Category: Ukraine

  • In Taiwan, he was in the coffee industry and military reserves.

    After Russia invaded Ukraine, Yao Kuan-chun volunteered to go fight.

    He has been on the ground in Ukraine the past three months, one of a handful of Taiwanese soldiers who have joined other international fighters in the war that started in February 2022.

    Yao, 30, knows the threat of invasion from a bigger authoritarian neighbor – China – and is fighting for the larger causes of democracy and freedom. 

    But he’s also getting first-hand combat experience in case China decides to invade his island.

    “Tensions have escalated (across the Taiwan Strait), so we need to pick up the pace if we’re to be ready. Whether or not they dare to invade depends on our preparedness,” Yao said. “Who’s going to come to your rescue if you don’t defend your own country?”

    “There’s a saying that goes, ‘Today, Hong Kong, tomorrow, Taiwan’,” he said, referring to fears that the erosion of Hong Kong’s freedoms could be repeated in Taiwan should it come under Chinese rule.

    “Or you could say, ‘Today, Ukraine, tomorrow, Taiwan,’” he said.

    Yao was given just two weeks of training before being sent to the front lines. He described his experience of fighting as “very scary.”

    “Even if you know what you’re doing, it’s still scary,” he said. “There’s not enough training.”

    The recruitment team appeared to be on the lookout for Chinese infiltrators.

    “I got more political questions than about my military background,” he said. “This surprised me.”

    “They cut to the chase and asked me if I supported the Chinese Communist Party, and whether I knew about China’s [close] relationship with Putin.”

    ‘Freedom and democracy aren’t free’

    Lu Tzu-hao, 35, said he made his decision to volunteer “without thinking about it too much.”

    “It’s really amazing that [the Ukrainians] have been able to hold down the fort for a year now,” said Lu.

    “We helped out with defense or supply logistics,” he said. “I’ve been bombed even in my sleep.”

    “If a bomb fell in front of us and didn’t go off, me and the guys would feel like we’d been given another chance at life,” said Lu, who grew up helping his parents with their meat stall at a local wet market. 

    ENG_CHN_TaiwaneseUkraine_05292023.6.jpg
    Lu Tzu-hao, who served in Ukraine for several months, said he joined the fight because “freedom and democracy aren’t free.” Credit: Provided by Lu Tzu-hao

    Why did he do it?

    “Freedom and democracy aren’t free,” said Lu, adding that other volunteers would sometimes ask him about tensions between Taiwan and China.

    “I told them yeah, Taiwan has been suppressed for a long time,” he said. “Less than a month after I got back to Taiwan, [Beijing] launched missiles at us.”

    “That same day, seven or eight soldiers from different countries asked me if we needed them to come over,” Lu said. “They’d be happy to come to Taiwan’s aid [because] they support our freedom and democracy.”

    Witnessing war

    Lee Cheng-ling, 36, had served in the Marines in Taiwan, firing howitzers. After he volunteered, he was stationed in the Kharkiv area of eastern Ukraine for nine months.

    “I just wanted to help,” Lee said, adding that the firsthand experience fighting was “very valuable.”

    ENG_CHN_TaiwaneseUkraine_05292023.2.jpg
    Lee Cheng-ling, a former Taiwan Marine, says the real combat experience in Ukraine was “very valuable” to anyone connected to Taiwan’s armed forces. Credit: Screenshot from RFA video

    Ukrainians are aware of China’s threats against Taiwan, he said.

    “Last August, when China launched missiles, it was quite big news in Ukraine,” he said. “Yep, Ukrainians know that Taiwan is in a similar situation.”

    The cruelties of war have made an impression on all the Taiwanese volunteers who spoke to Radio Free Asia.

    “We went through Bucha to survey the town after it was liberated,” Yao said. “There were at least 14 [civilians] dead, the youngest in their teens, and the oldest nearly 70.”

    “They were locked up in a basement – can you imagine what they must have suffered?”

    Lee recalled Russian troops opening fire on a fleeing middle-aged civilian and killing him.

    “He was scared and tried to run,” he said. “The Russian forces saw him, opened fire and killed him, spraying his car with bullet holes.”

    “There was a pool of blood on the ground.”

    The United Nations has estimated that 8,490 civilians have been killed by Russian forces in Ukraine, but the true number is likely far higher.

    ‘That could be you’

    At least one Taiwanese soldier paid the ultimate price.

    Tseng Sheng-kuang, 26, was in Ukraine for five months before dying of injuries sustained in battle in November 2022.

    In an interview recorded before his death and used with his family’s permission, he too drew a close parallel with his volunteering in Ukraine and Taiwan’s own situation.

    “China wants to invade Taiwan [and] I want to defend my country, but I need to help this country first,” Zeng said. 

    ENG_CHN_TaiwaneseUkraine_05292023.4.jpg
    Tseng Sheng-kuang, who was killed in Ukraine, said “China wants to invade Taiwan [and] I want to defend my country, but I need to help this country first.” Credit: Screenshot from RFA video

    His mother Su Yu-jou said she had been less than convinced.

    “He showed me some stuff on his phone saying ‘look Mom, these are innocent civilians … if the Chinese Communist Party attacks Taiwan … that could be you,” Su said.

    “I asked him, ‘Couldn’t they just manage without you?’.”

    “When he would call, there would always be noises like air-raid sirens in the background, or shelling,” Su said. “We would also hear the sound of machine-gun fire.”

    ENG_CHN_TaiwaneseUkraine_05292023.5.jpg
    Su Yu-jou, the mother of Tseng Sheng-kuang, is given a Ukrainian flag during his funeral. Credit: Provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Taiwan

    “I would be so worried, and ask him what the sounds were – he told me it was shells going off,” she said.

    Her son’s death was a “life-ending blow.” She keeps his old uniform close, and has an image of him tattooed on her arm, for fear that his memory will fade over time.

    “When Sheng-kuang died, I realized that war is a terrible, terrible thing, and so very cruel,” she said. “I never want to see another war.”

    Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Mai Xiaotian for RFA Mandarin.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • David Barsamian: American Justice Robert Jackson was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials. He made an opening statement to the Tribunal on November 21, 1945, because there was some concern at the time that it would be an example of victor’s justice. He said this: “If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • May of this year, we took the long, 27-hour train ride from Moscow to Crimea to see how life is there and what the sentiment of the people are as the US and Ukraine sharpen their threats to “recapture” this peninsula from Russia. And, while we were there, these threats were backed by a series of terrorist drone attacks in Crimea which, while doing little serious damage, signaled an escalation in the US/Ukrainian assault on Crimea.

    Despite such threats and attacks, what we found in this historic peninsula on the Black Sea was a beautiful, almost idyllic place with a bustling economy and a general sense of prosperity and hopefulness. We also found a people who seem quite content to remain a part of Russia just as Crimea has been, except for a brief interval, since 1783.

    During our trip, we visited the three major cities of Simferopol, Sevastopol and Yalta.

    Crimea has rugged but beautiful coastline.

    The Capital Simferopol

    Simferopol is an inland city with about half a million residents. There are universities as well as Crimea’s parliament and industry. When we visited it, most people were enjoying the holidays. We saw multiple groups of teenagers singing patriotic songs on the street and in front of memorials. It is difficult to imagine something comparable happening in the US or Canada. The difference may be partly the result of education but it also shows the different consciousness and experience. Approximately 1 in every seven citizens died in WW2 so every family in the Soviet Union lost family members. The Nazi invasion and occupation were horrible, real and impacted every one.

    Theater students sing patriotic songs on the street, 6 May 2023.

    In Simferopol we met two women, Larisa and Irina, who described in detail what happened in early 2014. Confrontations started when a small group of ultra-nationalists tried to demolish the statue of Lenin in the capital center. Seeing this as an attack on their Soviet and Russian heritage, a much larger group gathered and stopped them.

    Then, three police who were residents of Crimea were killed in Maidan protests. As their corpses were brought home, there was increasing fear that the violence in Kiev could come to Crimea. Volunteers formed self-defense battalions.

    Hundreds of Crimeans went to Kiev on chartered buses to peacefully protest against the Maidan chaos and violence. The violence climaxed with the killing of police and protesters by snipers located in opposition controlled buildings on February 20. The Crimeans realized that peaceful protests were hopeless and departed back to Crimea on the chartered buses. At the town of Korsun, the convoy of eight buses was stopped by a gang from the Neo-Nazi “Right Sector”. Dozens people were beaten and seven Crimeans killed.

    Crimean Bus Passengers were beaten with seven killed on 20 February 2014.

    On February 22, the elected Ukraine government was overthrown. On its first day in power, the coup government enacted legislation to remove Russian as a state language. These events provoked shock, fear and the urgent desire to re-unify with Russia. According to Larisa and Irina, there was a huge popular demand to hold a referendum to secede from Ukraine.

    The Crimean parliament agreed and first proposed to have the referendum in May. The popular demand was to have it much sooner. Larisa says that on February 27 the Russian flag was flying over parliament. She does not know how, but says, “It was like a miracle.” People sensed then that Russia might accept Crimea. Suddenly there were Russian flags all over the city.

    Crimea Parliament in the capital Simferopol

    There was still the fear of violence. Soldiers in green uniforms without insignia, known as the “polite men” appeared at key locations such as the airport and parliament. It is generally understood these were Russian special forces. They were heartily welcomed by nearly all and events proceeded without violence. Larisa laughed at western journalists who used the photograph of a WW2 tank in a park, to suggest that Russian tanks were in the capital.

    There was no involvement by Russia in the referendum; it was organized and carried out by the traditional election council on March 16. The results were decisive: with 83% voting, 97% voted to rejoin Russia.

    Two days later the Crimean parliament appealed to the Russian Federation. Two days after that the agreement was signed in Moscow. Larisa and Irina say, “Everyone was happy”; they call it “Crimea Spring”.

    Nuclear Submarines Museum

    We visited many amazing places in Crimea. In the port town of Balaklava, we visited a museum which reminded us of the increasing danger of nuclear war. The first class museum is located in the site where Soviet submarines were repaired, refitted and nuclear missiles installed. The site is a tunnel at sea level under a mountain. The tunnel goes from the open Black Sea to the protected Balaklava harbor. Under the mountain, the submarines could survive any attack and respond if necessary. When we visited, many school children were also there, learning about the dangers of nuclear war, how and why Russia felt the need to develop their own nuclear capacity. The educational graphics start with the fact that the US dropped nuclear bombs on Japan, and why Russia must be prepared to defend itself. Today this site is an educational museum. We don’t often think about nuclear weapons and the likelihood they could be used if war was to break out between Russia and the US. The museum shows they take this very seriously. Russia’s active nuclear armed submarines are located in Vladivostok and elsewhere.

    Nuclear submarine base under mountain in Balaklava (now a museum).

    The Valley of Death

    Driving north from Balaklava, we paused at a memorial overlooking a valley that was scene of an important battle in the Crimean war of 1854. It was immortalized in Alfred Tennyson’s poem “The Charge of the Light Brigade” where British cavalry charged embedded Russian forces and suffered many losses. The poem says “Into the valley of death rode the six hundred.” A famous photograph taken by one of the first war time photographers shows a barren hillside strewn with cannon balls which mowed down the British attackers.

    The great Russian author Leo Tolstoy was a volunteer fighter in the Crimean War, and he himself documented his experiences in battle. As one Crimean told us in making the point that Crimea has been part of Russia for a very long time, “the Crimean War was a Russian war; it wasn’t a Ukrainian war.”

    Today those valleys have grazing sheep and vineyards with premier wineries comparable to those in Napa Valley, California. Visitors do wine tasting just like in California. The past war and bloodshed seem far away.

    Sevastopol: A Special City

    Further north is Sevastopol, a thriving city and the base of the Russian Black Sea naval fleet. Sevastopol is known as “the most Soviet City in Russia and the most Russian City in Ukraine,” and even the City Hall continues to bear the hammer and sickle emblem on its gates.

