Category: Ukraine

  • In the American political tradition, doctrines (political, economic, military, etc.) have a distinct role to play. They prepare the ground for devising policies, making decisions, and enacting laws. Still, among all doctrines that have been shaping the identity of the United States, those related to foreign policy stand out. This is due to their (a) consequences aboard, (b) ideological capacity to keep reproducing, and (c) representative value as embodiment of power. Altogether, such doctrines tell other countries that the United States has a global agenda to pursue regardless of international objections.

    Invariably since foundation, foreign policy doctrines were conceived as instruments of imperialist expansions and ideological sources pointing to the worldview and political direction of the United States. Not only did they become the official banners externalizing its aims, but also blueprints for establishing operational plans for territorial conquests, interventions, and wars. The threat of using military force (or other corecitive measures) to implement those plans has consistently been the chosen method. Did the U.S. achieve anything as consequence? Yes.  Its colonialistic and imperialistic accomplishments during the past two centuries are vast and impressive.1

    From measuring their collective place in the practice of imperialism, foreign policy doctrines can be described as the engine that moves the global objectives of the United States. Once an administration comes up with a specific policy course, the engine is revved up for action, guidelines drafted, and the course is announced. At the same point in time, an army of doctrinaires and agents of the state go into overdrive to procure all military, budgetary, and legislative means needed for the planned enterprise.

    For instance, after the breakup of the USSR, the United States relentlessly reprised its previous attempts to be the sole decision maker of world affairs. Or, said differently, to exercise total control over the world system of nations using aggressive tactics—always backed by doctrines. On occasion, adages mix with doctrines. One such adage that U.S. ruling circles have been repeating ad nauseam is the “sole remaining superpower” (1, 2, 3, 4). Interpreted correctly, it means that the United States feels it has “earned the right” to rove around the world unopposed.

    Nevertheless, with or without doctrines, the U.S. project to subjugate nations still out of its control has come to a full stop consequent to three convergent events. The first is the Russian intervention in Ukraine. The second is the unstoppable rising of China as a world power. The third is the overdue defiance that the South (formerly called developing countries) has launched against the pan-imperialist American-European order.2

    Since their appearance on the scene in the early 19th century, foreign policy doctrines helped build the U.S. imperialist system. For the record, from the very beginning, this system was born neither pacifist nor peaceful or open to re-thinking. George Washington and the Continental Congress’s policy ordering Original Peoples to choose either relocation or war is an irrefutable case in point.

    Special Note

    In 2012, Mitt Romney recycled Washington’s concept of the U.S. power using a different figure of speech. “If you don’t want America to be the strongest nation on earth, I am not your president“. In 2024, Romney replayed his arrogant refrain. He stated, “What America is as a nation, what has allowed us to be the most powerful nation on Earth, and the leader of the Earth is the character of the people who have been our leaders”. [Italics added].

    Comment: Romney stated his vision for America in terms and images that leave no doubt on his hegemonic agenda. Is that surprising? No. he is a product of a system and ideology that sees the world as something to grab, own, manage, and even go to war to keep it. In other words, his vision is about imposing U.S. domination over all other nations. Pertinently though, with phrases such as “strongest nation on earth”, “most powerful nation on Earth”, and “leader of the Earth, Romney allow his militaristic hyperimperialism to float to the surface but disguised it under the “leadership” heading.

    Question: how could Romney install America as a “leader of the earth” without first unleashing global violence to accomplish that installation? More importantly, has China, Russia, Hungary, Serbia, Algeria, Cuba, Brazil, Iran, Palestine, Sri Lanka, India, Colombia, Malaysia, or Turkey, for example, ever asked for such leadership in the first place?

    General Discussion

    As it developed into a military and economic superpower, the United States emerged first with distinct character: (a) colonialist, racist, and supremacist to the bone, (b) imperialist-focused conduct sold as a product of “democratic” statecraft, and (c) official culture primed for violence domestically and wired for war internationally.

    To summarize, as conceived, adopted, and thereafter transformed into programs of the United States, foreign policy doctrines have been occupying a central place in the thinking, policymaking, and actions of presidents, their administrations, and orbiting institutions and think tanks. Remark: doctrines are not announced as such—a president does not go the podium and say: hey, here is my doctrine. Generally, doctrines start as specific acts to serve the system, to stress its assumed prowess and power, and to uphold its declared objectives.

    This is how the process works. Initially, the habitual protocol leading to the informal promulgation of doctrines is scripted and introduced to make it sound as a “reasoned” conclusion to debated matters. But debates such as these and conclusions thereof are of no value whatsoever to those affected by their outcome. First, they are not rooted in the natural laws and needs of world societies. Second, they only reflect the hegemonic thus exploitive aims of U.S. ruling circles. For instance, aside from carpet-bombing, burning Viet Nam with Napalm bombs, poisoning it with Agent Orange, and killing three million of its people to prove Robert McNamara’s Domino Theory was never a good reason for the Vietnamese people to accept the U.S. motive for destroying their country.

    Successively, when an administration reaches a decision on an issue, makes an announcement  against a specific country, and when that issue finds its way to the public, the system’s “pundits” proceed to extract passages from presidents’ speeches and writings, assign to them concept and purpose, and, before you know it, a doctrine is born. In the case of Ukraine, new doctrines are taking the center stage in the defense of U.S. post-USSR unipolarism and hegemonic agendas. One such ad hoc doctrine is that the United States is fighting Russian imperialism in Ukraine.

    Doctrines, in the American practice of imperialism, offer a two-layer function. First, they intellectualize the bullying language of imperialism to solemnize the power of the ruling regime at enacting its “rules of engagement” with foreign nations. Second, they set the pattern, methodology, and ideological structure for the next enterprise. (Caveat: despite heavy setbacks in many parts of the world, the U.S. doctrine industry is highly adaptable, and it is not going to close its gates any time soon.)

    Given that foreign policy doctrines have become a showcase for displaying the objectives of the ruling circles, as well as a repetitive ideological ritual confirming the unity and continuity of the imperialist state, is there a pattern to their mechanisms?

    As it happens, when a president vacates the office for the next occupant, he leaves behind a trail of ideas and political positions highlighting the collective thinking of the system. Comparing the U.S. doctrines to those of religions may be of value. For instance, unlike the field of religions where doctrines are static and permanent (created to defend original, ancient, or old beliefs and dogmas), the U.S. doctrines are dynamic, always open to re-interpretations, and reflect three-stage process with a precise scope of work and finality—all situated in the future.

    The first stage begins with deliberation on the objectives of the ruling circles in a given period. The second continues by enshrining them into a general declaration(s) of intent. The third, which is extremely important, turns that declaration into a three-tier sequential process. The first presents the system’s rationales for the decisions taken. The second deals with their implementation. The third is more complex: it turns all interrelated processes and sustaining ideologies into a legacy of some sort. That is, what has been decided by a president (and his administration) at a specific period is going to be invoked, expanded on, and continued by his successors.

    For example, with its post-WWII focus on hypothetical threats from international Communism to the Middle East, Eisenhower’s doctrine is a replica of Truman’s doctrine that declared the Soviet Union a universal threat. As for John Kennedy, his doctrine, often referred to as his foreign policy, is a mixture between those of Truman and Eisenhower. To see the U.S. doctrines in a broad perspective, I’m going to briefly discuss the Monroe Doctrine (corner stone of all successive doctrines), and three other doctrines relating to Theodore Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, and Joe Biden.

    The Monroe Doctrine (1823) 

    When the thirteen colonies became a political state in 1776, the objective was to claim neutrality to avoid further conflict with Britain or potential ones with France and Spain. But when the thirteen states increased to eighteen under the presidency of James Monroe (1817-25), that objective became two-pronged: (1) a call for increased expansion of colonies, and (2) a declaration that United States is the sole power in charge of the entire Western hemisphere. The U.S. Naval Institute describes the Monroe Doctrine as follows:

    “As a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. . . We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. [Italics added]

    Comment

    • Monroe was a skillful imperialist tactician. He presented his theory (attributed to his secretary of state and future president John Quincy Adams) of colonialism and domination in clear wording. First, he prohibits European powers from colonizing the rest of the Americas; yet, he allows the heir to colonialist Britain (the United States) the exclusive privilege of further colonization. With that, Monroe instituted the infamous American dual-standard paradigm in world relations.
    • The inherent fascism of the new American state under Monroe is self-explanatory. He treated Turtle Island as lands without people and civilizations. The question is how could one colonize lands without removing or killing first their original inhabitants and destroying their stewarded environment?
    • As I stated, Monroe is the prototype of typical U.S. hyper-imperialist. He arrogantly considers any challenge to the new system of things as “dangerous” to peace and prosperity of the United States.
    • Two centuries later, anything happens in the world that U.S. fascist rulers do not like, they deem it a threat to U.S. national security, or, “dangerous” to peace and prosperity of the United States.
    • The peremptory, imperialist injunction of Monroe reaches the apex when he declares that every portion of the hemisphere is, by exclusive U.S. unilateral decisions, under the U.S. indirect control thus jurisdiction. This declaration has led countless administrations not only to claim extraterritorial jurisdiction, but also to pretend that domestic affairs and development of a country could imperil U.S. national security. (Read: US to probe if Chinese cars pose national data security risks)

    Doctrines: The Reincarnation of Monroe  

    • The case of Theodore Roosevelt: in 1904, the Monroe Doctrine gave birth to the Roosevelt Doctrine—then named the Roosevelt Corollary. I already stated that what has been decided by a president at a specific period is going to be invoked, expanded, and continued by his successors. Theodore Roosevelt corroborates my statement. A National Archives’ article states the following:

    “In his annual messages to Congress in 1904 and 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt expanded the Monroe Doctrine. The corollary stated that not only were the nations of the Western Hemisphere not open to colonization by European powers, but that the United States had the responsibility to preserve order and protect life and property in those countries.” [Italics added]. The text in Italics proves my point.

    • The case of Jimmy Carter: As Henry Kissinger had Richard Nixon in the palm of his hand; Zbigniew Brzezinski had Carter in his—coincidence or lack of intellectual security? Carter who, much later, had a rude awakening to the racist nature of Zionism (re: Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid), was another example representing the hyper-imperialist model. In his Union Address in 1980, Carter declared, among many other important things, the following:

    “Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. [Italics added]. Who was talking—Monroe or Carter?

