radiofree.asia

Category: Ukraine

  • An Engineered Food and Poverty Crisis to Secure Continued US Dominance 

    In March 2022, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned of a “hurricane of hunger and a meltdown of the global food system” in the wake of the crisis in Ukraine.

    Guterres said food, fuel and fertiliser prices were skyrocketing with supply chains being disrupted and added this is hitting the poorest the hardest and planting the seeds for political instability and unrest around the globe.

    According to the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, there is currently sufficient food and no risk of global food supply shortages.

    We see an abundance of food but skyrocketing prices. The issue is not food shortage but speculation on food commodities and the manipulation of an inherently flawed global food system that serves the interests of corporate agribusiness traders and suppliers of inputs at the expense of people’s needs and genuine food security.

    The war in Ukraine is a geopolitical trade and energy conflict. It is largely about the US engaging in a proxy war against Russia and Europe by attempting to separate Europe from Russia and imposing sanctions on Russia to harm Europe and make it further dependent on the US.

    Economist Professor Michael Hudson recently stated that ultimately the war is against Europe and Germany. The purpose of the sanctions is to prevent Europe and other allies from increasing their trade and investment with Russia and China.

    Neoliberal policies since the 1980s have hollowed out the US economy. With its productive base severely weakened, the only way for the US to maintain hegemony is to undermine China and Russia and weaken Europe.

    Hudson says that, beginning a year ago, Biden and the US neocons attempted to block Nord Stream 2 and all (energy) trade with Russia so that the US could monopolise it itself.

    Despite the ‘green agenda’ currently being pushed, the US still relies on fossil fuel-based energy to project its power abroad. Even as Russia and China move away from the dollar, the control and pricing of oil and gas (and resulting debt) in dollars remains key to US attempts to retain hegemony.

    The US knew beforehand how sanctions on Russia would play out. They would serve to divide the world into two blocks and fuel a new cold war with the US and Europe on one side with China and Russia being the two main countries on the other.

    US policy makers knew Europe would be devastated by higher energy and food prices and food importing countries in the Global South would suffer due to rising costs.

    It is not the first time the US has engineered a major crisis to maintain global hegemony and a spike in key commodity prices that effectively trap countries into dependency and debt.

    In 2009, Andrew Gavin Marshall described how in 1973 – not long after coming off the gold standard – Henry Kissinger was integral to manipulating events in the Middle East (the Arab-Israeli war and the ‘energy crisis’). This served to continue global hegemony for the US, which had virtually bankrupted itself due to its war in Vietnam and had been threatened by the economic rise of Germany and Japan.

    Kissinger helped secure huge OPEC oil price rises and thus sufficient profits for Anglo-American oil companies that had over-leveraged themselves in North Sea oil. He also cemented the petrodollar system with the Saudis and subsequently placed African nations, which had embarked on a path of (oil-based) industrialisation, on a treadmill of dependency and debt due to the spike in oil prices.

    It is widely believed that the high-priced oil policy was aimed at hurting Europe, Japan and the developing world.

    Today, the US is again waging a war on vast swathes of humanity, whose impoverishment is intended to ensure they remain dependent on the US and the financial institutions it uses to create dependency and indebtedness – the World Bank and IMF.

    Hundreds of millions will experience (are experiencing) poverty and hunger due to US policy. These people (the ones that the US and Pfizer et al supposedly cared so much about and wanted to get a jab into each of their arms) are regarded with contempt and collateral damage in the great geopolitical game.

    Contrary to what many believe, the US has not miscalculated the outcome of the sanctions placed on Russia. Michael Hudson notes energy prices are increasing, benefiting US oil companies and US balance of payments as an energy exporter. Moreover, by sanctioning Russia, the aim is to curtail Russian exports (of wheat and gas used for fertiliser production) and for agricultural commodity prices to therefore increase. This too will also benefit the US as an agricultural exporter.

    This is how the US seeks to maintain dominance over other countries.

    Current policies are designed to create a food and debt crisis for poorer nations especially. The US can use this debt crisis to force countries to continue privatising and selling off their public assets in order to service the debts to pay for the higher oil and food imports.

    This imperialist strategy comes on the back of ‘COVID relief’ loans which have served a similar purpose. In 2021, an Oxfam review of IMF COVID-19 loans showed that 33 African countries were encouraged to pursue austerity policies. The world’s poorest countries are due to pay $43 billion in debt repayments in 2022, which could otherwise cover the costs of their food imports.

    Oxfam and Development Finance International have also revealed that 43 out of 55 African Union member states face public expenditure cuts totalling $183 billion over the next five years.

    The closure of the world economy in March 2020 (‘lockdown’) served to trigger an unprecedented process of global indebtedness. Conditionalities mean national governments will have to capitulate to the demands of Western financial institutions. These debts are largely dollar-denominated, helping to strengthen the US dollar and US leverage over countries.