    When Ukraine seceded from the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia negotiated a long term lease for the naval port. The Russian military has been in this port for 240 years. Along with Russian navy ships, there are locals fishing from the docks. There is a laid back, casual air to the port although the war hit close to home when Russia’s naval ship “Moskva” was sunk early in the conflict.

    Fishing from dock in Sevastopol….. Russian Navy vessels in distance.

    Tanya introduced us to former Soviet and Ukrainian Navy captain Sergey. He described how, when the decision was made to secede from Ukraine in spring 2014, many enlisted sailors and officers chose to be in the Russian rather than Ukrainian navy. Throughout our visit it was emphasized that Crimea has been Russian since 1783 and the large majority of the population have Russian as their native language and consider themselves Russian.

    People in Russia are very conscious of war and fascism. They call WW2 the Great Patriotic War. The Soviet Union caused by far the most losses of Axis soldiers. The US, Canada, and other allies supported the war with troops and supplies but it was the Soviet Union that bore the brunt of the war and was the primary cause of victory over Nazi Germany.

    Crimea was a major target of the Nazi Axis and was the scene of some of the bloodiest battles of WW2. Despite stiff resistance the peninsula was temporarily defeated. After 250 days of siege, Sevastopol was captured by the Germans in June 1942. Crimea was retaken by the Soviet Red Army in 1944.

    This history may explain why Crimeans are adamantly opposed to ultra nationalist hate filled rhetoric and why they decisively chose to re-unify with Russia following the overthrow of the elected Ukraine government in February 2014.

    In Sevastopol we visited the Partisan Museum which is a house where anti-fascist Crimeans organized resistance to the Nazi occupation. The house had a hidden basement where fliers were printed and partisans organized the sabotage campaigns.

    Partisan Museum in Sevastopol.

    A few miles south of Sevastopol is the hilltop where Nazi German command was based. It has been converted into a memorial and during our visit on Saturday prior to May 9 Victory Day, there were educational exhibitions and military displays along with miniature tanks driven by kids in a 50 foot track.

    Yalta

    In a palace at Yalta, the leaders of the US, UK and Soviet Union negotiated the spheres of influence in Europe after the defeat of the axis powers. The three countries were allies in WW2 but in just a few years the Cold War emerged.

    Yalta is a thriving tourist city. The palace where Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin met is open for visitors. During our visit, the hotels in Yalta were near capacity and the promenade and city streets were full of locals and visitors. Russians who used to travel to West Europe are now travelling about their own huge country and Crimea is especially popular.

    Reflections on Crimea

    Crimea is incredibly beautiful and historic. Today, despite occasional sabotage actions, the situation in Crimea is calm and inviting.

    Following Crimea’s secession, Ukraine tried to punish Crimeans by cutting off the electricity supply to the peninsula. They were without power for five months. Next Ukraine blocked the fresh water supply.

    Despite these hostile actions, Crimeans display no hostility to regular Ukrainians. They say, “They are our brothers and sisters.” Ukrainian is a state language in Crimea and Ukrainians are respected. There are statues honoring Ukrainian writers and artists. Many Ukrainian civilians have come to Crimea to escape the war.

    Sergey says that Crimeans are sad about the conflict in Ukraine but will continue, slowly and patiently, to victory.

    Irina says, “Zelensky will sooner take back the Moon than take back Crimea.”


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Dan Kovalik and Rick Sterling.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Under the auspices of the Australian government’s military aid to Ukraine, the Australian firm Sypaq is busy delivering numerous examples of its Corvo Precision Payload Delivery System (PPDS) low-cost UAV. These “cardboard” (actually, they are made from foam board) UAVs are supplied in flat packs, and they can be quickly assembled with engines and control […]

    The post LIMA 2023: Sypaq delivers hundreds of UAVs to Ukraine appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Undeterred by the scale of challenges in her in-tray, the new head of Human Rights Watch, Tirana Hassan, says ‘We need to be standing with those people’

    Tirana Hassan may be responsible for calling out abuses around the world, but the new global head of Human Rights Watch remains shocked by her home country of Australia’s “dehumanising” treatment of asylum seekers and refugees.

    Hassan visited the notorious Woomera immigration detention facility in central Australia when she was in the final year of a law degree and found “hundreds and hundreds of Iraqis, Iranians and Afghans who had just been wallowing without access to legal representation”.

    Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup

    Continue reading…

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

  • The future of warfare is being shaped by computer algorithms that are assuming ever-greater control over battlefield technology. The war in Ukraine has become a testing ground for some of these weapons, and experts warn that we are on the brink of fully autonomous drones that decide for themselves whom to kill.     

    This week, we revisit a story from reporter Zachary Fryer-Biggs about U.S. efforts to harness gargantuan leaps in artificial intelligence to develop weapons systems for a new kind of warfare. The push to integrate AI into battlefield technology raises a big question: How far should we go in handing control of lethal weapons to machines? 

    In our first story, Fryer-Biggs and Reveal’s Michael Montgomery head to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Sophomore cadets are exploring the ethics of autonomous weapons through a lab simulation that uses miniature tanks programmed to destroy their targets.

    Next, Fryer-Biggs and Montgomery talk to a top general leading the Pentagon’s AI initiative. They also explore the legendary hackers conference known as DEF CON and hear from technologists campaigning for a global ban on autonomous weapons.

    We close with a conversation between host Al Letson and Fryer-Biggs about the implications of algorithmic warfare and how the U.S. and other leaders in machine learning are resistant to signing treaties that would put limits on machines capable of making battlefield decisions. 

    This episode originally aired in June 2021.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • Finbar Cafferkey, Dmytro Petrov, and Cooper Andrews were revolutionaries from Ireland, Russia, and the US. All three of them joined the military defence of Ukraine, against Russian aggression. All three of them fell together on 19 April during the Russian offensive against Bakhmut.

    It’s a sad fact that parts of the European left have shown little solidarity with the people of Ukraine, instead making apologies for Russian militarism and colonialism.

    Finbar, Dmitry, and Cooper’s sacrifice should remind us what it means to be a revolutionary, and to support struggles against oppression everywhere.

    Supporting anti-authoritarian resistance against Russia

    Solidarity Collectives (SC) is an organisation supporting around 100 anti-authoritarian comrades fighting against the Russian invasion. When the Canary spoke to Anton, a member of SC about their work, they said:

    our work is related to the logistics to bring them all that is needed and that the army could not provide, to assure their safety as well as their effectiveness in combat. Our work consists as well in supporting relatives and comrades affected by the war, meaning if one comrade gets killed or injured in combat, we would help economically and in any form of support we could provide. Our work continues with the care to relatives in [their] understanding of the engagement of the comrades, sometimes with explaining the choices of the comrades.

    SC has published statements about each of the three fallen internationalists so that people can remember them and understand their struggles better.

    Finbar Cafferkey: From County Mayo, to Raqqa, to Bakhmut

    Finbar Cafferkey, and a comrade

    Finbar Cafferkey was from Ireland. He was involved in the eco-defence campaign against Shell’s natural gas pipeline in County Mayo in the mid-2000s. Later, he volunteered to help defend the Rojava revolution in North and East Syria, and participated in the liberation of Raqqa from Daesh (ISIS) in 2017. Finbar went on to participate in Rojava‘s armed defence against the Turkish invasion of Afrin in 2018 as part of the YPG (People’s Defence Units). He was given the name Çîya, meaning ‘mountain’, by his Kurdish comrades.

    When Russia invaded Ukraine, Finbar began to organise support. He worked with ACK Galicja and the XVX Tacticaid to bring humanitarian support from Poland to the front lines in Ukraine comrades said:

    When asked why he did that, Çîya always answered: “Because I have time and I can be useful here.”

    Later he decided to join a fighting unit with three comrades, supported by SC. According to SC’s statement:

    Finbar taught others to look, listen, and learn carefully – and valued seeing with one’s own eyes. He moved easily through a complex world, comfortably with different people, competently in difficult situations, and calmly amid chaos.

    They continued:

    With his character, he defended the coasts of his homeland from pillaging corporations. With his understanding, he fought in the battle for Raqqa and showed compassion to everyone he met in the Rojava Revolution against Daesh and the Turkish regime. With his commitment, he embraced and served the Ukrainian resistance as it is.

    Finbar’s comrades in the anti-Shell struggle posted a recording of him singing his rebel song about the campaign to defend County Mayo, which you can listen to here.

    Cooper Andrews: ‘there is a world to win and a fight which requires great sacrifice’

    Cooper Andrews, aka Harris, became politicised at a young age. He soon became involved in struggles as a Black autonomist, organising against the police murders of Tamir Rice & Tanisha Anderson. Cooper was also involved in anti-fascism, mutual aid organising, and self-defence training.

    Cooper believed passionately in self-defence. He joined the US Marines to gain the skills he would need as an internationalist fighter. Then, in March 2022, he joined with other anti-authoritarians in the struggle against the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    Cooper wrote a letter to his comrades a month before he died in Bakhmut. It said:

    In our hands there is a world to win and a fight which requires great sacrifice. For us and everybody else who faces the shadow of fascist aggression, there is only victory or death. Love and struggle.

    SC wrote:

    Before he departed he had conversations about Spain and fascism and history, and he made it clear that he was going to Ukraine because of the humanitarian needs of the people there to his mother.

    Willow Andrews, Cooper’s mother, wants to carry on his legacy. She has set up a memorial fund to support the causes he was passionate about. The money will go to several mutual aid projects in Cleveland. You can donate to the fund here.

    Dmytro Petrov: Russian anarchist fighter against Putin’s invasion

    Dmytro Petrov

    Dmytro Petrov, aka Illia Leshyi, was a Russian anarchist. He was active in protests in Russia, in particular the Bolotnaya Square protests against Putin a decade ago. He also organised militant direct action against the state, and in 2014 he supported the mass protests in Kyiv’s Maidan.

    SC wrote:

    He participated in the defense of the Bitsa Park in Moskow, in “Food not bombs”, fought against infill development and against building of incinerators, for the rights of workers in the ranks of the Anarchist union MPST and against police brutality.

    He participated in the antifascist movement and fought Nazis on the streets of Moscow and other places.

    In 2014 Dmytro decided to join and learn from the Rojava revolution. His comrades wrote:

    As [a] revolutionary, Dima was internationalist. He fought against the atrocity of oppression everywhere he saw it, borders did not stop him. Besides activities in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus he went to Rojava and trained there, took part in the liberation struggle of the Kurdish people.

    Dmytro was one of the founders of the Combat Organization of Anarcho-Communists (BOAK). BOAK has carried out widespread sabotage operations in opposition to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. One of their focuses has been disabling train lines and other infrastructure inside Russia.

    Dmytro realised that it was too dangerous to stay in Russia, and he moved to Kyiv. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he joined the military resistance. He gave interviews where he called on leftists from all over the world to support the struggle of Ukrainian people. Before he died, he was trying to organise an anti-authoritarian fighting unit.

    SC made this statement about Dmytro:

    Leshyi always rejected any kind of nationalism, he based his actions solely on anti-authoritarian values and ideals. And his personal qualities immediately made everyone fall in love with him, even those who had nothing to do with anarchism.

    They continued:

    Today everyone is remembering Dmytro. He is really impossible to forget. But we also encourage you not to forget his legacy. The ideas he believed in. Never give in to the mainstream and always be on the side of the oppressed against the oppressors.

    Call for international solidarity

    You can watch a video that Dmytro recorded in February 2023 here. In his video, Dmytro stresses:

    We are here neither to defend any neoliberal policies or any state structures. We are here to defend this society which defends itself against the aggression, and against elimination and enslavement. Are we tired, of course yes! We are exhausted by this year, but still we think that we are obliged to gather all the forces that we have to continue this struggle, and we also call you to combine your forces together to support us.