    It is beside the point to state that while the Soviet power or its main successor Russia never intervened in the Middle East during the past 107 years (exception in Syria to stop the U.S. and Israel from dismembering it. (Read, The Debate on the Imperialist Violence in Syria series by Kim Petersen and B.J. Sabri). At present, the American power is everywhere in the Middle East. It has full political and military control—direct and indirect—of Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, and Morocco. Conclusion: an attentive study of Carter’s address will prove that the mind of Monroe has transmigrated to that of Carter.

    • The case of Joe Biden: in 1986, Biden (then senator) stated, “If there were not an Israel, we’d have to invent one.” The issue I am raising here is not about this Zionist wanting to create at any cost a state for Zionist settlers on Arab Palestinian soil. It is about Joe Biden repeating Monroe. That is, the United States consistently gives itself the unearned right to shape the world according to its convenient imperialist view.
    • As for Biden’s doctrine, The Hoover Institution (an imperialist academic think tank claiming liberalism) addresses the topic. One of its doctrinaires, Colin Dueck (a university professor and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a known nest of American Zionists) thusly defines Biden’s philosophy of imperialism, “If the Biden administration’s grand strategy could be summed up in a single phrase, it would be – progressive transformation at home and abroad”.

    Could specialists in semantics and esoteric writings help us to decode what does “progressive transformation at home and abroad” mean? In the first place, what is progressive? Second, domestically, can Biden, as per Dueck, progressively transform the Zionist mobs inside his party, as well as those of Trump and his crowds? Internationally, could Sweden, Switzerland, Russia, Ukraine, Cameroon, Bolivia, Nepal, or Bolivia, etc. partake in or learn from Biden’s “progressive” doctrine? Incidentally, how would Dueck qualify America before the advent of Biden: progressive, regressive, or what?)

    To settle the issue on Dueck’s bogus idea of “progressive transformation”, we need to pose a few questions.  Suppose an independent country X is touched by the American wand of “progressive transformation”. Would that touch entail, among other things, invading it, installing military bases on its soil, dissolving its army, partitioning it in “federated” regions, abolishing its national currency, co-opting pro-American elements to lead it, writing constitutions for it, and building “without permit” the largest embassy in the world? It happened in Iraq.

    Aside from this thematic mishap, Dueck redeemed himself by presenting articulate arguments—all anchored to the basic elements of U.S. hegemonic imperialism. Not to be overlooked, he permeated—perhaps without realizing it—his elaborations with undeclared references to the Monroe Doctrine and its successors. The following are selected passages:

    • “Biden went further than either Obama or Trump in declaring that a global struggle against authoritarianism would be a strategic centerpiece of his new administration”. Remark: “authoritarianism” is a catchword to say that this or that country is antithetical to U.S. objectives, thus it is, de facto, a hostile nation.
    • Dueck declares that Jack Sullivan (current National Security Advisor) and other Democrats, “Developed the concept of a “foreign policy for the middle class”. Remark: Dueck’s statement begs the question: is there a foreign policy for the upper and lower classes. It is notable though that the United States never cast its foreign policy in terms of class or class conflict. For the record, who decides on this policy is the deep American State and its Zionist elites.
    • Dueck then goes to the traditional themes of U.S. foreign policy: “China, Russia, and so on” are the real threat to the United States. He then adds, “Populism, nationalism, liberalism, and authoritarianism are each assumed by the Biden administration to be pressing threats.” REMARK: This is overly trite. With regard to China, the United States has been inimical since the Long March of Mao Zedong.
    • With typical American imperialist zeal, Dueck concludes, “We now face a kind of anti-American axis of hostile dictatorships, however loosely coordinated, covering most of the Eurasian continent. This is the most deadly threat in generations. By that standard, have we developed the policy tools, and specifically the military capabilities, to meet that challenge?  The answer is obvious: not even close.” REMARK: with these words, Dueck has effectively announced that all ante-Biden doctrines have come together in the person of Biden and his cohorts.

    Propaganda and foreign policy     

    • The National Museum of American Diplomacy asks an “interesting” question, “What are the key pillars of American diplomacy?” The Museum answers with stock American slogan: “Security, Prosperity, Democracy, and Development”. Then it goes on to give frivolous examples such as the one about “development in Cambodia”—the country that United States obliterated in order to fight the Vietcong and North Viet Nam. It is a fact that the United States never brought security, prosperity, democracy, and development to any country it attacked.
    • The official voice of American diplomacy: the Zionist-ruled State Department is a pompous factory specialized in rhetorical garbage. It declares, “The State Department has four main foreign policy goals: Protect the United States and Americans; Advance democracy, human rights, and other global interests; Promote international understanding of American values and policies; and; Support U.S. diplomats, government officials, and all other personnel at home and abroad who make these goals a reality.”

    As I am forfeiting my right to comment, I am curious to know where Monroe is hiding in the statement. Look no farther than (a) “Protect the United States and Americans”, and (b) “Other global interests”.

    Preliminary Conclusion

    From the end of WWII forward, the phenomenon of U.S. doctrines is what it is—a bizarre menagerie of global power themes. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama, Trump, and Biden each have their own doctrine—or, to be exact, doctrines the system prepared for them. Conceptually, all such doctrines are declarations of allegiance to the continuity of imperialism and to the path that many generations of American colonialists, expansionists, supremacists, imperialists, and hegemonists set for the United States.

    Observation: none among the above presidents had any doctrine with a specific formulation before taking seats in the halls of power. But once there, the seated presidents reprise the preceding doctrines and amplify content and reach. When you closely examine them, however, you will find out that they mimic each other in essence and means—and all have for a common goal the application of U.S. imperialist power abroad.

    Evaluating how doctrines prepare the ground for the solidification of anti-Russian policies can be done by looking at how candidates conduct their campaigns for political positions. During such events, they speak of this and that idea so sketchily but only to sell their electability to a complacent and uninformed audience—normally, details of foreign policy and motivations never appear on the stage. Still, despite the paucity of substantive talk, their endeavor is mainly directed to the establishment, not to the public. Ultimately, this establishment has the overwhelming ability to promote or demote candidates with ease—kneeling to it, therefore, is an electoral necessity.

    In the end, when it boils down to voting, the public will have only a Hobson’s choice: candidates, with different names and faces, have identical views on the world—and a plan to rule it. They all have to sell the same merchandise: we control, we want, we oppose, we think, we decide, and so on.

    Is selling the imperialist merchandise an important factor in U.S. foreign policy decision-making and actions?

    In his book: A Nation of Salesmen, Earl Shorris, an attentive sociological researcher, touched on the crafty art of selling “things”. He delves into the essence of controlled persuasion by taking on advertising as a tool that subverted the American culture. Shorris, of course, did not include foreign policy as “merchandise” that has been subverting the entire American polity for decades while inflicting incalculable heavy damages on all humanity. Briefly, selling its Foreign Policy Brand—by persuasion, coercion, or aggression—has been America’s never-ending endeavor.

    At this point, how is the United States merchandizing and selling its Brand and policy schemes on Ukraine and Russia?

    ENDNOTES:

    1. To fight U.S. imperialism, we have to acknowledge its danger by looking at its accomplishment. In 1783, the newly established American Republic was 800,000 square miles. In 2024 factsheet, its area is 3,796,742 square miles. Currently and to varying degrees, the U.S. controls the entire European continent with the exception of Serbia. It controls Japan. It castrated the entire Arab states with the exception of Syria and Algeria. It controls most of South Asia. It controls many Latin American and African countries. It controls Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. And, it largely controls the UN and the UNSC—the UN’s General Assembly is of no consequence. About the territorial colonialist expansions of the United States: the professional misinformants writing at Wikipedia calls the U.S. violent, bloody colonialist conquests as “territorial evolution” as if these were in line Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
    2. The expression: American-European order is an umbrella term specifically denoting American, British, French, Italian, Spanish, and German imperialisms. By extension, it also includes the dangerous trio: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. These three countries work under U.S. wings and take direct orders from Washington. Among all U.S. vassals, Japan is insidious. Although it does not appear often on the news, Japan is an advanced country, still very much militaristic, and acts according to U.S. rules and political views.
    The post Imperialism and Anti-imperialism Collide in Ukraine (Part 8) first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Comprehensive coverage of the day’s news with a focus on war and peace; social, environmental and economic justice.

    The post The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays – April 24, 2024 President Biden signs $95 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. appeared first on KPFA.


    This content originally appeared on KPFA – The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Rights chief also warns Britain will be ‘judged harshly by history for its failure to help prevent civilian slaughter in Gaza’

    The UK has been accused by Amnesty International of “deliberately destabilising” human rights on the global stage for its own political ends.

    In its annual global report, released today, the organisation said Britain was weakening human rights protections nationally and globally, amid a near-breakdown of international law.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Comprehensive coverage of the day’s news with a focus on war and peace; social, environmental and economic justice.

    The post The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays – April 23, 2024 Senate moves closer to passing $95 billion foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel and other allies. appeared first on KPFA.


    This content originally appeared on KPFA – The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The North American peace movement is contesting ongoing US wars in Ukraine and Palestine and preparations for war with China. Out of the fog of these wars, a clear anti-imperialist focus is emerging. Giving peace a chance has never been more plainly understood as opposition to what Martin Luther King, Jr., referred to as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world: my own government.”

    Palestinian, Muslim and Arab, and anti-Zionist Jewish groups have been in the forefront of the anti-imperialist peace movement. With strong youth components, they are not confused by either relying on sell-out liberal Democrats (e.g., anti-Iraq War) or by utopian calls for leaderless organizations without concrete demands (e.g., Occupy). Nor have been distracted by individualistic expressions of anger by trashing small businesses or in adventuristic confrontations with the police.

    The Palestinian resistance has radicalized millions worldwide. The popular demand for a permanent ceasefire in Palestine is leading to a still larger project to cease the US-led imperialist order.

    The overall consciousness of the resurgent peace movement reflects the normalization of anti-imperialism as a leading current; antiwar sentiment is becoming explicitly anti-imperialist.

    Evolving understanding of the Ukraine conflict

    The peace movement recognizes that, although Hamas’s action of October 7 came as a surprise, it did not simply erupt out of the blue. The uprising had a 75-year gestation starting with the Nakba of 1948 and the establishment of the settler colonialist State of Israel.

    Initially, there was less clarity regarding the events in Ukraine of February 24, 2022. With research and reflection, most of the movement came to understand the conflict did not begin that day. The supposedly “unprovoked” Russian intervention in Ukraine was sparked by NATO moving closer and closer to the Russian border, the 2014 Maidan coup, the sabotage of the Minsk agreements, etc.

