube, which means that since it’s on RT’s channel you won’t be able to watch it if you’re in Europe and don’t have a VPN because the Google-owned video sharing platform is censoring it there. Here it is for everyone else:

    “It’s so backwards that I’m at the only network in all of US media that allows me to be anti-war. And for doing that, I’m called a war apologist,” Camp told me. “It’s being used to eliminate the tiny bit of remaining left wing voices.”

    “It is another sign of the Western government failing when they have to silence voices with suppression and censorship,” Reade said of her de-platforming from Spotify.

    Russia doesn’t write the scripts for what these dissident voices say on their platforms, it just gives them a platform to say it. The kind of platform that has been bolted shut to them in western media, where only voices which support the capitalist imperialist status quo are permitted to have a seat. As Noam Chomsky famously told the BBC’s Andrew Marr, “I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t been sitting where you’re sitting.”

    Does Russia benefit in some way by amplifying western critics of oligarchy and empire? Sure, to an extent. It benefits from a greater awareness in the west of the horrific nature of western imperialism, of the lies we’re fed daily to hold the oligarchic empire together and feed its war machine, of the dangers of NATO expansionism and nuclear brinkmanship. But you know what? So does the rest of the world. The amplification of western voices who draw attention to those things is therefore an objectively good thing.

    But they’re being banned, while bloodthirsty psychopaths like Sean Hannity get to maintain immensely influential platforms while calling for a direct NATO military attack on Russian forces in Ukraine. That’s perfectly fine. It’s not like he did something unforgivable, like criticize the Pentagon.

    If they were telling the truth about Russia they wouldn’t be censoring Russia-backed media. One is reminded of the words of George RR Martin, “When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”

    It’s funny that such a big deal is being made about “Russian propaganda” hijacking people’s minds and manipulating them, because the institutions doing so are so close to admitting to one of the most underappreciated and overlooked aspects of western society: that we’re all being aggressively propagandized constantly by the mainstream news media, by Hollywood, and by Silicon Valley, and that it greatly influences the way we think, act, and vote. And the amount of wealth and energy going into brainwashing us in this way is many orders of magnitude greater than Russia’s, done with billions of dollars worth of immensely sophisticated perception management instead of just letting someone who hates war have a podcast.

    Really these escalations in censorship have never been about countering Russian propaganda, or fighting Covid misinformation, or any of the other excuses they’ve been churning out. It’s because the democratization of information poses a direct threat to ruling power structures, and their very existence depends on their ability to gain control.

    The “liberal democracies” of the western empire found a loophole in their own freedom of expression laws (the same laws they claim make them superior to overtly authoritarian regimes) in that they can outsource their censorship to government-tied monopolistic megacorporations. This allows the oligarchic empire to control the dominant narratives about what’s going on, thereby controlling how people think, act, and vote.

    Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. The powerful understand this. The people, for the most part, do not.  Humanity’s immensely exploded ability to share ideas and information could have been a tool of the people to advance positive change, but because of censorship, it’s just becoming a tool for the powerful to propagandize us faster and leaving us no ability to counter their propaganda.

    The story of humanity’s future (if humanity does indeed have a future beyond this tense standoff between nuclear superpowers) is a struggle between the impulse to see and to know and to make things conscious, against the impulse to keep things dark and unconscious and secret and distorted. The former desires free communication, free thought, and truth come what may, while the latter desires censorship, government secrecy, unconsciousness and control. One of those impulses will win out, and will ultimately result in either our extinction or the dawn of a healthy Earth.

    __________________________

    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.

  • Sanders Adviser Matt Duss on Ending Ukraine Crisis & How U.S. Shock Therapy in Russia Enabled Putin

    Seg2 duss biden split

    While President Biden has ruled out sending troops into Ukraine, the U.S. is directly aiding Ukraine militarily and has imposed unprecedented sanctions on Russia amounting to what some have called “economic warfare.” We look at Biden’s response with Senator Bernie Sanders’s foreign policy adviser Matt Duss, who is also Ukrainian American. He says the U.S. should continue to exhaust all diplomatic avenues in order to stop violence in Ukraine. Duss also details the U.S. role in setting the stage for Putin’s oligarchical government and says the U.S. must not use “Ukranians as a tool for our foreign policy and our conflict with Russia.”