    The deaths of Finbar, Cooper, and Dmytro in Bakhmut are a huge loss for anti-authoritarians everywhere. Their memory and their revolutionary spirit should be treasured by all of us. All three of them were people who fought in many different ways against oppression, for liberation, and in defence of the natural world. Their internationalist spirit shows how strong we can be as revolutionaries, and how our struggles for freedom are intertwined globally.

    Their deaths are a devastating blow, but their ideas, dedication, and commitment are a legacy which will inspire many more to continue fighting.

    Featured image via Solidarity Collectives (with permission)

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • As calls grow for an end to the war in Ukraine, a number of recent developments indicate the war could instead be expanding beyond Ukraine’s borders. Russia has signed an agreement with Belarus to begin deploying tactical nuclear weapons there, and a group of pro-Ukrainian fighters from Russia has attacked sites in the Russian region of Belgorod using what appears to be U.S.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Energy colonialism was on full display at the latest meeting between seven of the world’s richest nations. Recently, the Group of Seven (G7) met in Hiroshima, Japan for its annual summit. There, the climate crisis and the use of fossil fuels were on the table for discussion.

    As the Canary reported in part one of this series, critics have pointed out the blatant use of shock doctrine and fossil fuel profiteering in the wake of Russia’s assault on Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, this is fueling destructive gas expansionism in the Global South. In fact, the G7’s policy has already enabled fossil fuel majors to begin developing new liquid natural gas (LNG) production capacity in Africa.

    Gas expansionism in the Global South

    For example, multiple oil and gas companies (mostly from G7 nations) have restarted previously abandoned LNG projects across the continent. The US’s Exxonmobil and Chevron, the UK’s BP and Shell, Italy’s Eni, and France’s TotalEnergies have significant upcoming LNG projects in multiple countries across Africa.

    Echoing this, a coalition of environment and corporate accountability groups found that in 2022, oil and gas companies were developing new LNG terminals in the region. The report Who is Financing Fossil Fuel Expansion in Africa revealed that companies had LNG facilities planned with a combined capacity of 90m tonnes per annum (MTPA). Moreover, it identified that 97% of this was being “built for export”, mostly to Europe and Asia.

    Notably, multinational oil companies from G7 nations are developing four of the largest new LNG terminals. These new export facilities in Mozambique, Mauritania, Senegal, and Tanzania will generate over half the new gas capacity, with a combined 48.3 MTPA.

    Public financing for fossil gas

    G7 governments have also provided public finance to at least two of these facilities to date. The joint Exxonmobil and Eni Rovuma LNG terminal in Mozambique is the largest project at 15.2 MTPA. The US Development Finance Corporation has provided $1.5bn of “political risk insurance” to the project.

    Meanwhile, the second largest project is French TotalEnergies’ Mozambique LNG, at 13.1 MTPA. Multiple foreign governments have funded the terminal. This includes $11.65bn from four nations in the G7.

    Oil Change International found that between 2020 and 2022, the G7 provided fossil fuel projects with international public finance to the tune of $73.5bn. This was over two and a half times the amount they directed towards clean energy.

    The largest single sub-sector of this financing was fossil gas. G7 nations funded the development of fossil gas by $10bn a year. That’s 28% of the total for fossil fuels as a whole. Significantly, they financed two thirds of this through LNG projects.

    While G7 identified that it had directed 70% of this to wealthier G20 nations, it noted that:

    Where G7 public finance for fossil fuels does flow to low-income countries, this often supports exports rather than domestic energy access.

    In other words, the G7’s public finance of LNG capacity in places like Africa has historically focused on facilitating resource drain from the Global South to the Global North.

    Pollution and soaring energy prices

    Executive director of Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development (CEED) in the Philippines Gerry Arances said that the G7 fossil gas decision would have huge ramifications for climate-vulnerable communities in the Global South:

    They cannot claim to be promoting development while subjecting our people to decades more of pollution and soaring energy prices.

    Essentially, public finance to expand LNG will place the heavy pollution costs of oil and gas extraction on Global South communities. Meanwhile, it will do little to help those same communities out of energy poverty.

    For example, the offshore oil and gas industry in Mozambique has decimated the northern Cabo Delgado region. The Who is Financing Fossil Fuel Expansion in Africa report stated that in the last decade:

    the industry has left thousands of people displaced and without livelihoods, ruined the environment and fueled an ongoing violent conflict that has led to thousands of deaths and turned 800,000 people into refugees

    Meanwhile, when European nations began scrambling for gas supply beyond Russia, prices soared. In mid-2022, companies hiked gas prices to 1,900 times the cost of their low in 2020. As a result, companies defaulted on contracts with poor countries in the Global South. Instead, they diverted their LNG cargoes to the wealthier, higher-paying nations. Of course, European G7 nations have been among the countries driving this energy supply injustice.

    Moreover, fossil fuel firm Eni from G7 member Italy was one of the companies that failed to uphold its contractual obligation with Pakistan. A Greenpeace report explained how Europe’s gas rush compounded the impacts of the climate crisis there:

    This arbitrary behaviour of the global gas companies saw parts of Pakistan experiencing planned blackouts of more than 12 hours, during the heatwave of 2022. In January 2023, a breakdown in the grid triggered yet another outage leaving 220 million people without electricity at the peak of winter. The electricity shortage added to the estimated €37 billion in damage caused by catastrophic flooding in 2022, a budget deficit, and a debt load that is bringing Pakistan to its knees.

    Once a coloniser, always a coloniser

    None of this should come as any surprise. The G7’s rush to support investments in fossil gas shows how the forum’s priority is and always will be its member nations. For all its rhetoric on achieving “a world that is human-centered, inclusive and resilient, leaving no one behind”, its remit remains one of maintaining global economic and political power.

    In 2021, director of Global Justice Now Nick Dearden wrote that the precursor to the G7 was founded in 1975:

     to discuss the threat to their control of world energy markets from Middle Eastern suppliers who had turned off the oil taps, and how to deal with their former colonies who were demanding economic liberation from the Western-controlled international economy.

    Now, as its current fossil fuel hegemony is under threat, the G7 is using the global financial and trade systems it put in place to subordinate the Global South to its needs once again. This is nothing short of energy colonialism.

    Feature image via the White House/Wikimedia, public domain, resized to 1910*1000.

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • From 19 to 21 May, the Group of Seven (G7) met in Hiroshima, Japan for its annual summit. There, the US, UK, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan held talks on global economic, energy, and security policy. Significantly, action to address the climate crisis and the approach to fossil fuels were among the critical topics discussed at the forum.

    However, climate justice groups have criticised the outcome of the talks. In particular, they pointed out the hypocrisy of the G7’s intention to maintain the public financing of fossil gas.

    Head of global policy strategy at Climate Action Network International Harjeet Singh said that the G7 leaders were “paying lip-service” to their commitments under the Paris Climate Agreement. Moreover, he stated that:

    continuing to invest in gas shows a bizarre political disconnect from science and a complete disregard of the climate emergency.

    ‘Shock doctrine’ politics

    The G7 has argued that public finance for fossil gas is currently necessary as a response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The war has disrupted major supply pipelines such as Nord Stream 1, which carries gas into Europe.

    However, in a 2022 report, Greenpeace suggested that fossil fuel companies were driving this rhetoric. It described fossil fuel companies’ capitalisation on the gas supply crisis as “one of the most blatant examples of ‘shock doctrine’”.

    Author Naomi Klein coined this use of the term in her 2007 book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. In a 2017 article for the Guardian, she described the concept as:

    the brutal tactic of using the public’s disorientation following a collective shock – wars, coups, terrorist attacks, market crashes or natural disasters – to push through radical pro-corporate measures, often called “shock therapy”.

    Weaponising disaster

    In this instance, Greenpeace highlighted how gas corporations had weaponised Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to influence Global North governments’ policy around fossil gas:

    gas operators quickly shifted their public messaging and lobbying from “energy transition” to “energy security” and cynically used the opportunity to frighten governments into massive, unneeded investment into and expansion of fossil gas imports and infrastructure.”

    The G7 leaders’ latest communique is a case in point of this shock doctrine operating in practice. It stated that the group stresses:

    the important role that increased deliveries of LNG [Liquified Natural Gas] can play, and acknowledge that investment in the sector can be appropriate in response to the current crisis and to address potential gas market shortfalls provoked by the crisis.

    ‘LNG’ refers to fossil gas which has been cooled to liquid form for easier transportation. In short, gas companies and Global North governments are profiting off of this fossil fuel disaster capitalism.

    ‘Caving in to the gas industry’

    Following a previous G7 meeting in June 2022, Oil Change International accused the group of “caving in to the gas industry”. Co-lead of the group’s global public finance campaign Laurie van der Burg said that the G7 had:

    prioritized filling the pockets of the fossil gas industry over protecting peoples’ lives.

    Little has changed. The G7 remain beholden to the interests of profiteering fossil fuel corporations. Moreover, the seven wealthy nations were more than content to extend their dependence on fossil gas and delay financing a global green transition. The war in Ukraine simply provided an opportune moment to shirk their responsibility to bring an end to the polluting, destructive gas industry.

    Part two of this series on the summit will examine how the G7’s profiteering comes at the expense of the Global South.

    Feature image via The White House/Wikimedia, public domain, resized to 1910*1000.

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Our team has noticed over the past year or so that when we cover global politics, particularly in relation to Turkey, Ukraine, and Russia, our coverage often elicits comments from self-proclaimed anti-imperialists. Recently, some of this criticism has intensified in relation to articles we’ve put out about Imran Khan and Kurdistan. We’re no strangers to criticism, but we’ve noticed a pattern to comments that crop up repeatedly. We’d like to respond as a team to this pattern of criticism, and make our position clear.

    People, not states

    These claims centre around the apparent belief from a group of people that all our coverage of international politics should be doggedly anti-US with no exceptions. They believe such a position to be inherently anti-imperialist. The problem with this is that these anti-imperialists believe state actors like Putin and Erdoğan – vocal critics of US domination – should be supported in their efforts to dismantle US hegemony. This is in spite of the documented atrocities both have visited on ethnic minorities in their respective countries.

    For example. one author has dedicated an entire article to claiming that the Canary is intentionally pushing “Anglo-American empire” propaganda with our coverage of both Khan and Turkey. On social media, we’ve been accused of taking “Qatari blood money” over this. The Canary has also been said to be “deliberately omitting” US imperialism from our Pakistan and Turkey coverage, and trying to shape a “US/West-friendly perspective”. We’ve also come in for repeated attacks, historically, for criticising Russia and its invasion of Ukraine.

    At the Canary, we believe this to be a deeply dangerous set of beliefs that harms the people caught up in geopolitical battles. We are not oblivious to the fact that other emerging powers wish to exert their influence in Pakistan, Ukraine, Turkey, and other areas. However, criticism of populist figures is not an open invitation to Western war hawks to charge into countries that have already been ruined – and also formed, in the case of Pakistan – by genocidal powers. Our politics has always been, and will always be, guided by a commitment to reporting on the people caught up in these battles, not the states that wage them.

    We’ll now respond more specifically to two instances where recent reporting has been criticised by so-called ‘anti-imperialists’.

    Kurdish revolution

    We’re proud to support Kurdish people in their struggle for freedom, and we have a long history of doing so. Critics have claimed that supporting the revolution is tantamount to supporting the US. They say this is because the Kurds’ tactical coordination with the US in the struggle to defeat Daesh amounts to a “US-backed illegal occupation.” To call the autonomous administration an ‘occupation’ is a mind-bendingly warped take on the reality of revolutionary struggles in North and East Syria.