    A consensus is maturing in the antiwar movement that Ukraine is a proxy war by the US and its NATO allies to weaken Russia. Even key corporate press and government officials now recognize the conflict as a “full proxy war” by the US designed to use the Ukrainian people to mortally disable Russia.

    Likewise, opinions are coalescing around recognizing that there is just one superpower with hundreds of foreign military bases, possession of the world’s reserve currency, and control of the SWIFT worldwide payment and transaction system. Simply reducing the conflict to one of contesting capitalists obscures the context of empire.

    The antiwar movement may differ on whether to call February 24 an invasion, an incursion, or a special military operation to protect ethnic Russian regions of Ukraine under attack. But unity has been forged that the solution to the conflict is a negotiated settlement and that the US/NATO project of “winning” the war is a threat to world peace. The outlier is the Ukraine Solidarity Network (USN).

    Still using the language of anti-imperialism, USN’s  left-leaning intellectuals and activists are opposed to a negotiated peace but champion a “victory” backed by the US and NATO. Further, they uphold the “right” of the US to fund what they personalize as a war against Putin. Their statement on the second anniversary of the war accuses Washington of having a “double standard” for supporting imperialism in Palestine but being on the side of justice in Ukraine. Other peace activists see USN’s opposition to the US involvement in Palestine, but not to its complicity in Ukraine, as a double standard.

    The USN’s call for a Ukraine victory is consonant with the Democratic Party’s. In contrast, for example, the United National Antiwar Coalition’s (UNAC) position on Ukraine is: “No to NATO’s proxy war and Biden’s $80 billion military aid to Ukraine! No to Ukraine’s joining NATO!” Similarly, the Peace in Ukraine Coalition demands: “”STOP the weapons! START the talks!”

    The emerging anti-imperialist peace movement sees the nature of US imperialism as systematic and not elective. The US empire is fundamentally imperialist; it is not a matter of choice.

    First major antiwar conference since the Covid pandemic

    In the first major antiwar conference since the Covid pandemic, UNAC brought together 400 activists in Saint Paul, MN, on April 5-7, under the banner of “decolonization and the fight against imperialism.”

    Among the some fifty groups participating were the Alliance for Global Justice, American Muslims for Palestine, Black Alliance for Peace, CodePink, Freedom Road Socialist Organization, US Palestinian Community Network, and Workers World Party. Local organizations included Students for Justice in Palestine, Twin Cities Students for a Democratic Society, and the venerable Women Against Military Madness, who have been protesting weekly in the streets since 1982.

    The immediacy of militant organizing was reported by Danaka Katovich of CodePink, Cody Urban of the Resist US Wars, Wyatt Miller of the Minneapolis Antiwar Committee, and a number of other youthful leaders.

    Palestinian liberation against colonialism was a major focal point of the conference. Mnar Adley, editor of MintPress News, movingly described her experience of living under Israeli suppression. Today, she explained, “the Intifada has been globalized,” adding that the Palestinian resistance and the movement in its support have exposed the Democrats as the “bloodthirsty war-hungry party that it is.”

    With the US presidential election imminent, conference participants had no illusions that either corporate party stands for peace. The initiative to cast ballots in the Democratic primary for “uncommitted” (to signify opposition to Biden’s complicity in the war on Gaza and to demand a ceasefire) received considerable support. Spontaneous chants of “shame” erupted throughout the conference whenever the Democrats’ conduct was raised.

    K.J. Noh of Pivot for Peace warned about US preparations for war against China. Michael Wong of Veterans for Peace described the world struggle as not one of democracy versus authoritarianism but of national liberation versus imperialism.

    Ambassadors Lautaro Sandino from Nicaragua, whose government is taking Germany to the World Court for facilitating Israel’s genocide, and Dr. Sidi M. Omar of the Polisario Front of Western Sahara addressed the conference. International solidarity was affirmed in workshops on Zones of Peace in Our Americas, opposition of coercive economic measures, and NO to NATO.

    Combating repression against the movement was highlighted by Efia Nwangaza’s presentation on the campaign to “Stop Kop Cities” and Dr. Aisha Fields’ on resisting the attacks on the African People’s Socialist Party. Mel Underbakke addressed FBI frame ups of Muslims, and FBI whistleblower Colleen Rowley briefed the conference on the mobilization for Julian Assange. Lessons were also drawn by speakers from the successful defenses of the Antiwar 23 and the freeing of Venezuelan diplomat Alex Saab.

    Tasks ahead

    Janine Solanki with the Mobilization Against War and Occupation in Vancouver spoke about the “unfolding antiwar and pro-Palestine movement that has a potential to go beyond the Vietnam antiwar movement.” She advised that what has been a mass spontaneous movement now needs to progress into a more coordinated and structured form. “We have humanity on our side…our role is to really organize these forces.”

    Black Agenda Report (BAR) executive editor Margaret Kimberley concluded the conference with the mandate to stop the wars at home and abroad. The current context is a neoliberal economic regime failing to meet basic domestic needs and a global pax Americana becoming increasingly contested. In reference to the workshop on climate change, she observed, “we are in a battle for survival; that’s not hyperbole.”

    In short, the conference was indicative of the larger movement that is melding youthful demographics – buoyed by the mass protests against the war on Palestine – with the mature understanding of the gravity of the tasks ahead. Kimberly closed with the guidance to “engage in principled struggle with our comrades; if you’re not struggling with someone you’re not doing enough work.”

    Prospects for the anti-imperialist movement

    Will the Democratic Party’s formula of “Trump trumps everything” quash the antiwar initiative? Back in 2015, the late BAR editor Glen Ford presciently wrote: “The Democrats hope the Black Lives Matter movement, like the Occupy Wall Street movement, will disappear amid the hype of the coming election season.” What will happen to the 2024 antiwar protest movement when another US presidential election looms five months from now?

    Resisting being absorbed into what Ford called the Democratic election blitz to bury the movement will be the People’s Conference for Palestine, May 24-26, in Detroit, which will bring together anti-imperialist groups including the Palestine Youth Movement, National Students for Justice in Palestine, Al-Awda, and Healthcare Workers for Palestine. The ANSWER Coalition, associated with the Party for Socialism and Liberation, is a leading element. ANSWER and some of these other groups had also been instrumental in building major pro-Palestine demonstrations in Washington DC, the biggest ever in the US.

    Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), the largest progressive Jewish anti-Zionist organization in the world, is among the faith-based groups that have carved out a new and implicitly anti-imperialist identity for their followers. Surely JVP, along with other Jewish activist organizations, like IfNotNow and International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, will continue to militantly protest US support for Israel’s apartheid system in unity with Palestinian and other activist groups.

    Come this summer, CodePink, Bayan, and others will be confronting the largest joint war exercises in the world with Cancel RIMPAC. Protests are also scheduled for NATO’s 75th anniversary summit, July 6-7, in Washington DC; the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, July 15-18; and the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, August 19-22.

    The post The North American Peace Movement at an Inflection Point first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.


  • 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.


  • This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Foreign secretary David Cameron expressed support for continued war between Ukraine and Russia in a joint press conference in Washington with US secretary of state Antony Blinken.

    David Cameron: killing civilians in Ukraine and Russia ‘good value for money’

    House of Lords member David Cameron said on 9 April:

    I argue that it is extremely good value for money for the United States and for others- perhaps for about five or 10% of your defense budget almost half of Russia’s pre-war military equipment has been destroyed for without the loss of a single American life, this is an investment in United States security

    But Russia has killed thousands of Ukrainians in the ongoing war. Despite Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky putting the number of Ukrainians killed at 31,000 – US officials say 70,000 and Russia says 444,000.

    While David Cameron acknowledged Ukrainian soldiers at the conference, his position that the war is beneficial to bleed Russia is in line with the UK’s previous actions on the war.

    There was an early peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine in February 2022 that the US/ UK and West scuppered.

    UK scuppered a Ukraine-Russia deal

    Former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett was mediating the negotiation. He said the then-UK prime minister Boris Johnson took an “aggressive line” against the deal.

    Bennett also said that:

    I’ll say this in the broad sense. I think there was a legitimate decision by the West to keep striking Putin and not [negotiate]

    As Bennett stated, the deal did not reportedly include regime change of US-backed Zelensky. Although, peace deal drafts at the time reportedly included restrictions on Ukraine’s military.

    Johnson also took a no-negotiation policy to Ukraine in April 2022 stating that even if the country was prepared for a peace deal, the UK and the West were not.

    And US defense secretary Lloyd Austin took a similar line to Cameron in April 2022, outlining the goal to “weaken” Russia.

    David Cameron, the US and the UK’s hardline position is not conductive to a peaceful solution to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    Featured image via Guardian News – YouTube

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • New York, April 9, 2024—The Committee to Protect Journalists on Friday condemned Russia’s latest series of attacks on Ukraine that injured at least four Ukrainian journalists reporting on the war. 

    On April 4, two early morning drone strikes hit Kharkiv in northeast Ukraine injuring Yuliya Boyko, a correspondent with the Ukrainian news site Novini.Live and a freelancer with Poland-based independent broadcaster Belsat TV. Viktor Pichugin, a reporter with the Nakipelo news media project covering the Kharkiv region, was also injured in the attacks, according to the local trade group National Union of Journalists of Ukraine (NUJU), the local Institute of Mass Information(IMI) press freedom group, and Pichugin, who spoke to CPJ.

    On April 5, Russian forces shelled the southeast region of Zaporizhzhia, injuring Olha Zvonaryova, a reporter with Ukrainian state news agency Ukrinform, and Kira Oves, a reporter with privately owned broadcaster 1+1, according to the NUJUmedia reports, and IMI head Oksana Romaniuk, who spoke to CPJ.

    “That journalists come under fire while covering the aftermath of previous attacks shows the extent of the risks they are taking and their commitment to documenting Russia’s war in Ukraine,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator. “Russian and Ukrainian authorities should investigate the recent attacks that injured Ukrainian journalists in Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia, and Russia must stop targeting civilian infrastructure in Ukraine.”

    Boyko was reporting at the site of a previous drone strike on her home in Kharkiv when another attack hit “5-6 meters” away from her, she told the NUJU and IMI. IMI reported that Boyko did not have time to take cover, and she suffered contusions and a mild concussion from the attack.