    The US is creating a new world order and needs to ensure much of the Global South remains in its orbit of influence rather than ending up in the Russian and especially Chinese camp and its belt road initiative for economic prosperity.

    Post-COVID, this is what the war in Ukraine, sanctions on Russia and the engineered food and energy crisis are really about.

    Back in 2014, Michael Hudson stated that the US has been able to dominate most of the Global South through agriculture and control of the food supply. The World Bank’s geopolitical lending strategy has transformed countries into food deficit areas by convincing them to grow cash crops – plantation export crops – not to feed themselves with their own food crops.

    The oil sector and agribusiness have been joined at the hip as part of US geopolitical strategy.

    The dominant notion of ‘food security’ promoted by global agribusiness players like Cargill, Archer Daniel Midland, Bunge and Louis Dreyfus and supported by the World Bank is based on the ability of people and nations to purchase food. It has nothing to do with self-sufficiency and everything to do with global markets and supply chains controlled by giant agribusiness players.

    Along with oil, the control of global agriculture has been a linchpin of US geopolitical strategy for many decades. The Green Revolution was exported courtesy of oil-rich interests and poorer nations adopted agri-capital’s chemical- and oil-dependent model of agriculture that required loans for inputs and related infrastructure development.

    It entailed trapping nations into a globalised food system that relies on export commodity mono-cropping to earn foreign exchange linked to sovereign dollar-denominated debt repayment and World Bank/IMF ‘structural adjustment’ directives. What we have seen has been the transformation of many countries from food self-sufficiency into food deficit areas.

    And what we have also seen is countries being placed on commodity crop production treadmills. The need for foreign currency (US dollars) to buy oil and food entrenches the need to increase cash crop production for exports.

    The World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) set out the trade regime necessary for this type of corporate dependency that masquerades as ‘global food security’.

    This is explained in a July 2022 report by Navdanya International – Sowing Hunger, Reaping Profits – A Food Crisis by Design – which notes international trade laws and trade liberalisation has benefited large agribusiness and continue to piggyback off the implementation of the Green Revolution.

    The report states that US lobby and trade negotiations were headed by former Cargill Investors Service CEO and Goldman Sachs executive – Dan Amstutz – who in 1988 was appointed chief negotiator for the Uruguay round of GATT by Ronald Reagan. This helped to enshrine the interests of US agribusiness into the new rules that would govern the global trade of commodities and subsequent waves of industrial agriculture expansion.

    The AoA removed protection of farmers from global market prices and fluctuations. At the same time, exceptions were made for the US and the EU to continue subsidising their agriculture to the advantage of large agribusiness.

    Navdanya notes:

    With the removal of state tariff protections and subsidies, small farmers were left destitute. The result has been a disparity in what farmers earn for what they produce, versus what consumers pay, with farmers earning less and consumers paying more as agribusiness middlemen take the biggest cut.

    ‘Food security’ has led to the dismantling of food sovereignty and food self-sufficiency for the sake of global market integration and corporate power.

    We need look no further than India to see this in action. The now repealed recent farm legislation in India was aimed at giving the country the ‘shock therapy’ of neoliberalism that other countries have experienced.

    The ‘liberalising’ legislation was in part aimed at benefiting US agribusiness interests and trapping India into food insecurity by compelling the country to eradicate its food buffer stocks – so vital to the nation’s food security – and then bid for food on a volatile global market from agribusiness traders with its foreign reserves.

    The Indian government was only prevented from following this route by the massive, year-long farmer protest that occurred.

    The current crisis is also being fuelled by speculation. Navdanya cites an investigation by Lighthouse Reports and The Wire to show how speculation by investment firms, banks and hedge funds on agricultural commodities are profiting off rising food prices. Commodity future prices are no longer linked to actual supply and demand in the market but are based purely on speculation.

    Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, Cargill and Louis Dreyfus and investment funds like Black Rock and Vanguard continue to make huge financial killings, resulting in the price of bread almost doubling in some poorer countries.

    The cynical ‘solution’ promoted by global agribusiness to the current food crisis is to urge farmers to produce more and seek better yields as if the crisis is that of underproduction. It means more chemical inputs, more genetic engineering techniques and suchlike, placing more farmers in debt and trapped in dependency.

    It is the same old industry lie that the world will starve without its products and requires more of them. The reality is that the world is facing hunger and rising food prices because of the system big agribusiness has instituted.

    And it is the same old story – pushing out new technologies in search of a problem and then using crises as justification for their rollout while ignoring the underlying reasons for such crises.

    Navdanya sets out possible solutions to the current situation based on principles of agroecology, short supply lines, food sovereignty and economic democracy – policies that have been described at length in many articles and official reports over the years.

    As for fighting back against the onslaught on ordinary people’s living standards, support is gathering among the labour movement in places like the UK. Rail union leader Mick Lynch is calling for a working class movement based on solidarity and class consciousness to fight back against a billionaire class that is acutely aware of its own class interests.