    What would critics have done if they had been living in Kobanî during the Daesh siege? Would they have watched their community die, rather than accept the limited US support on offer? Military coordination with the US has been a survival tactic for the revolutionary forces of North and East Syria. The movement knows that US imperialism is opposed to their revolution, and only supports them militarily when it aligns with US interests. The coordination with the US remains a contradiction for Rojava’s radicals, but one they are all too aware of. One of the impressive things about the Kurdish Freedom Movement is its ability to remain true to its revolutionary spirit while sitting with the contradictions that arise from the practical reality of the struggle.

    It is a grim reality that our critics – who claim they are steadfastly against US imperialism – ignore the bloody authoritarianism, colonialism, imperialism, and racism of Putin, Assad, Erdoğan, and the rest. It cannot be acceptable to align one’s politics with blood-soaked dictators at any cost – particularly when that cost is ignoring the struggles of oppressed communities fighting for their survival.

    As radicals, we need to be allies to people struggling for freedom globally, not to states. We need to remember the spirit of revolutionary internationalism, and to do what we can to materially support our comrades who are fighting against imperialism around the world.

    Racial literacy

    We have also received criticism of our coverage of Khan’s arrest in Pakistan. This criticism is from the same purported ‘anti-imperialist’ crowd mentioned above, who argue that by criticising Khan (who has nominally opposed US influence) we’re implicitly advocating for US influence and control in the region. Criticism in itself is not our issue, but such bad-faith analysis rankles.

    If commenters cannot understand why articles written by Pakistani people living in Pakistan, and edited by Pakistani editors, are critical of Imran Khan beyond ‘you want to prop up Western neo-imperialism’, then we cannot help you.

    Some criticism has also claimed that, in spite of writers and editors working from what they know and experience, our education in the West invalidates our reporting on Pakistan. We would argue that colonisers devalued or outright eradicated native centres of learning and processes of knowledge production. Colonisers created a hegemony of Western languages and epistemology, forcing Black and Brown people to speak their language and study in their systems in order to be heard. As a result, Black and Brown people had to become proficient with the colonisers’ tools in order to advocate for our humanity. So we jumped through all the hoops, only to be told by ‘anti-imperialists’ that their education makes us too privileged to speak for our own people.

    Accusing us of lacking anti-imperialism is laughable, but more than that, it is dripping in colonial racism. The Canary is one of few politics-focused media outlets in the UK where people of colour make up the majority of its editorial team. The people of colour who work and write at the Canary routinely risk their safety and wellbeing in confronting and demonstrating the violence of settler colonial states like the UK and the US. It is not by being ‘pro-intervention’ that they ended up on no-fly lists and Prevent’s radar.

    Internationalist solidarity

    We will not allow such criticism to go unchecked, because it is exactly the kind of bad-faith reading which seeks to dismiss valid critique with misinformed and baseless accusations. At best, such analysis of our coverage is purposely obtuse. At worst, it’s blatantly racist, diminishing the right of people from the Global South to tell their own stories and be an authority on their own struggles. It disregards the working class and multiply-marginalised people caught up in these struggles across the world. Instead, it originates only from the contrarian interests of people untouched by colonialism and racism.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Finland has joined NATO, but campaigners warn that it will increase tensions internationally. Meanwhile, Turkey is still blocking Swedish membership as supposed allies jostle between themselves.

    Helsinki’s shift ended decades of military non-alignment. The move also doubled the length of the US-led alliance’s land border with Russia, and drew an angry warning of “countermeasures” from the Kremlin.

    Finland’s foreign minister formally sealed Helsinki’s membership as the Finnish flag was raised outside NATO’s Brussels headquarters.

    Dire warnings

    Finland has a history of conflict with Russia, whose brutal war in Ukraine helped shift the country towards NATO membership. However, some campaigners warn that membership will increase tensions between the US and Russia.

    As a full member, Finland will be subject to NATO’s Article Five. This means that any attack on a member state will be treated as an attack on all member states.

    Stop the War Coalition’s Andrew Murray wrote:

    NATO’s policy is set by Washington. US power underwrites the alliance’s every move. Ultimately, the US is responsible for the illegal NATO aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999, the disastrous 20-year NATO occupation of Afghanistan and the equally catastrophic NATO attack on Libya in 2011.

    While Britain and France played a prominent part in some of these aggressions, they would have been unable to act without US support.

    So whether or not NATO membership protects Finland from Russia, the Baltic state’s future is now tied to the whims of the US.

    He added:

    Finland will now be committed to such policies in future. The list of NATO aggressions should remind us that it is not a defensive alliance, nor does it confine its military operations to the North Atlantic.

    Slippery slope

    NATO members are continuing to bicker among themselves about who can join. Sweden’s membership is being held back by Turkey and Hungary.

    Sweden has upset Hungary’s leader Viktor Orban – one of Putin‘s closest allies in Europe – by expressing alarm over the rule of law in Hungary. It has also angered Turkey by refusing to extradite dozens of suspects that president Recep Tayyip Erdogan links to a failed 2016 coup attempt and the decades-long Kurdish independence struggle. Until these issues are dealt with, petty politicking will likely continue.

    Internal friction is one thing. However, it is clear that Finland’s long border with Russia, Baltic location, and substantial military capacity could be a game-changer in Europe. And that’s before we consider Russia’s increased isolation and belligerent statements. If it is stability and security we want to see in Europe, it’s hard to see how NATO can deliver it.

    Either way, Finland – and perhaps Sweden down the line – are now integrated into a rapacious US-dominated military alliance whose interests extend far beyond Ukraine.

    Additional reporting by Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Levvuori, cropped to 770 x 403.

    By Joe Glenton

  • French leader sees Beijing as possible ‘gamechanger’ and will also discuss European trade on three-day visit

    Emmanuel Macron has arrived in China for a three-day state visit during which he hopes to dissuade Xi Jinping from supporting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine while also developing European trade ties with Beijing.

    Shortly after arriving in the Chinese capital, Macron said he wanted to push back against the idea that there was an “inescapable spiral of mounting tensions” between China and the west.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Front Line Defenders launched its Global Analysis 2022 on the situation of human rights defenders (HRDs) at risk around the world, an in-depth annual publication detailing the variety of risks, threats and attacks faced by HRDs around the world. Front Line Defenders’ Global Analysis 2022 gives a panorama of the threats faced by HRDs in all regions of the world. Despite an assault on human rights and the rule of law in many countries, human rights defenders (HRDs) showed remarkable courage and persistence in advocating for more democratic, just and inclusive societies in 2022. [see also https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/01/17/at-least-78-human-rights-defenders-killed-in-colombia-in-2021/]

    The report also names 401 HRDs killed in 26 countries in 2022 compared to 358 HRDs killed in 35 countries in 2021 – based on statistics by the HRD Memorial, a collective initiative of human rights organisations working to collect and verify data on the killings of HRDs each year.

    “In a grim milestone, for the first time we saw more than 400 targeted killings of human rights defenders in 2022. While Latin America remained the deadliest region in the world for human rights defenders, we also saw a more dangerous landscape for defenders in the context of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine,” said Olive Moore, Interim Director of Front Line Defenders. ”These human rights defenders were deliberately targeted and killed because of their human rights work. Because they choose to speak out and challenge injustice, they paid for it with their lives.”

    Five countries – Colombia, Ukraine, Mexico, Brazil and Honduras – accounted for over 80% of killings, according to HRD Memorial data. Colombia alone accounted for 46% of the total, with at least 186 killings documented and verified by HRD Memorial partner Somos Defensores to date. Defenders working on land, indigenous peoples’ and environmental rights were the most frequently targeted sector, accounting for almost half (48%) of the total killings.

    In the context of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, defenders engaged on humanitarian response and human rights journalists were also specifically targeted, with at least 50 documented killings by Russian military forces.

    Wide array of threats

    Global Analysis 2022 data is based on more than 1,500 threats and violations reported to Front Line Defenders, and is disaggregated by region, type of threat, sector of human rights work and gender.

    The main threats HRDs reported to Front Line Defenders in 2022 included: arrest or detention (19.5%); legal action (14.2%); physical attack (12.8%); death threats (10.9%); and surveillance (9.6%). In Asia and the Americas, death threats were the most frequent violation against defenders; in Africa it was arrest and detention; while in ECA and MENA it was legal action against HRDs.

    Women HRDs (WHRDs) were frequently targeted with death threats, which accounted for the third most common violation against them. Physical violence was the most prevalent violation reported by trans and gender variant/gender nonconforming HRDs.

    The five most targeted sectors of human rights defence were: environmental, land and indigenous peoples’ rights (11%); freedom of expression (10%); protest movement/ freedom of assembly (9%); women’s rights (7%); and impunity and access to justice (6%).

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    About the data on killings: Front Line Defenders manages the collection of partner-verified data-sets under the HRD Memorial umbrella. The partners in the HRD Memorial are: ACI-Participa (Honduras); Amnesty International; Comité Cerezo (Mexico); FIDH; Front Line Defenders; Global Witness; Human Rights Defenders’ Alert – India; Karapatan (the Philippines); OMCT; El Programa Somos Defensores (Colombia); Red TDT (Mexico); and UDEFEGUA (Guatemala).

    About the data on other violations against HRDs: This is derived from 1,583 reported threats and violations, based on Front Line Defenders’ urgent actions and approved grants between 1 January and 31 December 2022. For more details, see the Methodology section of the report.

    for last year’s report, see: https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/resource-publication/global-analysis-2021-0

    Download the Global Analysis 2022

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/04/colombia-human-rights-defenders-killings-2022

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



  • The prospect of a nuclear holocaust has always been terrifying. But in the last years of the Cold War and the three decades that followed its end, the existential challenge of nuclear weapons became less of a clear and present danger.

    Sure, in the post-1991 era, nuclear war could still happen by mistake. It could break out between two actively hostile nuclear powers like India and Pakistan. It could be triggered by a disgruntled new nuclear club member like North Korea. And, of course, a conflict between the superpowers themselves—United States, China, Russia—could escalate to a nuclear exchange because of miscalculation, misinformation, or simply a few missing synapses in the brains of the leaders.

    But what had once been a front-and-center obsession during spikes in Cold War tensions—from backyard bomb shelters to films like The Day After—had become in recent years more like ominous but muted background music. Meanwhile, other existential crises stepped to the fore, like climate change, pandemics, and artificial intelligence run amok. Apocalyptic ends have still loomed large in the public imagination: not so much with a bang any more but a whimper.

    Now, after Russia invaded Ukraine last year, nuclear war is once again competing to become the planetary catastrophe de jour. The Russian decision this week to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, possibly bringing them closer to deployment, has analysts in the West second-guessing the Kremlin’s calculations. Would Russian President Vladimir Putin actually go nuclear, either to gain battlefield advantage or to stop a successful Ukrainian counteroffensive from restoring the country’s pre-2014 borders?

    This prospect of a nuclear war, however limited, has pushed quite a few peace activists in the West to urge a ceasefire and negotiations at whatever the cost. Policy analysts, too, have warned Ukraine not to overreach, for instance by threatening Russian control of Crimea, out of concern that the conflict could escalate to the nuclear threshold.

    The threat of nuclear war should never be treated casually, particularly when such weapons are in the hands of madmen like Nixon, Trump, or Putin. This January, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved their Doomsday Clock to 90 seconds to midnight. It’s never before been so close.

    All of this requires a sober assessment of the nuclear risks involved in the Ukraine war and what can be done to minimize them.

    The Clock Strikes Almost Midnight

    Back in 1991, the Doomsday Clock stood at 17 minutes before midnight. That’s the greatest margin of safety since the clock debuted in 1947. Subsequent U.S. presidents squandered an historic opportunity to rewind the clock even more. Despite the reassurances provided by Barack Obama that he was indeed committed to nuclear disarmament—if not during his presidency then at some undefined time in the future—the clock remained poised several minutes before midnight for most of his tenure in office. When Trump took office, the measurement switched from minutes to seconds. Then this January, the second hand ticked down from 100 seconds to 90.