    Pichugin was reporting on the damage caused by the drone strike on Boyko’s building and on the work of volunteers providing first aid, when the second strike came “very close to him,” he told IMI and local news outlet Gwara Media

    “At some point, the ‘air raid’ cry rang out, and the medics gave the command, ‘Everyone by cars!’” Pichugin told CPJ. As he was taking refuge in the back seat of a car with medics, Pichugin said he heard the drone flying toward them.

    “When that last medic closed the trunk lid, the drone exploded. We were thrown by an explosive wave across the cabin,” Pichugin told CPJ, adding that his helmet was knocked off his head from the explosion. 

    “I have symptoms that might be signs of concussion, but it is still not the medical diagnosis because a number of medical examinations must be conducted beforehand,” Pichugin told CPJ on April 9.

    Pichugin told IMI that he believes these repeated strikes are targeting journalists documenting the Russian-Ukraine War and the rescue workers helping civilians. “It’s a common practice,” he told CPJ.

    Zvonaryova and Oves were reporting on the aftermath of three previous missile strikes when they were caught in a fourth attack, according to reports. 

    “Everyone heard the fourth rocket and started running, but it came so fast that I fell down near a car that was standing next to me. I fell on my side. The side I was lying on was unharmed, but the side on top was cut,” Zvonaryova told her outlet.

    Zvonaryova was hit by a splinter in the leg, the stomach and the hand, and underwent an emergency surgery for several leg fractures, Romaniuk told CPJ, adding that Oves “was slightly injured, her temple was stitched.”

    “The patient’s [Zvonaryova’s] condition was quite serious, associated with a massive injury and blood loss,” a hospital representative told her outlet. As of April 9, Zvonaryova was still hospitalized in Zaporizhzhia, but in stable condition, Romanyuk told CPJ.

    State news agency RIA Novosti reported that Russian strikes on Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia targeted “foreign tanks and trainers” and a plant repairing Ukrainian armed forces equipment. The attacks killed at least four civilians in Kharkiv and four in Zaporizhzhia, reports said

    CPJ’s emails to Russian and Ukrainian defense ministries did not receive any reply.

    At least 15 journalists have been killed while reporting in Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale invasion, while many others have been injureddetained, or threatened.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • On March 25, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza for the month of Ramadan. Now that President Joe Biden has reportedly told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he wants an “immediate ceasefire,” will the American Medical Association (AMA) finally support a call for a permanent ceasefire and the immediate provision of humanitarian and…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.


  • 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.


  • 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.


  • 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.

  • Three injured in Ukrainian attack on Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant
  • This is an excerpt of this week’s bonus show. To hear the full episode subscribe at the Truth-teller level or higher on Patreon.com/Gaslit. If you’re already subscribed, be sure to grab our RSS feed on Patreon to never miss an episode!

    Mike Johnson is Lucy playing football with Charlie Brown. The MAGA Ken doll delayed the vote for Ukraine aid by several more weeks, coming through for Donald Trump, his MAGA cult of violence, and their Kremlin backers. Call it what it is: treason. In this heated bonus show, Andrea is joined by Russian mafia expert Olga Lautman and Italy-based analyst Monique Camarra of the Kremlin File podcast, debating whether Mike Johnson will ever hold his long promised Ukraine aid vote, and ways to overcome his existential threat to civilians in Russia’s ongoing genocide. 

     

    Our discussion was recorded on Tuesday, and includes a debate between Andrea and Olga on whether Mike Johnson will ever come through. We also discuss President Macron doubling down on sending NATO troops to Ukraine, and the long history of Russian terrorism and Western complacency. On Tuesday, Terrell Starr of the Black Diplomats Podcast and Substack joins Gaslit Nation to discuss the latest in the 2024 election and ways to overcome the threats to our democracy. Later in the month, Ari Berman of Mother Jones will be on the show to discuss his new book Minority Rule: The Right-Wing Attack on the Will of the People–And the Fight to Resist It. 

     

    Want to help unblock Ukraine aid in Congress? Contact Joaquin Castro (D-TX) at (202) 225-3236 and Mark Pocan (D-WI) at (202) 225-2906 and demand that they sign the two bipartisan discharge petitions put forth by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), which would force a vote in the House to pass aid for Ukraine. For more on that effort, read this urgent statement from the humanitarian nonprofit Razom for Ukraine: https://www.razomforukraine.org/razom-for-ukraine-calls-on-house-democrats-to-sign-discharge-petition/

     

    To our supporters at the Democracy Defender level and higher, submit your questions for our upcoming Q&A! We always enjoy hearing from you! Thank you to everyone who supports the show – we could not make Gaslit Nation without you!

     

    Fight for your mind! To get inspired to make art and bring your projects across the finish line, join us for the Gaslit Nation LIVE Make Art Workshop on April 11 at 7pm EST – be sure to be subscribed at the Truth-teller level or higher to get your ticket to the event! 

     

    Join the conversation with a community of listeners at Patreon.com/Gaslit and get bonus shows, all episodes ad free, submit questions to our regular Q&As, get exclusive invites to live events, and more! 

     

    Check out our new merch! Get your “F*ck Putin” t-shirt or mug today! https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/57796740-f-ck-putin?store_id=3129329

     


    This content originally appeared on Gaslit Nation and was authored by Andrea Chalupa.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • As the war in Ukraine grinds into a third year, more Russian soldiers are attempting to escape frontline deployment, supported by an underground network of fellow Russians.

    Associated Press investigative reporter Erika Kinetz follows the dramatic journey of one Russian military officer who deserted the army and fled Russia, guided by an anti-war group that has helped thousands of people evade military service or desert. The name of the group, Idite Lesom, is a play on words in Russian – a reference to the covert nature of its work but also a popular idiom that means “Get lost.”

    With help from the group, the officer made the perilous journey to Kazakhstan, but only after he had a friend and fellow soldier shoot him in the leg.

    “You can only leave wounded or dead,” he tells Kinetz. “No one wants to leave dead.”

    His act of desperation reflects the horrific conditions troops face in Ukraine. But life in exile is not what this officer and other deserters had hoped for. Some have had criminal cases filed against them in Russia, where they face 10 years or more in prison. And many are also waiting for a welcome from European countries or the United States that has never arrived. Instead, they live in hiding, fearing deportation back to Russia and persecution of themselves and their families.

    For Western nations grappling with Russia’s vast and growing diaspora, Russian military defectors present particular concern: Are they spies? War criminals? Or heroes?

    Next, Reveal host Al Letson talks with Kinetz and fellow reporter Solomiia Hera about why these military defectors are not finding sanctuary in Western Europe or the U.S. and how demographics and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s willingness to accept enormous casualties in Ukraine could give Russia an edge in an emerging war of attrition.

    In the final segment, we follow a Ukrainian man who knows all too well what a war of attrition really looks like. Oleksii Yukov is a martial arts instructor and leader of a team of volunteers who collect the remains of fallen soldiers, both Ukrainian and Russian. Yukov is on a spiritual quest to give these souls a final resting place.

    “We are not fighting the dead,” Yukov says. “Our weapon is humanity and a shovel.”

    This post was originally published on Reveal.


  • This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • 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.

  • More than 133 people were killed and over 100 injured in last month’s brazen attack on concertgoers just before a performance by a Soviet-era rock band at Moscow’s Crocus City Hall.

    Eleven people have been detained, including four people directly involved in the armed assault.

    ISIL’s Afghan branch – also known as the Islamic State in Khorasan Province, ISKP (ISIS-K) – claimed responsibility for the March 22 attack and United States officials have confirmed the authenticity of that claim. 

    In the wake of the incident, a series of rumors emerged online, with Russian President Vladimir Putin and official Russian media outlets claiming that Ukraine and the U.S. had a hand in orchestrating the incident.

    In China, the country’s official media outlets and social media influencers repeated similar narratives, making accusations against Western leaders that they turned blind eyes on the incident. 

    But such claims are either misleading or false. Below is what AFCL found. 

    Did Western leaders ignore the casualties of the attack?

    Chen Weihua, EU Bureau Chief of China Daily, a Chinese state-run English daily, claimed in an X post on March 23 that the U.S. and other Western leaders remained silent on the Moscow attack. 

    “The fact that U.S. and other Western leaders have said nothing about the horrible terrorist attack in Moscow yesterday exposed their total disregard for innocent civilian lives. Maybe they see those terrorists as allies?” the post reads. 

    1 (1).png
    Chen Weihua claimed that the U.S. and other Western leaders were silent about the attack. (Screenshot/X)

    But his claim is false. 

    The U.S. State Department released a statement on March 23, expressing condolences for the victims of the shooting.

    U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken also condemned the attack on the same day in an X post. 

    2 (1).png
    Separate statements released by the U.S. State Department’s official website (top) and U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s official Twitter account (bottom)on March 23 both expressed condolences to the victims of the attack. (Screenshot/U.S. State Department & X)

    In addition, the Community Notes attached to Chun’s post read: “The US and other Western countries have condemned the attack and sent their condolences.”

    With X’s Community Notes function, users who meet eligibility criteria can rate and write notes. X does not control what shows up. 

    According to the Community Notes on Chun’s post, which cited Al Jazeera and The Moscow Times, various officials from Western countries spoke out to condemn the terror attack and mourn the victims.

    3.png
    Leaders from various Western countries such as the UK (top) and organizations such as the EU (bottom) and other leaders speak out to condemn the terror attack and mourn the victims. (Screenshot/X)

    Did Obama admit that the U.S. trained ISIS?

    A Chinese social media influencer on X called “Brother Lei” claimed in a post on March 24 that former U.S. President Barack Obama had previously admitted the U.S. helped train ISIS, attaching a clip of him speaking at a news conference as evidence. 

    4.png
    A Chinese influencer on X account claimed that Obama admitted the U.S. “helped train ISIS.”  (Screenshot/X)

    The claim is misleading.

    A combination of image and keyword search on Google found the clip was taken from Obama’s U.S. Department of Defense news conference held on July 6, 2015, and the full video published by the Pentagon.

    At the five-minute and 40-second mark of the full video, Obama can be heard saying, “We are speeding up training of ISIL forces.”

    However, a full verbatim transcript of the speech published by the White House made a correction, which indicated that Obama intended to say, “the U.S. was accelerating the training of ‘Iraqi’ forces” rather than ISIL.

    5.png
    The full text of Obama’s speech in July 2015 with the slip of the tongue corrected. (Screenshot/ White House website)

    The key message of the news conference was the emphasis on the necessity of international collaboration to effectively tackle ISIS. Obama consistently highlighted the U.S.’s pivotal role in leading the efforts against the terrorist group.