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • ‘We are against the war, and won’t back down’

    Renfrey Clarke has translated an unsigned editorial that appeared on the Russian blogsite Rabkor (Worker Correspondent). Boris Kagarlitsky is the blog’s chief editor.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: Outing the Iraq War White Washers

    The guilty can be devious in concealing their crimes, and their role in them.  The greater the crime, the more devious the strategy of deception.  The breaking of international law, and the breaching of convention, is a field replete with such figures.

    Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has presented a particularly odious grouping, a good number of them neoconservatives, a chance to hand wash and dry before the idol of international law.  Law breakers become defenders of oracular force, arguing for the territorial integrity of States and the sanctity of borders, and the importance of the UN Charter.

    Reference can be made to Hitler’s invasions during the Second World War with a revoltingly casual disposition, a comparison that seeks to eclipse the role played by other gangster powers indifferent to the rule and letter of international comity.

    Speculation can be had that the man in the Kremlin has gone mad, if he was ever sane to begin with.  As Jonathan Cook writes with customary accuracy, western leaders tend to find it convenient “that every time another country defies the West’s projection of power, the western media can agree on one thing: that the foreign government in question is led by a madman, a psychopath or a megalomaniac.”

    It might well be said that the US-led Iraq invasion in 2003 was a product of its own mental disease, the product of ideological and evangelical madness, accompanied by a conviction that states could be forcibly pacified into a state of democracy.  Where there was no evidence of links between Baghdad and al-Qaeda operatives responsible for the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, it was simply made up.

    The most brazen fiction in this regard was the claim that Iraq had the means to fire weapons of mass destruction at Europe within 45 minutes.  Showing that farce sometimes precedes tragedy, that assessment was cobbled from a doctoral dissertation.

    When the invasion, and subsequent occupation of Iraq, led to sectarian murderousness and regional destabilisation, invigorating a new form of Islamicist zeal, the neocons were ready with their ragbag excuses.  In 2016, David Frum could offer the idiotic assessment that the “US-UK intervention offered Iraq a better future.  Whatever [the] West’s mistakes: sectarian war was a choice Iraqis made for themselves.” Such ungrateful savages.

    On Fox News Sunday, this nonsense was far away in the mind of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.  She could merely nod at the assertion by host Harris Faulkner that “when you invade a sovereign nation, that is a war crime… I mean, I think we’re at just a real, basic, basic point there.”

    Jaw-droppingly to those familiar with Rice’s war drumming in 2003, she agreed that the attack on Ukraine was “certainly against every principle of international law and international order.”  That explained why Washington was “throwing the book at [the Russians] now in terms of economic sanctions and punishments is also part of it.”  She also felt some comfort that Putin had “managed to unite NATO in ways that I didn’t think I would ever see again after the end of the Cold War.”

    As Bush’s National Security Advisor, Rice was distinctly untroubled that her advice created a situation where international law would be grossly breached.  She was dismissive of the role played by UN weapons inspectors and their failed efforts in finding those elusive weapons of mass destruction and evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. “The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons,” she warned in 2002.  “But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

    As the seedy conspiracy to undermine security in the Middle East and shred the UN Charter gathered place in 2002, those against any Iraq invasion were also denouncing opponents as traitors, or at the very least wobbly, on the issue of war.  Frum, writing in March 2003, was particularly bothered by conservatives against the war – the likes of Patrick Buchanan, Robert Novak, Thomas Fleming, and Llewellyn Rockwell.  Thankfully, they were “relatively few in number, but their ambitions are large.”  They favoured “a fearful policy of ignoring threats and appeasing enemies.”

    In the Ukraine conflict, the trend has reasserted itself.  Neoconservatives are out to find those appeasing types on the Right – and everywhere else.  “Today,” rues Rod Dreher, “they’re denouncing us on the Right who oppose war with Russia as Neville Chamberlains.”  Conservatives are mocked for daring to understand why Russia might have an issue with NATO expansion, or suggest that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not, in the end, of vital interest to Washington.  “It’s Chamberlain’s folly,” comes the improbable claim from Matt Lewis of The Daily Beast, “delivered with a confident Churchillian swagger.”