    The Bulletin’s well-reasoned decision to advance the clock places all the blame on Russia. The editorial discusses Russian threats to use nuclear weapons, its violations of international law, its false accusations concerning Ukraine’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has increased the risk of nuclear weapons use, raised the specter of biological and chemical weapons use, hamstrung the world’s response to climate change, and hampered international efforts to deal with other global concerns,” the editors write.

    At the same time, the Bulletin stresses the need for the United States to keep open the option of “principled engagement” with Russia to reduce the risk of nuclear war. There is no recommendation that Ukraine or its supporters pull their punches to reduce this risk. Instead, the editors speak of “forging a just peace.”

    Although the Doomsday Clock is a powerful visual suggestion that the threat of nuclear war has increased with the conflict in Ukraine, Western politicians and analysts have downplayed the actual risk of a nuclear attack. Here, for instance, is the assessment of the Institute for the Study of War, which produces an influential daily analysis of the military and political developments in Ukraine:

    The announcement of the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus is irrelevant to the risk of escalation to nuclear war, which remains extremely low. Putin is attempting to exploit Western fears of nuclear escalation by deploying tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus. Russia has long fielded nuclear-capable weapons able to strike any target that tactical nuclear weapons based in Belarus could hit. ISW continues to assess that Putin is a risk-averse actor who repeatedly threatens to use nuclear weapons without any intention of following through in order to break Western resolve.

    It might seem counter-intuitive to argue that Putin is a “risk-averse actor.” Didn’t he invade Ukraine last year without sufficient preparation? Didn’t he put Russia’s economy at risk of serious damage because of the invasion? Hasn’t he cavalierly destroyed several decades of carefully cultivated relations with Europe and the West?

    In fact, with the exception of the ill-prepared invasion itself, Putin has been quite careful. He took pains to sanction-proof the Russian economy and replace European oil and gas clients with Asian ones. He hasn’t shifted to a war economy. Nor has he declared an all-out aerial war on all parts of Ukraine (though that’s likely because of Ukraine’s air defenses).

    Most importantly, he hasn’t risked direct confrontation with NATO powers. The most logical strategy for Russia at this point is to interdict Western shipments of arms to Ukraine. Back in March 2022, the Russian government warned that it would do so. But it has failed to do so. Partly that’s because Russia lacks capacity and military intel. But it’s also because Putin doesn’t want to draw NATO into the war. It’s been hard enough for Russia to fight against Ukrainian soldiers and a handful of international volunteers. The introduction of NATO battalions would be game over for Russia.

    Russia’s use of tactical nuclear weapons could also draw NATO more directly into the conflict, which no doubt restrains Putin’s hand. The fact that Xi Jinping, on his recent trip to Moscow, explicitly warned Putin not to use nukes only reinforces the prohibition.

    Not everyone believes that the risk of nuclear war is “extremely low,” as ISW put it.

    Longtime security analyst Carl Conetta agrees that the likelihood of a direct Russian nuclear strike against Ukraine is low. But he identifies other nuclear options for Russia such as

    a demonstration blast in remote areas of Russia. Such an action would be intended and likely to have a powerful psychological effect not easily mollified by official US reassurances to NATO allies and other countries. But such a gambit would also involve and/or provoke abruptly heightened levels of strategic force readiness on both sides of today’s strategic divide, and this would be uniquely dangerous.

    Conetta also notes that Russia’s nuclear doctrine has shifted over the last year, and the Kremlin may well redefine what constitutes an existential threat to Russia to allow for the use of nuclear weapons. In the end, he concludes that “although the probability of a big power nuclear clash of any magnitude over Ukraine remains low, it would be irrational and irresponsible to act as though we can roll the nuclear dice and never come up ‘snake eyes.’”

    Masha Gessen, the prolific critic of Putin, has also sounded a warning about Putin’s willingness to go nuclear. She grounds these fears in an analysis of Putin himself.

    He believes that, on the one hand, he is facing down an existential threat to Russia and, on the other, that Western nations don’t have the strength of their convictions to retaliate if it comes to nukes. Any small sign of a crack in the Western consensus—be it French President Emmanuel Macron pressuring Ukraine to enter peace negotiations, or the House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy criticizing what he sees as unconditional aid to Ukraine—bolsters Putin’s certainty.

    She concludes that only the threat of massive conventional retaliation by NATO and the West stays Putin’s hand. Also note Gessen’s terrible irony: the more that peace activists call for negotiations to reduce the risk of nuclear war, the more Putin will interpret the successful pick-up of that message as a sign that he can use nukes with impunity.

    The Politics of Good and Evil

    Superpowers that do evil should not be allowed to continue doing so simply because they possess nuclear weapons. Those who have resisted the spread of U.S. empire in Asia, Africa, and Latin America didn’t lay down their arms or stop protests in the streets because of the threat that Washington would use nuclear weapons. They confronted the evil of U.S. occupation and, in many cases, they succeeded.

    Oh, but Putin is different, you might say. The Russian leader is making actual nuclear threats. He is promising to move nukes closer to the front (as opposed to the United States, which hasn’t moved its 100 or so tactical nukes from storage facilities in Western Europe). He is a mad man and will stop at nothing to create his “Russian world” out of territory absorbed from countries on Russia’s borders.

    But as should be clear from the above, Putin has stopped short at several junctures. He has committed war crimes, to be sure. But so far he has not listened to the right-wing critics at home who urge him to fight a total war in Ukraine. He hasn’t listened to them because the Russian military doesn’t have sufficient capacity and because he fears the consequences of such a dramatic escalation.

    It should go without saying that the United States must keep open lines of communication with Moscow and pursue arms control negotiations. The Biden administration should be careful to focus on the importance of defending Ukraine and avoid any statements that call into question the existential status of Russia or Putin’s regime. Direct NATO involvement in the conflict, which could indeed trigger a world war, should be avoided.

    So, it’s up to Ukraine—not only to defend itself but to prevent Putin from using nuclear blackmail to achieve his ends. That might also mean, paradoxically, that it will be up to Ukraine to show restraint in defeating Russia to prevent Putin from using actual nukes to forestall his own end. Ukraine thus must fight against two evils simultaneously: the reality of Putin and the possibility of nuclear war.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.



  • Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko on Friday claimed without evidence that his government needs to “safeguard” the Eastern European country from a looming Western invasion, saying he is seeking to station intercontinental nuclear missiles there to defend Belarus against the United States and other countries in the West.

    In an hourslong speech to Parliament on the state of the nation, Lukashenko, who has been in office since 1994 and whose 2020 reelection was disputed by hundreds of thousands of Belarusians, said the West is planning to take over both Belarus and its neighboring Poland.

    “Take my word for it, I have never deceived you,” said Lukashenko. “They are preparing to invade Belarus, to destroy our country.”

    For this reason, he said, he may use so-called “tactical” nuclear weapons that Russian President Vladimir Putin said last week the Kremlin would deploy in Belarus, if Putin agrees to their use. In addition, Lukashenko said he would seek intercontinental ballistic missiles, capable of destroying whole cities from thousands of miles away, on Belarusian soil.

    “Putin and I will decide and introduce here, if necessary, strategic weapons, and they must understand this, the scoundrels abroad, who today are trying to blow us up from inside and outside,” Lukashenko told lawmakers and his constituents. “We will stop at nothing to protect our countries, our state, and their peoples. “We will protect our sovereignty and independence by any means necessary, including through the nuclear arsenal.”

    “Don’t say we will just be looking after them, and these are not our weapons,” he added. “These are our weapons and they will contribute to ensuring sovereignty and independence.”

    Putin said Saturday that the short-range nuclear weapons he plans to station in Belarus will remain under Russian control.

    Belarus relinquished its nuclear arsenal after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Lukashenko noted in his speech that Belarus gave up the weapons under pressure from former Russian President Boris Yeltsin.

    Russia’s announcement last week that it would deploy weapons in Belarus would mark the country’s first stationing of nuclear weapons outside its border in more than three decades.

    U.S. President Joe Biden said Tuesday that the pending deployment is “worrisome.”

    “Belarus hosting Russian nuclear weapons would mean an irresponsible escalation and threat to European security,” said European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell this week. “Belarus can still stop it, it is their choice. The E.U. stands ready to respond with further sanctions.”

    Lukashenko and Putin have strengthened their cooperation since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, with Belarus providing a staging ground for Russian troops.

    The Belarusian leader’s comments came amid ongoing attacks in Ukraine, with multiple rocket strikes in the southeastern city of Zaporizhzhia, the site of a nuclear power plant, on Friday. Lukashenko included in his speech a call for an immediate ceasefire “without preconditions,” warning Ukraine that “it is impossible to defeat a nuclear power” and that Russia will use “the most terrible weapon” if it is threatened.

    Thijs Reuten, a Dutch member of the European Parliament, denounced Lukashenko as Putin’s “lapdog” and condemned his attempt to “blame the West.”

    “Truly troubling: Each of these steps brings Belarus closer to full-blown occupation,” said Reuten. “The Belarusian people deserve so much better.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  •  

    In the early morning of March 20, 2003, US Navy bombers on aircraft carriers and Tomahawk missile-launching vessels in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean, along with Air Force B-52s in Britain and B-2s in Diego Garcia, struck Baghdad and other parts of Iraq in a “Shock and Awe” blitzkrieg to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and occupy that oil-rich country.

    Liberation: Thousands march in Washington, D.C., to launch new movement against U.S. empire

    Liberation (3/20/23), the newspaper of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, was one of the few outlets to cover the March 18 peace march in Washington, DC.

    Twenty years on, the US news media, as is their habit with America’s wars, published stories looking back at that war and its history (FAIR.org, 3/22/23), most of them treading lightly around the rank illegality of the US attack, a war crime that was not approved by the UN Security Council, and was not a response to any imminent Iraqi threat to the US, as required by the UN Charter.

    Oddly, none of those national media organizations’ editors saw as relevant or remotely newsworthy a groundbreaking protest rally and march outside the White House of at least 2,500–3,000 people on Saturday, March 18, 2023, called by a coalition of over 200 peace and anti-militarism organizations to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Iraq invasion.

    The Washington Post, like the rest of the national news media, failed to mention or even run a photo of the rally in Lafayette Park. It didn’t even cover the peaceful and spirited march from the front of the White House along Pennsylvania and New York avenues to the K Street Washington Post building to deliver several black coffins as a local story—despite the paper’s having a reporter whose beat is actually described by Post as being to “to cover protests and general assignments for the metro desk.” An email request to this reporter, Ellie Silverman, asking why this local protest in DC went unreported did not get a response.

    National press a no-show

    Code Pink at March 18 peace march

    Code Pink was among the organizers of the DC march.

    The rally, organized by the ANSWER Coalition and sponsors such as Code Pink, Veterans for Peace, Black Alliance for Peace and Radical Elders, drew “several thousand” antiwar, anti-military protesters, according to ANSWER Coalition national director Brian Becker. He said the demonstration’s endorsers were calling for peace negotiations and an end to US arms for Ukraine, major cuts in the US military budget, an end to the US policy of endless wars, and freedom for Julian Assange and Indigenous prisoner Leonard Peltier.

    Becker said that the coalition had a media team that spent two weeks on phones and computers, reaching out to national and local media organizations, including in the seven or eight other cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco, that held rallies on the same day. “Not a single member of the national press even showed up,” he said.

    Two local Washington TV stations (CBS and ABC affiliates) did do brief stories on the rally and march, but Google and Nexis searches turned up not a single major mainstream national news report on the event, though it was the second, and significantly larger, antiwar demonstration in Washington in just four weeks, and the first by specifically left-wing peace and antiwar organizations. (The first rally, on February 19, called “Rage Against the War Machine,” organized primarily by libertarians and some left-wing opponents of the US proxy war with Russia, did get a mention in the conservative Washington Times (2/19/23) and promotion a day before the event by right-wing Fox News host Tucker Carlson (2/17/22).