    Ukrainian involvement? 

    Following the incident, both Russian and Chinese official media outlets  claimed that Ukraine played a role in orchestrating the attack. 

    Such claims are currently unsupported by public evidence and both the White House and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have denied any connection. 

    Separately, a Chinese YouTube “Dr. Cai” claimed that one of the four arrested suspects named Rustam Azhyiev “is a Ukrainian citizen and joined the Ukrainian Armed Forces in 2022.” 

    6.png
    A Chinese social media influencer on X claims that one of the suspected perpetrators of the terrorist attack is a Ukrainian citizen. (Screenshot/X)

    But this claim is unsupported by the currently known list of identified suspects. 

    Seven of the 11 suspects in custody have been identified, while the remaining four suspects remain unknown. Rustam Azhyiev is not among them, nor are any Ukrainian citizens. 

    A report by the Russian state-owned news agency TASS published on March 25 names three members of a single family accused of being involved in the terrorist attack, a father named Isroil Islomov and two brothers named Aminchon and Dilovar. 

    All of the Islomovs were born in Dushanbe, the capital of the former Central Asian Soviet republic and now independent nation of Tajikistan. Tajikistan borders Afghanistan and is part of ISKP’s claimed area of its activities. 

    The father holds Tajik citizenship while the two brothers are Russian citizens. 

    Reports by the Associated Press further identified the four known suspected gunmen arrested by Russia as Dalerdzhon Mirzoyev, Saidakrami Rachabalizoda, Shamsidin Fariduni, and Mukhammadsobir Faizov. All four are also Tajik citizens. 

    Translated by Shen Ke. Edited by Taejun Kang and Matt Reed. 

    Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) was established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environment. We publish fact-checks, media-watches and in-depth reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers’ understanding of current affairs and public issues. If you like our content, you can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and X.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Rita Cheng for Asia Fact Check Lab.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The post Virtue-Signalling Puppets first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • By Anneke Smith, RNZ News political reporter

    A petition urging the New Zealand government to provide urgent humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people has been tabled in the House.

    More than 200 people gathered on Parliament’s forecourt today and they were met by MPs from Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori.

    Member of the Palestinian community Katrina Mitchell-Kouttab presented Labour MP Phil Twyford with the petition, signed by more than 16,000 people.

    Twyford said Labour unequivocally supported the call for special humanitarian visas for families of New Zealanders currently trapped in Gaza.

    “We created a special visa for the families of Ukrainian Kiwis so they could sponsor their families to escape the war zone. To not do so for the people of Gaza is a disgraceful double standard,” he said.

    Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick reiterated her party’s support for special visas.

    “The Minister of Immigration has patronisingly said that the government do not want to offer what they call false hope to the people of Palestine. Let us say, that’s for the people of Palestine.

    ‘Offer consistency’
    “It’s not for politicians in this place to patronise the people in Gaza and tell when what they should or shouldn’t hope for. The very least we can do is offer the consistency that we have to those affected in Ukraine by Russia’s aggressions.”

    Last week, the government was urged to create a special humanitarian visas for Palestinians in Gaza who have ties to New Zealand.

    It followed more than 30 organisations — including World Vision, Save the Children and Greenpeace — sending an open letter to ministers asking they step up support and help with evacuation and resettlement efforts.

    More than 200 people gathered at Parliament in support of a petition urging the government to provide urgent humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people.
    More than 200 people gathered at Parliament in support of the petition. Image: RNZ/Anneke Smith

    Immigration Minister Erica Stanford acknowledged there was an “unimaginable humanitarian crisis in Gaza” but said issuing special visas would not assist people.

    “Those people in Ukraine were able to leave. They were able to get on a plane and get to New Zealand. The situation in Gaza is that they cannot leave.

    “I’m not going to be issuing visas, which is issuing false hope, for people on a great scale who cannot leave. As and when the situation changes, we will reconsider our position.”

    Labour MP for Nelson Rachel Boyack, a Christian, said she was calling on MPs of all faiths in Parliament to stand up for Palestine.

    ‘War about land, power’
    “Our religion and our faith has been used to fight a war that is fundamentally about land and power. I said in the House earlier this week in the debate that as a Christian, it pains me greatly to see other people of faith misuse their faith to kill and harm other people.”

    Foreign Minister Winston Peters has announced plans to attend a NATO meeting in Brussels, and meet with counterparts in Egypt, Poland and Sweden.

    The urgent humanitarian situation in Gaza will be a focus of the trip, with Peters saying New Zealand was part of an “overwhelming international consensus demanding an immediate humanitarian ceasefire”.

    “This travel will allow us to share information and perspectives with a range of interested parties and coordinate on broad international action,” he said.

    Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson said Peters did not need to travel to the region to understand the need for further humanitarian support.

    “it’s good to hear the minister talking about some support but we can do it now,” sdhe said.

    “It’s right now that people are starving and dying without water and medical supplies. We can actually see that from here and that decision can be made right now to use all of the levers to get that kai and food and medical supplies through.”

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Previously, Part 6, I stated that weakening, cancelling Russia’s presence in the world, planning to partition it, or even destroying it has been a fixed U.S. objective. I also stated that U.S. anti-Russian hostility predates the events in Ukraine by decades. For that purpose, I gave two examples out of four. The following are the other two.

    Example 3: Under the headline: Revelations from the Russian Archives, The Library of Congress outlines U.S. stance toward Russia in clear terms. I’m citing here two consecutive paragraphs.

    Paragraph A: “The United States government was initially hostile to the Soviet leaders for taking Russia out of World War I and was opposed to a state ideologically based on communism … The totalitarian nature of Joseph Stalin’s regime presented an insurmountable obstacle to friendly relations with the West. Although World War II brought the two countries into alliance, based on the common aim of defeating Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union’s aggressive, antidemocratic policy toward Eastern Europe had created tensions even before the war ended.”

    Comment: If one wants to analyze U.S. motives for persistent enmity toward Russia without recourse to tiring research, paragraph “A”could provide invaluable insight.

    1. The phrase “Taking Russia out of WWI …” This is true. Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet State, took Russia out of that war because he did not want Russians to die for internecine capitalistic wars and colonialistic rivalry. He stressed his views in Imperialism, The highest Stage of Capitalism published during the war.

    Further, Russia’s withdrawal from that war was a sovereign decision—considering its colonialist motives, and coupled with the discovery of the Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France to divide among them the Arab land in Western Asia. Was that withdrawal the true cause for the U.S. hostility toward Russia as stated? No. Most likely, U.S. resentment of Russia was due to the missed hope that a protracted war with Germany and the Ottoman Empire may lead to the collapse of Russia and the newly established Communist system.

    1. The phrase, “Totalitarian Nature of Joseph Stalin’s Regime, etc.”: The writers of the “revelations” appear to be claiming that aside from opposing Communism, the U.S. also opposed Stalin’s “totalitarianism”. The argument is: preposterous, irrelevant, justificatory, and insidious.
    • It is preposterous because, ideally, no nation is entitled to preach, demand, or impose any form of government on other nations. For example, in the British settlers’ experience in what is now the United States, Britain had to bow to the will of George Washington and his lieutenants to form a republic thus detaching the aspired-for state from the British monarchy. During those times, did Spain, for example, intervene to abort the new republic because had reservations about it? Equally, then and now, the United States has no right to tell Russians how to choose their political system. Invariably, political systems are determined by historical circumstances and national events pertinent to each nation—except when imperialist forces impose them as it happened in Iraq consequent to the U.S.-British invasion.
    • It is irrelevant because the nature of Stalin’s government was in relation to his application of the Marxian theory of socialism through the “dictatorship of the proletariat” paradigm—not in relation to how the United States thinks of Marxism and Russia. Regardless of how one thinks of this paradigm, the fact is, this is how the forces of history work—by waves, currents, tumults, and uprisings; by philosophical, social, and political theories; and by dynamic social changes in all forms including revolutions.
    • It is justificatory: the United States was not opposing Russia under the premise that Communism posed a mortal danger to the U.S. capitalistic system. (If the foundations of capitalism are that strong, why the fear for their failure?) From the start, that opposition had a factual origin. With a huge landmass, diverse but cooperative nationalities, and bountiful natural resources, the Soviet model of equality among the constituent socialist states posed potential challenge to the U.S. imperialist model of domination.

    Further, the U.S. never proved that the USSR of Stalin was a threat to the United States. It is a well-known fact that prior to WWII, Stalin’s focus was set on one exclusive target: Socialism in one country—the Soviet Union. He knew that the West would not sit idle while seeing a socialist experiment (the collective ownership of means of production) unfolding. Knowing the perils of possible wars because of it, Stalin had no interest in expanding his socialist model beyond Russia. He even ferociously fought Leon Trotsky who was advocating Permanent Revolutions across the world.

    • It is insidious because it wants to spread the notion that the United States is the sole authority in charge of how the world must function.

    To close, Stalin neither urged the United States to convert to Communism nor proposed military action to force it upon any other country. However, with WWII knocking on all doors, and seeing the U.S.’s continuing hostility (the U.S. recognized the USSR in 1933—16 years after the Communist revolution) the formation of the Socialist bloc at the end of war can be seen as response to defend the USSR from Western adventurism and declared intent to attack it—Churchill’s was an example.

    In all cases, being a major world power does not qualify the United States to impose on Russia any form of government or to fight Communism just because (a) it is antithetical to Capitalism and its notions of private property, and (b) it did not fit its world agenda. (Note: discussing the speculative concept of totalitarianism (coined by the anti-Communist and anti-Russian Hanna Arendt) goes beyond the scope of this work.)

    Of special interest: why did the United States feel compelled to oppose totalitarianism but not Europe’s dehumanizing colonialism? As for its own colonialism and imperialism, the United States purposely does not see itself in that way.

    Another argument: U.S. unipolarity in world relations, as well as its oversized pressure on all nations resisting subjugation is a form of totalitarianism—the same concept they purport to oppose. Without a doubt, the accusation of totalitarianism (selectively applied to others) is a ruse to justify adversarial political decisions versus the accused.

    • The phrase, “The Soviet Union’s Aggressive, Antidemocratic Policy”: I discussed the notion of “democracy” as defined by the United States in the upcoming parts. As for the claim of “Soviet aggressive policy”, this is worn projection psychology. Even if the Soviet Union was aggressive, its aggressiveness pales by comparison with that of the Union States. For one, the Soviet Union did not exterminate the population of its republics. But the United States nearly exterminated all Original Peoples to make space for European settlers.