    A more revealing insight into neoconservative violence, the lust for force, and an almost admiring take on the way Putin has behaved, can be gathered in John Bolton’s recent assessment of the invasion.  Bolton, it should be remembered, detests the United Nations and was, just to show that President George W. Bush had a sense of humour, made US ambassador to it.  For him, international law is less a reality than a guide ignored when power considerations are at play – an almost Putinesque view.

    Almost approvingly, he writes in The Economist of the need to “pay attention to what adversaries say.”  He recalls Putin’s remark about the Soviet Union’s disintegration as the 20th century’s greatest catastrophe.  He notes those efforts to reverse the trend: the use of invasions, annexations and the creation of independent states, and the adoption of “less kinetic means to bring states like Belarus, Armenia and Kazakhstan into closer Russian orbits.”

    With a touch of delight, Bolton sees that “the aggressive use of military force is back in style.  The ‘rule-based international order’ just took a direct hit, not that it was ever as sturdy as imagined in elite salons and academic cloisters.”  And with that, the war trumpet sounds.  “World peace is not at hand.  Rhetoric and virtue-signalling are no substitute for new strategic thinking and higher defence budgets.”  In this equation, the UN Charter is truly doomed.

    The post Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: Outing the Iraq War White Washers first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Russian socialists speak out against the war

    A new coalition of anti-war socialists has formed in Russia. Socialists Against the War Coalition speak out against the war in their manifesto.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Why the Russian Federation Recognized the Independence Movements in the Donbas

    There will be reams of words attempting to provide a coherent analysis of the manufactured crisis dramatically unfolding in Ukraine, which took another unanticipated turn when Russia extended recognition to the Peoples’ Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in the territory referred to as the Donbas in Eastern Ukraine.

    The post Why the Russian Federation Recognized the Independence Movements in the Donbas appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Some Economic Consequences Of The War In Ukraine

    It may be premature somewhat to consider economic consequences of the Ukraine war with the Russian invasion still less than a week old.  However, certain outlines of where things are going are nonetheless possible.  With that caveat, the following represent some early considerations of the likely—in some cases already occurring—economic consequences of the war for Russia, European Union, and the USA.

    The post Some Economic Consequences Of The War In Ukraine appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • West Intensifies Economic Warfare Against Russia As Military Operation In Ukraine Enters Second Week

    Delivering his annual state of union address, US president Joe Biden announced the decision to close its airspace for all Russian flights on Tuesday, March 1. He accused Russia of rejecting “efforts of diplomacy” and called president Vladimir Putin’s decision to send armies to Ukraine a “badly miscalculated” move. However, Biden also announced that the US will not fight against Russia directly. The announcements of sanctions against Russia and its boycott by various countries and individual corporations continued on Tuesday.

    The post West Intensifies Economic Warfare Against Russia As Military Operation In Ukraine Enters Second Week appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Disarming Ukraine – Day 7

    The crisis, and especially the reaction of the ‘west’ to it, is much worse than I had feared. The U.S. government and ‘western’ media claim that the World condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That is however far from reality. It is only true if true if you believe ‘the world’ solely exists of the 5-eye spying cooperation (U.S., UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), the European Union, Switzerland, Japan and Singapore. The view differs when you zoom out.

    The post Disarming Ukraine – Day 7 appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Text Of Putin’s Announcement Of Military Action

    Because the website of the Kremlin containing the full text of Vladimir Putin’s Feb. 24 address announcing the start of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine has been hacked, and because of requests from readers, we provide the entire transcript here, obtained from the Kremlin site before it was brought down. It is presented without endorsement and for information purposes only.

    The post Text Of Putin’s Announcement Of Military Action appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Governors Who Criminalized BDS In Their States Demand Boycott Of Russia

    A number of U.S. lawmakers have called for a boycott targeting Russia following the invasion of Ukraine, but some of the same politicians are responsible for their states’ anti-BDS laws.

    The post Governors Who Criminalized BDS In Their States Demand Boycott Of Russia appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Our Ukraine

    The Russian invasion has forced peaceful, ordinary people to risk their lives. Many are fighting because they believe in a Ukraine that welcomes all its citizens and recognizes the rights they all possess.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  • The Seeds of War

    Putin sees Russian statehood and Russian national and linguistic identity as inextricably connected, and he is willing to spill Russian and Ukrainian blood to protect this nationalist vision.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.