    “We talked to reporters and gave them details about our planning events during the two weeks before the march—the kinds of things that journalists years back used to like to attend to hear what the activists were saying and thinking, but nobody showed up from the media at those sessions,” says Becker. “I guess those who make the decisions about assignments and coverage didn’t want this event covered.”

    Shift from the ’60s

    Vietnam War peace march

    Vietnam veterans in Washington, DC, march against the war, April 24, 1971 (CC photo: Leena A. Krohn).

    FAIR founder Jeff Cohen noted a shift from the way peace demonstrations were covered in the 1960s. “Even a few hundred antiwar protesters at a local anti-Vietnam War march would get local news coverage,” he recalled:

    We weren’t ignored, but every participant complained about the quality of the coverage that so often focused on the length of men’s hair, length of women’s skirts, usage of four-letter words, etc. and not substantive critique of war or US foreign policy. National protests in DC got significant national coverage, but not friendly coverage.

    Cohen contrasted this with antiwar protests in recent decades, which have frequently been snubbed by media. “I think the ignoring of local and even national antiwar marches kicked in during the mid- and late 1980s around movements opposing US intervention in Central America,” he said.

    Noam Chomsky (who knows from personal experience the sensation of being virtually blacklisted by corporate media) was a speaker at the March 18 event. Asked to explain this latest blackout of antiwar sentiment and opposition to military aid to Ukraine, he responded, “Par for the course.” He added, “Media rarely stray far from the basic framework imposed by systems of power, as FAIR has been effectively documenting for many years.”

    Filling the hole

    WSWS: The March 18 anti-war rally and the dead end of “pressuring” the Democratic Party

    WSWS (3/21/23) was critical of the DC march for trying to change Democratic Party policy.

    Fortunately, alternative media, which have proliferated online, are filling in the hole in protest coverage, though of course readers and viewers have to seek out those sources of information. There was a news report on the march in Fightback News (3/23/23), for example, and commentary on the World Socialist Web Site (3/21/23) and Black Agenda Report (2/22/23).

    Foreign coverage of the March 18 antiwar event in the US was substantial, which should embarrass editors at US news organizations. Some foreign coverage, considering that it appeared in state-owned or partially state-owned media, were surprisingly professional. Read, for example, the report by Xinhua (3/19/23), China’s government-owned news service, or one in Al Myadeen (3/18/23), the Lebanese satellite news service, which reportedly favors Syria and Hezbollah.

    It’s rather disturbing to find such foreign news outfits, not just covering news that is being hidden from Americans by their own vaunted and supposedly “free” press, but doing it more straightforwardly than US corporate media often do when they actually report on protests against US government policy.

    Efforts to get either the Washington Post or New York Times to explain their airbrushing out the March 18 antiwar protest in Washington were unsuccessful. (Both publications have eliminated their news ombud offices, citing “budget issues.”)

    Fortunately Patrick Pexton, the last ombud at the Washington Post, who now teaches journalism at Johns Hopkins University, and writes on media, foreign and defense policy, and politics and society, offered this emailed observation about the March 18 demonstration blackout:

    I confess that I am surprised no major national news organization covered it. I know that some people look down their noses at Code Pink and ANSWER Coalition, and journalists generally are supportive of the Ukraine War, but the demonstrators have a legitimate point of view, and my general personal rule is that anytime you get 1,000 people to turn out to protest something, you should at the very least do a local story about it. I don’t know what the Post rules are today.

     

     

     

     

     

    The post Covering (Up) Antiwar Protest in US Media appeared first on FAIR.



  • Hypocrisy and humanity’s failure to “unite around consistently applied human rights and universal values” expose a system unfit to tackle global crises, according to a report published by Amnesty International on Monday, the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    “The West’s robust response to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine contrasts sharply with a deplorable lack of meaningful action on grave violations by some of their allies including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt,” Amnesty said in an introduction to its annual global human rights report.

    “As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights turns 75, Amnesty International insists that a rules-based international system must be founded on human rights and applied to everyone, everywhere,” the group asserted.

    Amnesty continued:

    Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 unleashed numerous war crimes, generated a global energy and food crisis, and sought to further disrupt a weak multilateral system. It also laid bare the hypocrisy of Western states that reacted forcefully to the Kremlin’s aggression but condoned or were complicit in grave violations committed elsewhere…

    Double standards and inadequate responses to human rights abuses taking place around the world fuelled impunity and instability, including deafening silence on Saudi Arabia’s human rights record, inaction on Egypt, and the refusal to confront Israel’s system of apartheid against Palestinians.

    The report also highlights China’s use of strong-arm tactics to suppress international action on crimes against humanity it has committed, as well as the failure of global and regional institutions—hamstrung by the self-interest of their members—to respond adequately to conflicts killing thousands of people including in Ethiopia, Myanmar, and Yemen.

    “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a chilling example of what can happen when states think they can flout international law and violate human rights without consequences,” Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard said in a statement.

    “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created 75 years ago, out of the ashes of the Second World War. At its core is the universal recognition that all people have rights and fundamental freedoms,” she added. “While global power dynamics are in chaos, human rights cannot be lost in the fray. They should guide the world as it navigates an increasingly volatile and dangerous environment. We must not wait for the world to burn again.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Britain has revealed it will supply Ukraine with armour-piercing depleted uranium shells, despite the health and environmental harms associated with the materiel, reports Binoy Kampmark.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.



  • The announcement by President Vladimir Putin over the weekend that Russia will deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus marked a further escalation of potentially cataclysmic tensions over the war in neighboring Ukraine. As the Associated Press reported, “Putin said the move was triggered by Britain’s decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.”

    There’s always an excuse for nuclear madness, and the United States has certainly provided ample rationales for the Russian leader’s display of it. American nuclear warheads have been deployed in Europe since the mid-1950s, and current best estimates say 100 are there now—in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey.

    Count on U.S. corporate media to (appropriately) condemn Putin’s announcement while dodging key realities of how the USA, for decades, has been pushing the nuclear envelope toward conflagration. The U.S. government’s breaking of its pledge not to expand NATO eastward after the fall of the Berlin Wall—instead expanding into 10 Eastern European countries—was only one aspect of official Washington’s reckless approach.

    During this century, the runaway motor of nuclear irresponsibility has been mostly revved by the United States. In 2002, President George W. Bush withdrew the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a vital agreement that had been in effect for 30 years. Negotiated by the Nixon administration and the Soviet Union, the treaty declared that its limits would be a “substantial factor in curbing the race in strategic offensive arms.”

    His lofty rhetoric aside, President Barack Obama launched a $1.7 trillion program for further developing U.S. nuclear forces under the euphemism of “modernization.” To make matters worse, President Trump pulled the United States out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a crucial pact between Washington and Moscow that had eliminated an entire category of missiles from Europe since 1988.

    The madness has remained resolutely bipartisan. President Joe Biden quickly dashed hopes that he would be a more enlightened leader about nuclear weapons. Far from pushing to reinstate the canceled treaties, from the outset of his presidency Biden boosted measures like placing ABM systems in Poland and Romania. Calling them “defensive” does not change the fact that those systems can be retrofitted with offensive cruise missiles. A quick look at a map would underscore why such moves were so ominous when viewed through Kremlin windows.

    Contrary to his 2020 campaign platform, President Biden has insisted that the United States must retain the option of first use of nuclear weapons. His administration’s landmark Nuclear Posture Review, issued a year ago, reaffirmed rather than renounced that option. A leader of the organization Global Zero put it this way: “Instead of distancing himself from the nuclear coercion and brinkmanship of thugs like Putin and Trump, Biden is following their lead. There’s no plausible scenario in which a nuclear first strike by the U.S. makes any sense whatsoever. We need smarter strategies.”

    Daniel Ellsberg—whose book The Doomsday Machine truly should be required reading in the White House and the Kremlin—summed up humanity’s extremely dire predicament and imperative when he told the New York Times days ago: “For 70 years, the U.S. has frequently made the kind of wrongful first-use threats of nuclear weapons that Putin is making now in Ukraine. We should never have done that, nor should Putin be doing it now. I’m worried that his monstrous threat of nuclear war to retain Russian control of Crimea is not a bluff. President Biden campaigned in 2020 on a promise to declare a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons. He should keep that promise, and the world should demand the same commitment from Putin.”

    We can make a difference—maybe even the difference—to avert global nuclear annihilation. This week, TV viewers will be reminded of such possibilities by the new documentary The Movement and the “Madman” on PBS. The film “shows how two antiwar protests in the fall of 1969—the largest the country had ever seen—pressured President Nixon to cancel what he called his ‘madman’ plans for a massive escalation of the U.S. war in Vietnam, including a threat to use nuclear weapons. At the time, protestors had no idea how influential they could be and how many lives they may have saved.”

    In 2023, we have no idea how influential we can be and how many lives we might save—if we’re really willing to try.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on state television Saturday plans to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus — an escalation anti-war campaigners had been warning about and that alarmed disarmament advocates and experts. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) “condemns this extremely dangerous escalation which makes the use of nuclear weapons more likely…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    One year ago then-MSNBC analyst Malcolm Nance announced he had left the network to join the fight against Russia with the Ukrainian International Legion, telling MSNBC’s Joy Reid “I’m done talking” to much fanfare from the blue-and-yellow-flag-waving crowd.

    A year later, The New York Times has published a report which would seem to indicate that Nance was not done talking after all.

    In an article titled “Stolen Valor: The U.S. Volunteers in Ukraine Who Lie, Waste and Bicker,” the Times describes how foreign volunteer fighters “who lack the skills or discipline to assist effectively” are hindering the war effort, saying that “people who would not be allowed anywhere near the battlefield in a U.S.-led war are active on the Ukrainian front — often with unchecked access to weapons and military equipment.”

    The New York Times’ Justin Scheck and Thomas Gibbons-Neff name several of these problematic volunteers who “lie, waste and bicker,” including well-known American volunteer fighter James Vasquez, whom they confront about lies they’ve discovered he told in order to get himself to the frontline in Ukraine. But like many articles in the mainstream media, the chewiest bits aren’t found until many paragraphs down.

    class=”twitter-tweet” data-width=”550″>

    Oof.

    “Malcolm Nance, a former Navy cryptologist and MSNBC commentator, arrived in Ukraine last year and made a plan to bring order and discipline to the Legion. Instead, he became enmeshed in the chaos.”

    Stolen Valor: The U.S. Volunteers in Ukraine https://t.co/EctM1RH1kx

    — Kristina Wong 🇺🇸 (@kristina_wong) March 25, 2023

    From the article:

    Malcolm Nance, a former Navy cryptologist and MSNBC commentator, arrived in Ukraine last year and made a plan to bring order and discipline to the Legion. Instead, he became enmeshed in the chaos.

     

    Mr. Nance, whose TV appearances have made him one of the most visible Americans supporting Ukraine, was an experienced military operator. He drafted a code of honor for the organization and, by all accounts, donated equipment.

     

    Today, Mr. Nance is involved in a messy, distracting power struggle. Often, that plays out on Twitter, where Mr. Nance taunted one former ally as “fat” and an associate of “a verified con artist.”

     

    He accused a pro-Ukraine fund-raising group of fraud, providing no evidence. After arguing with two Legion administrators, Mr. Nance wrote a “counterintelligence” report trying to get them fired. Central to that report is an accusation that one Legion official, Emese Abigail Fayk, fraudulently tried to buy a house on an Australian reality TV show with money she didn’t have. He labeled her “a potential Russian spy,” offering no evidence. Ms. Fayk denied the accusations and remains with the Legion.

     

    Mr. Nance said that as a member of the Legion with an intelligence background, when he developed concerns, he “felt an obligation to report this to Ukrainian counterintelligence.”