    To close, accusing others of aggressions and aggressive behavior while dismissing own aggression and aggressive behavior is a tactic that the United States has been practicing since foundation.  It does not matter whether people point to that fact or not. What matters for U.S. ruling circles is the continuation of the practice as a tradition, and as a means for public relations.

    Paragraph B: “Beginning in the early 1970s, the Soviet regime proclaimed a policy of détente and sought increased economic cooperation and disarmament negotiations with the West. However, the Soviet stance on human rights and its invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 created new tensions between the two countries. These tensions continued to exist until the dramatic democratic changes of 1989–91 led to the collapse during this past year of the Communist system and opened the way for an unprecedented new friendship between the United States and Russia, as well as the other new nations of the former Soviet Union.”

    Comment

    • The United States, the primary violator of human rights around the world, is not qualified to speak of human rights—it is like a criminal and a thief who insists to give solemn sermons against crime and theft. Besides, the proverbial crocodile tears shed on the question of human rights as violated by Russia could never cover up U.S. criminal conduct around the world—the ongoing U.S.-Israeli genocidal war on Gaza is a case in point.
    • Claiming that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan created “new tensions between the two countries” is so preposterous that one cannot help but recalling U.S. voluminous history of invasions and interventions. Playing the virtuous preacher has been constantly a game that the U.S. could never master because of its venality and the ease with which it can be seen. The following limited references can corroborate my charge: (1) A Chronology of U.S. Military Interventions From Vietnam To the Balkans; (2) Foreign interventions by the United States; (3) S. Launched 251 Military Interventions Since 1991, and 469 since 1798.
    • Legions of American politicians, ideologues, think tanks, writers, media owners, and smattering opinion makers have joined in the relentless campaign to vilify and oppose Russia. When the USSR was alive and kicking, the pretext was Communism. When Russia became capitalist, the pretext was authoritarianism. This strongly suggests that America’s former anti-Communist policy was no more than a ploy to (a) weaken and destabilize Russia, and (b) establish the United States as an arbiter of its fate.

    Example 4: is there an origin to U.S. hostile attitudes toward Russia in post -WII environment? Yes. It is called McCarthyism. McCarthyism, in its vast anti-communist ideological and psychotic contexts, has been invariably understood by U.S. imperialists and public alike as being anti-Russian—is the matrix to U.S. official enmity toward Russia.

    Joseph McCarthy’s campaign against intellectuals, artists, writers, actors, and politicians is known. His role in creating stable anti-Russian hysteria and policies could never be overlooked for two reasons. First, from his time through present, his anti-Communist campaign (anti-Russian by association) and the ideology behind it kept reincarnating in different ways through countless personalities. Second, he left deep marks on U.S. political attitudes in the context of international and Russian relations. (Writing for Middle Tennessee State University under the headline: “The First Amendment Encyclopedia: McCarthyism,” Marc G. Pufong gives an incisive review of Joseph McCarthy and his American world)

    Before everything, McCarthy, as a politician, is a product of U.S. ideologized imperialism. Meaning, whatever that system represents in terms of political cultural, party line, government policy, and worldview are necessarily imbued in him. Proving this, the Senate website published an article on McCarthy dated June 9, 1954. The opening paragraph is quite telling. It states,

    “Wisconsin Republican senator Joseph R. McCarthy rocketed to public attention in 1950 with his allegations that hundreds of Communists had infiltrated the State Department and other federal agencies. These charges struck a particularly responsive note at a time of deepening national anxiety about the spread of world communism.” [Italics added].

    The meaning is self-evident: the system has already created an atmosphere of “of deepening national anxiety about the spread of world communism”. All what McCarthy had to do was to dip into that anxiety and amplify what the system wanted him to do. In essence, he played according to preset rules including the anti-Russian rule. As such, he was (a) the leading promotor for building the future American hostility toward Russia, and (b) the ideological progenitor to countless clones who followed his example without mentioning his ideological influence.

    The point: high profiles anti-Russian figures—without McCarthy’s theatrics and hearings—across U.S. political spectrum, followed the basic ideological stance of McCarthy vs. Russia. Examples: John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Henry Jackson, Barry Goldwater, Paul Nitze, Alfonse D’Amato, Ronald Reagan, Harold Brown, Madelaine Albright, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Lindsay Graham, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Nikki Haley, Victoria Nuland, her husband Robert Kagan and Robert’s brother Frederick, Antony Blinken, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and countless others.

    Discussion: I maintain that U.S. foreign policy conduct vis-à-vis Russia never recovered from Kennanism and McCarthyism. Both currents had origins in and found inspirations in Woodrow Wilson’s stance on Russia after the October Revolution and his intervention on the side of forces fighting Communism. Proving this are the multiple ideologies copied from Wilson—Nixon-ism is the highest example. With his many hyper-imperialist books, Nixon, the mass destroyer of Viet Nam, Cambodia, and Laos set the tones on how to hate Russia while appearing “normal”, “cool”, and “knowledgeable”.

    In the end, American anti-Russian currents inserted themselves deep inside the American political culture, pop culture, policymaking, and legislation. The anti-Russia plan moved along two axes. The first owes its existence to the original thinking patterns of empire. That is, the United States would do anything to assert itself as a world power that accepts no challenges. The second is McCarthyism, Kennanism, and all their derivations. By dint of this configuration, all traits, principles, and paradigms of acute ideological determinism related to Russia embedded in those currents have become the distinguishing marks and modus operandi of the United States.

    From February 2022 (the day in which Russia intervened in Ukraine) forward, McCarthyism and Kennanism (with the added benefits of Nulandism, Bidensim, Blinkenism, Schumerism, and Grahamism) came out of their momentary hibernation after Gorbachev and associates dismantled the Soviet Union. The nouveau McCarthysts and Kennanists intimidate that if you do not side with the U.S. against Russia, then you are siding with Russia— and that would make of you a Putin-loving anti-American.  Lindsay Graham has recently applied his brand of McCarthyism to his own party. Zero Hedge reports that Graham suggests. “If Conservatives Want Border Security They Will Have To Support Funding For Ukraine”. This reminds us of fascist Israel: either you support the Zionist settler state in killing the Palestinians and annex their lands, or you are “anti-semitic”.

    To close, turning Russia into an enemy because of its intervention in Ukraine was never spontaneous or empathic. In his article, “McCarthyism Re‐​Emerging Stronger than Ever in Ukraine Policy Debates,” Ted Galen Carpenter, a former senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute (no lover of Russia), summarized the revival of McCarthyism as a political discourse vis-à-vis Russia as follows:

    “A troubling pattern has developed over the decades in which foreign policy hawks smear their opponents and thereby seek to foreclose discussion of questionable U.S. policy initiatives…. Zealous anti‐​Russia voices are actually demanding that anyone opposing their views be silenced, and even criminally prosecuted.

    In reviewing the history, aims, and details of U.S. foreign policy since WWI, it would not take long to conclude that self-serving rationalizations are effectively driving its world policy aiming at subduing or vanquishing any country out of U.S. control. Now that Russia has been re-baptized as America’s perennial enemy, how did all this start? A quick glance at the origin and successive stages of the United States can tell many things about current U.S. global posture and operational mentality. Early signs marking the U.S. forming character includes:

    • George Washington’s vision to expand the boundaries of his 13 colonies,
    • Slave owner Thomas Jefferson’s belief in the doctrine of discovery,
    • The near extermination of the Original Peoples, black and native slavery, violent colonialist expansions,
    • Manifest Destiny,
    • Monroe Doctrine,
    • Andrew Jackson wars against the Original Peoples and his Indian Removal Act (compare with the fascist Israeli plan to remove the Palestinians from Gaza).
    • James Polk’s doctrine,
    • Wars with Mexico and Spain,
    • McKinley’s annexation of the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico,
    • William Walker’s push into Nicaragua and becoming its president,
    • Annexation of the Hawaiian Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Island,
    • S. control of the Panama Canal Zone, and
    • Supremacism as a tool of domestic and foreign policies,

    With each stage of the U.S. development as a state, the quest for an expanded empire and world domination has developed its self-perpetuating mechanisms. Meaning, whoever aspires to become a member of U.S. ruling establishment, must adopt them and defend their objectives. For instance, one cannot run for an elective office on any platform that is antagonistic to the doctrines of the dominant politico-ideological structures of the American state.

    In defense of this assertion, consider the following question. Do you know of any candidate who ran and won on a platform calling for (a) ending U.S. military interventions, (b) ending U.S. control of the United Nations, and (c) ridding the United States from the policies and ideologies that underpin its world policy—specifically imperialism and Zionism?

    For the record, in the immensely grim, Zionist-controlled American political landscape, courageous and principled politicians showed their moral sinews, stood against the imperialist system, and even sought to bring it to justice. I’m referring to former Representative and presidential candidate Denis Kucinich. Kucinich tried and failed to impeach George W. Bush for his crimes in Iraq (House Resolution: 258). Sixteen years later, could any Congress member today dare to challenge the Biden regime’s actions in Ukraine, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen?

    Thoroughout this article, I repeatedly used the term “doctrine”. Do doctrines have any relevance in the building of ideological attitudes, foreign policy culture, and political decision-making? How doctrines work in relation to the U.S. posture in Ukraine?

  • Read Part 12, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
  • The post Imperialism and Anti-imperialism Collide in Ukraine (Part 7) first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • What more can one say about the genocide in Gaza that hasn’t already been said? Special thanks to Ali Abunimah, Max Blumenthal, even Pierce Morgan, and others who break through the legacy media bubble and report what’s happening on the ground and the real history, not a sanitized, Hollywood version of it, like the movie Exodus.

    Disclosure: I grew up in the late 50s, early 60s with Zionism as much a part of my childhood as going to shul and being Bar Mitzvah’d. As a teenager I joined a social-political group called Masada, mainly to break out of my own personal bubble, meet other people, and maybe even a girl! (Failure on all aspects). I remember one workshop where we went around talking about what it was to be Jewish, or Zionist (can’t remember exactly) but you heard the same refrain from everyone. (This was only a few years after the 1967 war.) What surprised me then, and even to this day, was that afterwards the moderator actually warned us about accepting ‘facts’ without actually knowing the truth behind it. Even looking back, that was pretty ballsy of him to do that. Who knows, maybe today he’s a self-hating Jewish Hamas fanatic. Aren’t we all? (At least our Zionist cousins would likely think so.)

    Back up a few years to the 6-Day war. I asked my father who we would support if the US went to war against Israel. Was I that politically conscious even back then? His answered somewhat surprised me. Without blinking he said, “The US.” I didn’t have to ask him why but today it’s obvious. Although a secret draft dodger during WW2, (he did enlist at the time of occupation. He worked in the shipyards and was able to avoid such service, and  later talked my older brother out of joining the Marines.) He always saw himself as a loyal 1st generation American. I wonder today if this question were to be asked of many Jews, what would their immediate gut answer be?

    What’s happening in Gaza is as wrenching to me as what’s happening in Ukraine, but not for the reasons many would expect. Russia was wrong to invade but was forced to do so by the West, primarily the US and Great Britain. There’s debate over this except by those who actually know some history, but the war did not start in February 2022. This was personal to me for another reason.
The shtetl that my mother’s family was from was in what’s today Ukraine. Some left in the 20s but those who stayed were all killed. My mother didn’t talk much about it but we knew how painful it was. She was the first in her family born here. Although I can only go by geography and history, I’m all but sure that her family and the village of Trochenbrod was erased by Stephen Bandera’s army, which today makes up parts of the modern Ukrainian army and attacking Russians in the east is as enjoyably now for them as it was for them 80 years ago.  So when people put yellow and blue flags out on their front lawn, or ‘stand with Ukraine’, I wince.

    Genocide is genocide. Ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing. Pogroms are pogroms. Regardless of who the victims are, the results and the reasons behind them are the same. It cannot be justified in any way. Ever.

    The post Genocide is Genocide first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Russian President Vladimir Putin is already trying to use the horrific terrorist attack that took place Friday at a Moscow concert hall to stoke his broader imperialist and authoritarian aims, and Russian political theorist Ilya Budraitskis says he fears Putin may soon “compound this tragedy with repression at home and death and destruction abroad.” The terrorist group Islamic State Khorasan…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg1 putin crocus 2

    ISIS-K, an affiliate of the Islamic State, has claimed responsibility for an attack on a popular concert hall in Moscow that killed at least 137. Authorities say gunmen opened fire inside the Crocus City Hall building during a sold-out rock concert and then set part of the venue on fire. More than 100 people were injured in the attack, and many remain in critical condition. Authorities have detained 11 suspects, four of whom, all reportedly citizens of Tajikistan, are charged with terrorism and face life sentences. As more details emerge about the attack, we speak with professor of international affairs at The New School Nina Khrushcheva about the history of Muslim fundamentalist attacks in Russia and Putin’s “unfortunate” decision to ignore Western intelligence warnings about terrorist attacks. We’re also joined by longtime Moscow correspondent for The New Yorker Joshua Yaffa, who details possible motivations for ISIS-K and how Putin is attempting to fit this attack into his narrative opposing Ukraine and the West. “First and foremost, he cares about preserving his own power and the continued stability of his ruling system,” says Yaffa, who explains how Putin tries to control political blowback by equating ISIS-K with any group he opposes, including Alexei Navalny’s anti-corruption network and the so-called worldwide LGBT movement. “This is important to understand both in trying to determine how this attack happened in the first place and also what might Putin’s response be moving forward.”


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Many parts of Ukraine were experiencing blackouts after a massive wave of Russian strikes on March 22 targeted Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, killing at least four people, hitting the country’s largest dam, and temporarily severing a power line at the Zaporizhzhya nuclear plant.

    Live Briefing: Russia’s Invasion Of Ukraine

    RFE/RL’s Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia’s full-scale invasion, Kyiv’s counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL’s coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

    President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said the assault involved 150 drones and missiles and appealed again to Ukraine’s allies to speed up deliveries of critically needed ammunition and weapons systems.

    As the full-scale invasion neared the 25-month mark, Zelenskiy aide Mykhailo Podolyak denied recent reports that the United States had demanded that its ally Kyiv stop any attacks on Russia’s oil infrastructure as “fictitious information.”

    “After two years of full-scale war, no one will dictate to Ukraine the conditions for conducting this war,” Podolyak told the Dozhd TV channel. “Within the framework of international law, Ukraine can ‘degrease’ Russian instruments of war. Fuel is the main tool of warfare. Ukraine will destroy the [Russian] fuel infrastructure.”

    The Financial Times quoted anonymous sources as saying that Washington had given “repeated warnings” to Ukraine’s state security service and its military intelligence agency to stop attacking Russian oil refineries and energy infrastructure. It said officials cited such attacks’ effect on global oil prices and the risk of retaliation.

    The southern Zaporizhzhya region bore the brunt of the Russian assault that hit Ukraine’s energy infrastructure particularly hard on March 22, with at least three people killed, including a man and his 8-year-old daughter. There were at least 20 dead and injured, in all.

    Ukraine’s state hydropower company, Ukrhydroenerho, said the DniproHES hydroelectric dam on the Dnieper in Zaporizhzhya was hit by two Russian missiles that damaged HPP-2, one of the plant’s two power stations, although there was no immediate risk of a breach.

    “There is currently a fire at the dam. Emergency services are working at the site, eliminating the consequences of numerous air strikes,” Ukrhydroenerho said in a statement, adding that the situation at the dam “is under control.”

    However, Ihor Syrota, the director of national grid operator Ukrenerho, told RFE/RL that currently it was not known if power station HPP-2 could be repaired.

    Transport across the dam has been suspended after a missile struck a trolleybus, killing the 62-year-old driver. The vehicle was not carrying any passengers.

    “This night, Russia launched over 60 ‘Shahed’ drones and nearly 90 missiles of various types at Ukraine,” Zelenskiy wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

    “The world sees the Russian terrorists’ targets as clearly as possible: power plants and energy supply lines, a hydroelectric dam, ordinary residential buildings, and even a trolleybus,” Zelenskiy wrote.

    Ukraine’s power generating company Enerhoatom later said it has repaired a power line at the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhya nuclear plant, Europe’s largest.

    “Currently, the temporarily occupied Zaporizhzhya NPP is connected to the unified energy system of Ukraine by two power transmission lines, thanks to which the plant’s own needs are fulfilled,” the state’s nuclear-energy operator wrote on Telegram.

    Besides Zaporizhzhya, strikes were also reported in the Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Vinnytsya, Khmelnytskiy, Kryviy Rih, Ivano-Frankivsk, Poltava, Odesa, and Lviv regions.

    Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, has been left completely without electricity by intense Russian strikes that also caused water shortages.

    “The occupiers carried out more than 15 strikes on energy facilities. The city is virtually completely without light,” Oleh Synyehubov, the head of Kharkiv regional military administration, wrote on Telegram.

    In the Odesa region, more than 50,000 households have been left without electricity, regional officials reported. Odesa, Ukraine’s largest Black Sea port, has been frequently attacked by Russia in recent months.

    In the Khmelnitskiy region, the local administration reported that one person had been killed and several wounded during the Russian strikes, without giving details.

    Energy Minister Herman Halushchenko called it “the largest attack on the Ukrainian energy industry in recent times.”

    Despite the widespread damage, Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said the situation remained under control, and there was no need to switch off electricity throughout the country.

    “There are problems with the electricity supply in some areas, but in general, the situation in the energy sector is under control, there is no need for blackouts throughout the country,” Shmyhal wrote on Telegram.

    Ukrenerho also said that it was receiving emergency assistance from its European Union neighbors Poland, Romania, and Slovakia. Ukraine linked its power grid with that of the EU in March 2022, shortly after the start of Russia’s invasion.

    Ukraine’s air force said its air defenses downed 92 of 151 missiles and drones fired at Ukraine by Russia in the overnight attack.

    “Russian missiles have no delays, unlike aid packages for Ukraine. ‘Shahed’ drones have no indecision, unlike some politicians. It is critical to understand the cost of delays and postponed decisions,” Zelenskiy wrote, appealing to the West to do more for his country.

    “Our partners know exactly what is needed. They can definitely support us. These are necessary decisions. Life must be protected from these savages from Moscow.”

    Zelenskiy’s message came as EU leaders were wrapping up a summit in Brussels where they discussed ways to speed up ammunition and weapons deliveries for the embattled Ukrainian forces struggling to stave off an increasingly intense assault by more numerous and better-equipped Russian troops.

    A critical $60 billion military aid package from the United States, Ukraine’s main backer, remains stuck in the House of Representatives due to Republican opposition, prompting Kyiv to rely more on aid from its European allies.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Many parts of Ukraine were experiencing blackouts after a massive wave of Russian strikes on March 22 targeted Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, killing at least four people, hitting the country’s largest dam, and temporarily severing a power line at the Zaporizhzhya nuclear plant.

    Live Briefing: Russia’s Invasion Of Ukraine

    RFE/RL’s Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia’s full-scale invasion, Kyiv’s counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL’s coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

    President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said the assault involved 150 drones and missiles and appealed again to Ukraine’s allies to speed up deliveries of critically needed ammunition and weapons systems.

    As the full-scale invasion neared the 25-month mark, Zelenskiy aide Mykhailo Podolyak denied recent reports that the United States had demanded that its ally Kyiv stop any attacks on Russia’s oil infrastructure as “fictitious information.”

    “After two years of full-scale war, no one will dictate to Ukraine the conditions for conducting this war,” Podolyak told the Dozhd TV channel. “Within the framework of international law, Ukraine can ‘degrease’ Russian instruments of war. Fuel is the main tool of warfare. Ukraine will destroy the [Russian] fuel infrastructure.”

    The Financial Times quoted anonymous sources as saying that Washington had given “repeated warnings” to Ukraine’s state security service and its military intelligence agency to stop attacking Russian oil refineries and energy infrastructure. It said officials cited such attacks’ effect on global oil prices and the risk of retaliation.

    The southern Zaporizhzhya region bore the brunt of the Russian assault that hit Ukraine’s energy infrastructure particularly hard on March 22, with at least three people killed, including a man and his 8-year-old daughter. There were at least 20 dead and injured, in all.

    Ukraine’s state hydropower company, Ukrhydroenerho, said the DniproHES hydroelectric dam on the Dnieper in Zaporizhzhya was hit by two Russian missiles that damaged HPP-2, one of the plant’s two power stations, although there was no immediate risk of a breach.