    Scheck and Gibbons-Neff report that “Mr. Nance has left Ukraine,” which would make sense if that was how he was behaving. Perhaps he was asked to leave, or perhaps he left on his own because so many people hated him.

    class=”twitter-tweet” data-width=”550″>

    I’m DONE talking. #JoinTheLegion #StopRussia #SlavaUkraini pic.twitter.com/ob3gL1cZ7P

    — Malcolm Nance (@MalcolmNance) April 19, 2022

    In case you’re unaware, Malcolm Nance has an extensive history of telling brazen lies to advance the interests of the US empire, and has suffered no professional consequences as a pundit for doing so. As journalist Glenn Greenwald has documented over the years, these include making the objectively false claim on MSNBC that former Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein “has a show on Russia Today,” falsely asserting that the WikiLeaks documents published ahead of the 2016 election were “riddled with obvious forgeries,” and falsely accusing Greenwald himself of being “an agent of Trump and Moscow” who is “deep in the Kremlin pocket.”

    It is rare for the mainstream media to push falsehoods made up whole cloth by the media employees themselves; normally mass media propaganda consists of uncritically reporting false claims made by government officials, or using half-truths, distortions and lies-by-omission to give their audiences an inaccurate picture of what’s going on. Malcolm Nance’s media career has been one so brazenly propagandistic that it makes other propagandists cringe due to his lack of subtlety, which is why even the imperial smut rags like The New York Times are spitting on him now.

    This gruelling war has had very little about it that draws a smile, but at least we’ll always have the story of an odious imperial spinmeister flying to Ukraine to fight the Russians only to go home in disgrace while being spurned by his fellow propagandists after acting like an infantile troll.

    ___________________

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

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2



  • Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on state television Saturday plans to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus—an escalation anti-war campaigners had been warning about and that alarmed disarmament advocates and experts.

    The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) “condemns this extremely dangerous escalation which makes the use of nuclear weapons more likely,” the group declared in a series of tweets.

    “In the context of the war in Ukraine, the likelihood of miscalculation or misinterpretation is extremely high,” ICAN added. “Sharing nuclear weapons makes the situation much worse and risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences.”

    “Sharing nuclear weapons makes the situation much worse and risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences.”

    The deployment decision comes 13 months into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and after the United Kingdom this week revealed plans to provide the invaded nation with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium (DU).

    Putin said the U.K.’s announcement “probably served as a reason” why Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko agreed to the plan and argued that it won’t violate Russia’s international nonproliferation treaty obligations, according to a BBC translation.

    As Reuters explained, “The Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, signed by the Soviet Union, says that no nuclear power can transfer nuclear weapons or technology to a nonnuclear power, but it does allow for the weapons to be deployed outside its borders but under its control—as with U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe.”

    The United States, which has the world’s second-largest nuclear arsenal after Russia, “long ago deployed their nuclear weapons on the territory of their allies, NATO countries, in Europe,” the Russia leader noted. “We are doing the same thing that they have been doing for decades.”

    Russia “will not hand over” nuclear arms to Belarus, Putin insisted, explaining that his country has already given its ally an Iskander missile complex that can be equipped with weapons, plans to start training crews in early April, and aims to complete construction of a special storage facility for the nukes by the beginning of July.

    The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and in the five years that followed, nuclear weapons based in Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine were transferred to Russia—where they have remained since.

    “It’s a very significant move,” Nikolai Sokol, a senior fellow at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Nonproliferation, told Reuters of the deployment decision. “Russia had always been very proud that it had no nuclear weapons outside its territory. So, now, yes, they are changing that and it’s a big change.”

    Hans Kristensen, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project, told Reuters that “this is part of Putin’s game to try to intimidate NATO… because there is no military utility from doing this in Belarus as Russia has so many of these weapons and forces inside Russia.”

    Global Zero managing partner Derek Johnson said that “Putin’s nuclear provocations are dangerous and unacceptable. U.S. and NATO must resist calls to respond in kind and avoid injecting nuclear weapons deeper into this war.”

    In addition to his nuclear announcement, Putin pointed out during the Saturday interview that Russia also has depleted uranium shells. As he put it: “I must say that certainly, Russia has something to respond. Without exaggeration, we have hundreds of thousands, namely hundreds of thousands of such shells. We are not using them now.”

    A U.K. Ministry of Defense official had confirmed earlier this week that “alongside our granting of a squadron of Challenger 2 main battle tanks to Ukraine, we will be providing ammunition including armor-piercing rounds which contain depleted uranium,” which swiftly generated concerns about not only Russian nuclear threats but also public health and environmental impacts.

    “DU shells have already been implicated in thousands of unnecessary deaths from cancer and other serious illnesses,” stressed Kate Hudson, general secretary of the U.K.-based Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which has advocated for a moratorium on such arms. “Sending them into yet another war zone will not help the people of Ukraine.”

    This post has been updated with new comments from Derek Johnson.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • On March 17, a little more than one year after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Karim Khan, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), announced that the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) had issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin for the commission of war crimes in Ukraine. The PTC also issued an arrest warrant for Maria Lvova-Belova, commissioner for children’s rights…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama met privately in the White House with the newly elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, to get him to end Ukraine’s neutralist position ever since 1991 and join the U.S. Government’s EU and NATO alliances against Ukraine’s next-door neighbor Russia, but Yanukovych said no. And, then, Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton travelled in 2010 to Kiev to give this another try, and again Yanukovych said no. By the time of June 2011, the Obama Administration started planning the coup to replace Ukraine’s Government with one that the U.S. would select. This plan started being implemented by no later than 1 March 2013 inside America’s Embassy in Ukraine, to train Ukraine’s racist-fascist, or ideologically Nazi, haters of Russians, how to use the internet in order to organize ‘anti-corruption’ demonstrations against — and to overthrow and replace — the neutralist Yanukovych by a Ukrainian regime that would be committed against Russia. On 27 January 2014, Obama’s agent overseeing the U.S. coup told the U.S. Ambassador in Kiev that Arseniy Yatsenyuk should be placed in charge when the coup would be completed, and this was done on 27 February 2014. Obama’s plan to turn Ukraine rabidly anti-Russia succeeded. (The only part of it that failed was Obama’s plan to grab Russia’s largest naval base, in Crimea, and turn that into yet another U.S. naval base.) It also succeeded in turning Ukrainian public opinion vastly more against Russia than it had been before.

    The objective of all this was ultimately to achieve a 1962 Cuban-Missile-Crisis in reverse, by which the U.S. will ultimately place at least one nuclear missile only about 300 miles away from Moscow and then demand Russia’s capitulation. If Russia says no, then within only five minutes from America’s firing its knockout missile, Moscow can be annihilated, Russia’s central command beheaded, and that is too fast for Russia to be able to recognize that it had been done and then to launch its retaliatory weapons against America. So, there might be a reasonable chance for America to eliminate Russia by a blitz-nuclear attack from Ukraine — or at least there are influential people in the U.S. Government and academe who think so (including virtually the entire Biden Administration, just like in Obama’s and Trump’s).

    Ever since at least 2006, the idea had become mainstream in American geostrategic planning circles for America to abandon the prior nuclear meta-strategy — “Mutually Assured Destruction” or MAD — of using nuclear weapons in order to avert a nuclear war, to becoming instead “Nuclear Primacy,” to use nuclear weapons in order to win a nuclear war. Biden pushed it almost beyond the point of no return until Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022 so as to push back Ukraine’s nearest border from its present roughly 300 miles away from Moscow to perhaps a thousand miles away. However, even that would be nearer to Moscow than the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis standard, which was Cuba being 1,331 miles away from Washington DC. And now Finland, which aims to join NATO, might move that to only 507 miles; so, America’s goal of conquering Russia is still very much a national-security threat to the people in Russia. In fact, by 2017, America already had become frighteningly near to being able to perpetrate a ‘victorious’ blitz-nuclear attack against Russia.

    By contrast, Russia has never tried to place its ground-based nuclear missiles that near to Washington DC. Cuba was the last opportunity to do that, and it was during the time of the Soviet Union, and it was instead 1,331 miles away from DC. Russia, today — now that NATO has grown to surround it (especially in Ukraine, which has the nearest border to Moscow) — is in enormous danger from this. On 17 December 2021, Russia formally presented separately to America, and to NATO, Russia’s fundamental national-security concerns, and on 7 January 2022 both America and its NATO said no to all of them — not even for negotiation. Russia’s only remaining option then was to invade and conquer Ukraine. America has no national-security interest in Russia’s nearest neighbor, Ukraine, but Russia certainly does and must win this war or else capitulate to the U.S. regime. Russia doesn’t have the option of allowing this Ukraine to serve as an American nuclear launching-pad against The Kremlin. Whether it will allow Finland (the second-nearest) to become that is not yet clear.

    If Russia’s Government were like America’s Government, then Russia might now be considering to turn Mexico against America like America has turned Ukraine against Russia. On March 21st, Ben Norton headlined “‘Mexico is not a US colony!’: AMLO condemns invasion threats, celebrates nationalization of oil, lithium” and quoted from recent speeches by Mexico’s President, who has made clear the depths of the mutual hostility on both sides of that border. The current Mexican President has transformed his country’s international policies into a clear condemnation of the arrogance and psychopathic greed of America’s billionaires and their Government. What is remarkable is that Russia has given no sign of trying to turn Mexico into a Russian launching-pad against America as America is now straining to bring to culmination Obama’s plan for Ukraine to become America’s launching-pad against Russia.

    Clearly, Russia’s Government is fundamentally different from America’s, vastly less aggressive. It’s obvious to any rational person. For Russia to lose the war in Ukraine would be disastrous, whereas for America to lose it would be just another defeat for America, like Vietnam was, and Afghanistan was, and Iraq was, and Syria was, and Libya was, and so many others have been — and none of those defeats after 1945 has even nicked the U.S. regime’s ability to dictate to the rest of the world like it demands to do. Maybe this one would, but that would be all to the good, for the entire world — if America doesn’t resort to nuclear war in order to try to assert its supremacy. What’s at stake for Russia in this matter is its very existence as an independent country. What’s at stake for America in it — this war on Russia’s border, not on ours — is whatever America’s billionaires will choose it to be. And if they choose to lose, then everyone (including especially in Europe) will be better off as a result. But if America’s billionaires choose to ‘win’ (if they’re that power-crazed), then the world won’t survive this. So, yes: since 1945, there’s a huge difference between Russia’s Government, and ours.

    The post A Huge Difference Between America’s and Russia’s Governments first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • In 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama met privately in the White House with the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, to get him to end Ukraine’s neutralist position ever since 1991 and join the U.S. Government’s EU and NATO alliances against Ukraine’s next-door neighbor Russia, but Yanukovych said no. And, then, Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton travelled in 2010 to Kiev to give this another try, and again Yanukovych said no. By the time of June 2011, the Obama Administration started planning the coup to replace Ukraine’s Government with one that the U.S. would select. This plan started being implemented by no later than 1 March 2013 inside America’s Embassy in Ukraine, to train Ukraine’s racist-fascist, or ideologically Nazi, haters of Russians, how to use the internet in order to organize ‘anti-corruption’ demonstrations against — and to overthrow and replace — the neutralist Yanukovych by a Ukrainian regime that would be committed against Russia. On 27 January 2014, Obama’s agent overseeing the U.S. coup told the U.S. Ambassador in Kiev that Arseniy Yatsenyuk should be placed in charge when the coup would be completed, and this was done on 27 February 2014. Obama’s plan to turn Ukraine rabidly anti-Russia succeeded. (The only part of it that failed was Obama’s plan to grab Russia’s largest naval base, in Crimea, and turn that into yet another U.S. naval base.) It also succeeded in turning Ukrainian public opinion vastly more against Russia than it had been before.