    “There is currently a fire at the dam. Emergency services are working at the site, eliminating the consequences of numerous air strikes,” Ukrhydroenerho said in a statement, adding that the situation at the dam “is under control.”

    However, Ihor Syrota, the director of national grid operator Ukrenerho, told RFE/RL that currently it was not known if power station HPP-2 could be repaired.

    Transport across the dam has been suspended after a missile struck a trolleybus, killing the 62-year-old driver. The vehicle was not carrying any passengers.

    “This night, Russia launched over 60 ‘Shahed’ drones and nearly 90 missiles of various types at Ukraine,” Zelenskiy wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

    “The world sees the Russian terrorists’ targets as clearly as possible: power plants and energy supply lines, a hydroelectric dam, ordinary residential buildings, and even a trolleybus,” Zelenskiy wrote.

    Ukraine’s power generating company Enerhoatom later said it has repaired a power line at the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhya nuclear plant, Europe’s largest.

    “Currently, the temporarily occupied Zaporizhzhya NPP is connected to the unified energy system of Ukraine by two power transmission lines, thanks to which the plant’s own needs are fulfilled,” the state’s nuclear-energy operator wrote on Telegram.

    Besides Zaporizhzhya, strikes were also reported in the Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Vinnytsya, Khmelnytskiy, Kryviy Rih, Ivano-Frankivsk, Poltava, Odesa, and Lviv regions.

    Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, has been left completely without electricity by intense Russian strikes that also caused water shortages.

    “The occupiers carried out more than 15 strikes on energy facilities. The city is virtually completely without light,” Oleh Synyehubov, the head of Kharkiv regional military administration, wrote on Telegram.

    In the Odesa region, more than 50,000 households have been left without electricity, regional officials reported. Odesa, Ukraine’s largest Black Sea port, has been frequently attacked by Russia in recent months.

    In the Khmelnitskiy region, the local administration reported that one person had been killed and several wounded during the Russian strikes, without giving details.

    Energy Minister Herman Halushchenko called it “the largest attack on the Ukrainian energy industry in recent times.”

    Despite the widespread damage, Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said the situation remained under control, and there was no need to switch off electricity throughout the country.

    “There are problems with the electricity supply in some areas, but in general, the situation in the energy sector is under control, there is no need for blackouts throughout the country,” Shmyhal wrote on Telegram.

    Ukrenerho also said that it was receiving emergency assistance from its European Union neighbors Poland, Romania, and Slovakia. Ukraine linked its power grid with that of the EU in March 2022, shortly after the start of Russia’s invasion.

    Ukraine’s air force said its air defenses downed 92 of 151 missiles and drones fired at Ukraine by Russia in the overnight attack.

    “Russian missiles have no delays, unlike aid packages for Ukraine. ‘Shahed’ drones have no indecision, unlike some politicians. It is critical to understand the cost of delays and postponed decisions,” Zelenskiy wrote, appealing to the West to do more for his country.

    “Our partners know exactly what is needed. They can definitely support us. These are necessary decisions. Life must be protected from these savages from Moscow.”

    Zelenskiy’s message came as EU leaders were wrapping up a summit in Brussels where they discussed ways to speed up ammunition and weapons deliveries for the embattled Ukrainian forces struggling to stave off an increasingly intense assault by more numerous and better-equipped Russian troops.

    A critical $60 billion military aid package from the United States, Ukraine’s main backer, remains stuck in the House of Representatives due to Republican opposition, prompting Kyiv to rely more on aid from its European allies.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • By Katie Scotcher, RNZ News political reporter

    The New Zealand government is being urged to create a special humanitarian visa for Palestinians in Gaza with ties to this country.

    More than 30 organisations — including World Vision, Save the Children and Greenpeace — have sent an open letter to ministers, calling on them to step up support.

    They also want the government to help evacuate Palestinians with ties to New Zealand from Gaza, and provide them with resettlement assistance.

    Their appeal is backed by Palestinian New Zealander Muhammad Dahlen, whose family is living in fear in Rafah after being forced to move there from northern Gaza.

    His ex-wife and two children (who have had visitor visas since December) were now living in a garage with his mother, sisters and nieces who do not have visas.

    “There is no food, there is no power . . .  it is a really hard situation to be living in,” he told RNZ Morning Report.

    If his family could receive visas to come to New Zealand “it literally can be the difference between life and death”.

    ‘Everyone susceptible to death’
    With Israel making it clear it still intended to send ground forces into Rafah “everyone is susceptible to death and at least we would be saving some lives”.

    Dahlen said New Zealand had a tradition of accepting refugees from areas of conflict, including Sudan, Ukraine, Afghanistan and Syria.

    “So why is this not the same?”

    He appealed to Immigration Minister Erica Stanford and Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters to intervene and approach the Egyptian government.

    “We need these people out,” he said.

    “Please give them visas; this is a first step. This is something super super difficult and huge and requires ministerial intervention.”

    Border permission needed
    At the Gaza-Egypt border potential refugees needed to gain the permission of officials from both Israel and Egypt.

    Egypt had concerns about taking in too many refugees from Gaza so the New Zealand government would need to provide assurances flights had been organised.

    If the government offered a charter flight to bring refugees to this country, “that would be amazing”.

    World Vision spokesperson Rebekah Armstrong said the government had responded with immigration support in other humanitarian emergencies.

    “We provided humanitarian visas for Ukrainians when their lives were torn apart by war, and we assisted Afghans to leave and resettle in this country when the Taliban returned to power. The situation for vulnerable Palestinians is no different.

    “Palestinians are living in a perilous environment, with hundreds of thousands of people displaced from their homes; children and families starving with literally nothing to eat; and healthcare and medical treatment nearly impossible to access,” Armstrong said.

    Several hundred
    The organisations did not know exactly how many people would qualify for such a visa, but estimated it could be several hundred.

    “We know there’s around 288 Palestinian New Zealanders in New Zealand, and they have estimated that there would be around 300-400 people that are their family members that they’d like to bring here,” Armstrong said.

    “That’s a very small number and as we’ve seen, in the case of Ukraine . . . the actual number of people that have probably come here would be significantly less than that, it’s not like they’re asking for the world. I think it’s quite a conservative number myself.”

    She told Morning Report similar visas for Ukrainians and Afghans had been organised within days or weeks.

    “It would be New Zealand’s response to this catastrophic situation that is unfolding. We want to be on the right side of history and this is one way we could help.”

    She said embassies in the region would need to assist with the logistics of people leaving Gaza.

    NZ government ‘monitoring’
    Stanford said in a statement the government was monitoring the situation in Gaza.

    “The issue in Gaza is primarily a humanitarian and border issue, not a visa issue, as people are unable to leave.

    “People who have relatives in Gaza can already apply for temporary or visitors’ visas for them,” Stanford said.

    But Armstrong said: “If there is the political will, the government can do this.

    “Other countries are doing this . . .  Canada and Australia are getting people out. It’s tricky, but it’s not impossible.”

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • You’ve read, heard and seen countless stories about supposed Chinese interference in Canada, but how many times has the dominant media mentioned Canadian subversion in other countries?

    Don’t believe that Canada does that? Here are a few examples of Canada contributing to leading international stories:

    • There is a direct line between the downward spiral in Haiti’s security situation and Canadian interference. In 2004 the US, France and Canada invaded to overthrow Haiti’s elected government. René Préval’s election two years later partly reversed the coup, but the US and Canada reasserted their control after the 2010 earthquake by intervening to make Michel Martelly president. That set-in motion more than a decade of rule by the criminal PHTK party. After president Jovenel Moïse was assassinated in mid 2021 the US- and Canada-led Core Group selected Ariel Henry to lead against the wishes of civil society. In a sign of Haiti’s political descent, 7,000 officials were in elected positions in 2004 while today there are none.
    • Last Friday former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez (JOH) was convicted of drug charges by a jury in New York. Pursued by the Southern District of New York against the wishes of US diplomats, the case documented JOH’s role in a murderous criminal enterprise that began under his predecessor. JOH became president after Ottawa tacitly supported the military’s removal of the social democratic president Manuel Zelaya. Before his 2009 ouster Canadian officials criticized Zelaya and afterwards condemned his attempts to return to the country. Failing to suspend its military training program with Honduras, Canada was also the only major donor to Honduras—the largest recipient of Canadian assistance in Central America—that failed to announce it would sever aid to the military government. Six months later Ottawa endorsed an electoral farce and JOH’s subsequent election marred by substantial human rights violations. JOH then defied the Honduran constitution to run for a second term, which Canada backed.
    • There’s also a direct line between the 2014 Canadian-backed coup in Ukraine and Russia’s devastating invasion. As Owen Schalk and I detail in Canada’s Long Fight Against Democracy, Ottawa played a significant role in destabilizing Victor Yanukovich and pushing the elected president out. Yanukovich’s ouster propelled Moscow’s seizure of Crimea and a civil war in the east, which Russia massively expanded two years ago.
    • In an episode symbolic of Canadian influence and interference, Peru’s Prime Minister Alberto Otárola Peñaranda cut short his trip to the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada conference in Toronto last week to resign. Implicated in a love affair/corruption scandal, Peñaranda became prime minister after the December 2022 ouster of elected leftist president Pedro Castillo. Ottawa supported the ‘usurper’ government that suspended civil liberties and deployed troops to the streets. Global Affairs and Canada’s ambassador to Peru Louis Marcotte worked hard to shore up support for the replacement government through a series of diplomatic meetings and statements.
    • Canada’s intervention to undermine Palestinian democracy has also enabled Israel’s mass slaughter and starvation campaign in Gaza. After Hamas won legislative elections in 2006, Canada was the first country to impose sanctions against the Palestinians. Ottawa’s aid cut-off and refusal to recognize a Palestinian unity government was designed to sow division within Palestinian society. It helped spur fighting between Hamas and Fatah. When Hamas took control of Gaza, Israel used that to justify its siege of the 360 square kilometre coastal strip and series of deadly campaigns that left 6,000 Palestinians dead before October 7.

    While the media reported the above-mentioned stories, they refuse to discuss Ottawa’s negative role. Instead of holding our governments to account and describing Canadian subversion the media sphere focuses on foreign interference by our designated ‘enemies’ that’s had little demonstratable negative impact. In war and politics this is called distraction.

    Starting Thursday in Ottawa I’ll be speaking on Canada’s Long Fight Against Democracy in Ottawa, Waterloo, Hamilton and Toronto.The information is here.

    The post Please Ignore Our Subversion There first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.