    The objective of all this was ultimately to achieve a 1962 Cuban-Missile-Crisis in reverse, by which the U.S. will ultimately place at least one nuclear missile only about 300 miles away from Moscow and then demand Russia’s capitulation. If Russia says no, then within only five minutes from America’s firing its knockout missile, Moscow can be annihilated, Russia’s central command beheaded, and that is too fast for Russia to be able to recognize that it had been done and then to launch its retaliatory weapons against America. So, there might be a reasonable chance for America to eliminate Russia by a blitz-nuclear attack from Ukraine — or at least there are influential people in the U.S. Government and academe who think so (including virtually the entire Biden Administration, just like in Obama’s and Trump’s).

    Ever since at least 2006, the idea had become mainstream in American geostrategic planning circles for America to abandon the prior nuclear meta-strategy — “Mutually Assured Destruction” or MAD — of using nuclear weapons in order to avert a nuclear war, to becoming instead “Nuclear Primacy,” to use nuclear weapons in order to win a nuclear war. Biden pushed it almost beyond the point of no return until Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022 so as to push back Ukraine’s nearest border from its present roughly 300 miles away from Moscow to perhaps a thousand miles away. However, even that would be nearer to Moscow than the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis standard, which was Cuba being 1,331 miles away from Washington DC. And now Finland, which aims to join NATO, might move that to only 507 miles; so, America’s goal of conquering Russia is still very much a national-security threat to the people in Russia. In fact, by 2017, America already had become frighteningly near to being able to perpetrate a ‘victorious’ blitz-nuclear attack against Russia.

    By contrast, Russia has never tried to place its ground-based nuclear missiles that near to Washington DC. Cuba was the last opportunity to do that, and it was during the time of the Soviet Union, and it was instead 1,331 miles away from DC. Russia, today — now that NATO has grown to surround it (especially in Ukraine, which has the nearest border to Moscow) — is in enormous danger from this. On 17 December 2021, Russia formally presented separately to America, and to NATO, Russia’s fundamental national-security concerns, and on 7 January 2022 both America and its NATO said no to all of them — not even for negotiation. Russia’s only remaining option then was to invade and conquer Ukraine. America has no national-security interest in Russia’s nearest neighbor, Ukraine, but Russia certainly does and must win this war or else capitulate to the U.S. regime. Russia doesn’t have the option of allowing this Ukraine to serve as an American nuclear launching-pad against The Kremlin. Whether it will allow Finland (the second-nearest) to become that is not yet clear.

    If Russia’s Government were like America’s Government, then Russia might now be considering to turn Mexico against America like America has turned Ukraine against Russia. On March 21st, Ben Norton headlined “‘Mexico is not a US colony!’: AMLO condemns invasion threats, celebrates nationalization of oil, lithium” and quoted from recent speeches by Mexico’s President, who has made clear the depths of the mutual hostility on both sides of that border. The current Mexican President has transformed his country’s international policies into a clear condemnation of the arrogance and psychopathic greed of America’s billionaires and their Government. What is remarkable is that Russia has given no sign of trying to turn Mexico into a Russian launching-pad against America as America is now straining to bring to culmination Obama’s plan for Ukraine to become America’s launching-pad against Russia.

    Clearly, Russia’s Government is fundamentally different from America’s, vastly less aggressive. It’s obvious to any rational person. For Russia to lose the war in Ukraine would be disastrous, whereas for America to lose it would be just another defeat for America, like Vietnam was, and Afghanistan was, and Iraq was, and Syria was, and Libya was, and so many others have been — and none of those defeats after 1945 has even nicked the U.S. regime’s ability to dictate to the rest of the world like it demands to do. Maybe this one would, but that would be all to the good, for the entire world — if America doesn’t resort to nuclear war in order to try to assert its supremacy. What’s at stake for Russia in this matter is its very existence as an independent country. What’s at stake for America in it — this war on Russia’s border, not on ours — is whatever America’s billionaires will choose it to be. And if they choose to lose, then everyone (including especially in Europe) will be better off as a result. But if America’s billionaires choose to ‘win’ (if they’re that power-crazed), then the world won’t survive this. So, yes: since 1945, there’s a huge difference between Russia’s Government, and ours.

  • The UK plans to give tank-busting depleted uranium (DU) ammunition to Ukraine. This shows, once again, that nothing has been learned from the Iraq war. The plan to send the radioactive arms came to light as the 20th anniversary of the Iraq invasion passed. Fallujah in Iraq still records high rates of birth deformities and cancer years after the munitions were used there.

    Russian president Vladimir Putin slammed the decision. He said Russia would:

    respond accordingly given that the collective West is starting to use weapons with a ‘nuclear component’.

    Meanwhile, US sources said the munitions were in common use. Effectively, the US is suggesting that the use of this form of weapon is unremarkable. However, the dangers are undeniable.

    Radioactive weapons

    The West used DU ammunition in the 1991 and 2003 Gulf Wars. The effects of DU became most evident in Fallujah. As the NGO Nuclear Risks has it:

    The use of depleted uranium in the war on Iraq in 2003 has led to expo­sure of the local population to radioactive uranium dust. This could potentially explain the significant rise in cancer and congenital malformations documented in Fallujah after 2003. In addition, soldiers who were in contact with the radioactive ammunition also have increased morbidity rates.

    But there is another aspect to British DU munitions. The 2016 Chilcot Inquiry into Iraq drew on an important military report. It detailed that the UK sees no need clean up its deadly remnants. As a 2016 report in The Ecologist outlined:

    In other words, the UK’s stance is that chemically toxic and radioactive DU ‘ash’ from spent munitions is strictly the problem of the country in which the munitions were used, in this case Iraq – and that the UK, which fired the DU shells, has no formal responsibility of cleaning up the mess.

    The key point here is that DU takes a deadly toll long after a war ends:

    Vehicles contaminated by DU – for example destroyed tanks, armoured personnel carriers – pose a particular risk to civilians, both to workers in the scrap metal industry and to children who may play on them. Levels of contamination can be high and, because the interiors are not exposed to the elements, DU may remain in the vehicles for long periods.

    Toxic waste

    Deadly waste is a major concern in modern warfare. Ukraine’s vast farmland is already being poisoned, as revealed on NPR:

    Soil tests performed by scientists found high concentrations of toxins like mercury, arsenic and other pollutants that, you know, we assume are byproducts of the war in Ukraine. It’s my understanding that these tests show that these toxins are in millions of acres of farmland and forests.

    Indeed, other forms of toxic war waste also endanger people in Iraq and Afghanistan even after military withdrawal. Burn pits, where all manner of toxic material was torched daily during the occupations, are a prime example. The Centre for Cultural Anthropology warned:

    Pollution and toxification are central to US military violence. The burn pits both exemplify and render in microcosm the way such violence fosters some privileged lifeworlds by destroying others.

    Wasteland

    Modern warfare turns the battlefield toxic. Ukraine’s vast farmlands – the ‘breadbasket of Europe’ are already showing these effects. To add more radioactive munitions to the chaos is highly irresponsible.

    On top of this, the UK still maintains that it has no duty to clear up its toxic war waste. The world desperately needs a commitment by all countries to step away from these kinds of lethal materials.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons, cropped to 770 x 403.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • For the last week, Britain has been consumed by drama surrounding ex-soccer superstar Gary Lineker’s temporary removal from his role as a BBC commentator after he took to twitter to attack the government’s new asylum policy. In early March, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s conservative government proposed a new law that would make it impossible for people to claim asylum if they entered the country…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The idea of a political coalition that mixes self-identified communists with neo-Nazis may seem implausible at first. However, a February 19 rally in Washington, D.C., branded as an effort to “Rage Against the War Machine,” brought together dissident parts of the left and the right into common opposition to the U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) role in Russia’s war on Ukraine.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On 10 March, Canada’s National Post headlined “Regime change in Moscow ‘definitely’ the goal, Joly says,” and reported that “Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly raises the possibility of regime change in Moscow. … ‘The goal is definitely to do that, is to weaken Russia’s ability to launch very difficult attacks against Ukraine. We want also to make sure that Putin and his enablers are held to account,’ she said. ‘I always make a difference between the regime and the people of a given country, which is fundamental.’”

    On 26 March 2022, Bloomberg News bannered “Joe Biden Calls for Regime Change in Moscow as He Likens Invasion to Ww2 Horrors,” and reported that, “Joe Biden directly appealed to the Russian people with comparisons between the invasion of Ukraine and the horrors of the Second World War as he called for Vladimir Putin to go. ‘For God’s sake this man cannot remain in power,’ the US president said, calling for regime change in Moscow during a speech from Poland on Saturday. He told Russians they are not ‘our enemy’.”

    Why were there not calls, within the United States and its allies, for “regime-change in America” when U.S. President George W. Bush blatantly lied Americans into invading and destroyed a country that posed no threat to America, Iraq (which — by contrast — Ukraine definitely did and does constitute to Russia)?

    Contrary to U.S.-and-allied propagandists, that war in Ukraine wasn’t started on 24 February 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine, but back in February 2014 when U.S. President Barack Obama’s Administration had started by no later than June of 2011 to plan, and by no later than 1 March 2013 inside the U.S.’s Ukrainian Embassy to execute the plan, and then on 20 February 2014 to culminate the U.S. coup that overthrew and replaced Ukraine’s democratically elected neutralist President, and replaced him and his Government with the U.S. selected leaders of the new, and rabidly Russia-hating, U.S.-controlled, Ukrainian regime.

    And, now, on 17 March 2023, NBC News headlines “International Criminal Court issues arrest warrant for Putin over alleged Ukraine war crimes”  and reports that the U.S.-and-allied regimes are starting a case in the International Criminal Court — which has no jurisdiction over Russia and over Ukraine and over the United States, all three of which nations refused to ratify and therefore are not subject to that Court’s jurisdiction (since it’s not a “Universal” court like the U.N.’s  International Court of Justice is) — initiating this purely propaganda case against Russia. Why did they not do that against America and the UK, when those regimes invaded and destroyed Iraq on the basis only of lies (which Russia certainly did not do in the case of the now U.S.-controlled Ukraine)?

    Wikipedia makes this elementary fact about that Court quite clear, by saying:

    It lacks universal territorial jurisdiction and may only investigate and prosecute crimes committed within member states, crimes committed by nationals of member states, or crimes in situations referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council.

    The U.S. and its allies are bringing this case as a propaganda-vehicle, but the Court itself, by ‘investigating’ this case that falls outside its jurisdiction, is destroying whatever pitiful international credibility that it had. Any court that ever serves a purely-propaganda function cannot ever again be taken seriously by any serious person. It is groveling to someone. It is simply embarrassing itself. The U.S. and its allies are contemptuous not only of the public but of this Court, to do this.

    Furthermore: the U.S.-and-allied allegations that regime-change is being sought only against a country’s leadership, and not against the country’s people, is ludicrous, because those aggressor-countries’ long histories of imposed regime-changes against Governments they wanted to topple — such as Chile, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, and all the rest — have always been from bad to worse against the targeted countries’ publics. Moreover, the U.S. regime has repeatedly made explicitly clear that, though all of the devastation that its invasion and continued occupation and massive thefts from Syria have brought hell upon its people, the U.S. Government absolutely refuses to allow any reconstruction to occur in Syria unless the U.S. is controlling that country.

    Although the U.S. and its allies demand regime-change in both Russia and China, the leaders of those two countries have long had far higher approval-ratings by their citizens than the leaders in U.S.-and allied countries have by theirs; the regime-changes should rather be done in the U.S.-and-allied countries than in their targeted countries.

    The U.S., and its allies, lie pathologically, such as they do as NATO:

    NATO is not a threat to Russia.”

    NATO has tried to build a partnership with Russia, developing dialogue and practical cooperation in areas of common interest. Practical cooperation has been suspended since 2014 in response to Russia’s illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea, Ukraine, which NATO will never recognise.”

    NATO is not at war with Russia.”

    How can anyone respect such Governments?

    The post U.S. and Allies Seek Regime-Change in Russia first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.