    For too long, ‘class’ has been absent from mainstream political discourse. It is only through organised, united protest that ordinary people will have any chance of meaningful impact against the new world order of tyrannical authoritarianism and the devastating attacks on ordinary people’s rights, livelihoods and standards of living that we are witnessing.

    The post An Engineered Food and Poverty Crisis to Secure Continued US Dominance  first appeared on Dissident Voice.

  • Capitalism’s war in Ukraine

    Under capitalism, wars are fought to gain access to markets, resources and to harness the working class in its service. The suffering of the Ukrainian people attests to this, writes William Briggs.

  • A Story of Russia

    Contemporary Russian politics are too often analysed without sufficient knowledge of Russian history.

    — Orlando Figes, The Story of Russia, p 268

    The conflict among nations in Ukraine and the breakaway Donbass oblasts/republics has been magnified in western monopoly media since Russia backed up its security demands. To the extent that people want to ascertain the verisimilitude of media information, people ought to become familiar with the region, its peoples, and the history. With this intention and with an open mind to a viewpoint counter to my orientation (I am decidedly of a socialist orientation, but, I trust, with allegiance to verifiable evidence), I read The Story of Russia (Metropolitan Books, 2022) by the bourgeois historian Orlando Figes.

    Thus, it did not surprise me that on page 1, Figes opines, “Vladimir Putin… managed to look bored. He seemed to want the ceremony to be done as soon as possible.” On page 2, “Putin looked uncomfortable.” In the introduction more bias is evident; Figes writes of “the Russian annexation of Ukrainian Crimea,” (p 2) “the ‘putsch’ in Kiev, as the Kremlin called the Maidan uprising,” (p 4) “history writing in Russia, since its beginning in medieval chronicles, has been intertwined in mythical ideas,” (p 5) and Putin’s “authoritarian regime.” (p 6) In contemporary understanding, regime is pejorative for a totalitarian/autocratic government.

    In the second chapter, “Origins,” Figes says that Putin asserts “the old imperial myth that the Russians, the Ukrainians and the Belarussians were historically one people.” In succeeding chapters, The Story of Russia runs through the intercourse between myriad groups of peoples, the Vikings, Finns, Mongols, Khazars, Turks, Arabs, Germans, French, etc that have intermixed knowledge, languages, cultures, religious beliefs, and commerce with Slavs. Russia has been conquered and has conquered others many times.

    Figes lays out an eminently comprehensible historical sequence that led to rule by a revered tsardom with its concomitant corruption along with an exploited and impoverished peasant class. Traditionally, tsarist Russia leaned favorably toward western Europe which did not have the same favorable inclination toward Russia. This changed with Catherine the Great who envisioned Russian greatness stemming from a southern orientation. (p 127)

    Serfdom would be identified as holding Russia back in wars and competition with the West. (p 154) The tsar would, when forced, in due course relinquish some powers, such as the establishment of zemstvos (self-government in Russian provinces), but eventually the corruption of the autocratic tsarist class would lead to a revolution that violently deposed the Romanovs. (For a dramatization of the history, see the Netflix series The Last Czars.)

    Post-revolution, the Bolsheviks (Majoritarians) emerged victorious over the Mensheviks (Minoritarians). Figes writes that the tsar continued afterwards in “Soviet cults of the Leader.” (p 191)

    Whereas Lenin, in his cult, appeared as a human god or saint, a sacred guide for the Party orphaned by his death, the cult of Stalin portrayed him as a tsar, the ‘little-father tsar’ or tsar-batiushka of folklore … (p 225)

    Unfortunately, The Story of Russia suffers from being replete with many unsubstantiated claims, rumors, and opinions. One would expect that a book written by a professor of history who specializes in Russia would source most pertinent information, especially information that is debatable. For example, Figes writes of “Nikolai Yezhov, an unscrupulous henchman, who fed Stalin’s paranoid fears.” (p 229) Maybe this is so, but what is his source for a scrupulous reader to scrutinize in order to confirm or deny this? During the Great Terror, Figes writes that in 1937, “1,500 Soviet citizens were shot on average every day…” (p 232) Elsewhere, he relates that the Gulag population reached 2 million prisoners in 1952. (p 250) There is no sourcing to evaluate this information.

    Figes is derisory of Joseph Stalin and Russian militarism during World War II:

    There was almost no limit to the number of lives that the Stalinist regime was willing to expend to achieve its military goals…. Only by this ruthless disregard for human life can we explain the shocking losses of the Red Army — around 12 million soldiers killed between 1941 and 1945…

    Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev fares no better in Figes’ estimation:

    Khrushchev’s erratic leadership, his tendency to act on intuition and then attack his critics, his meddling in affairs where he lacked expertise, and his dangerous confrontation with the USA in the Cuban Missile Crisis …

    It is written as if the confrontation was entirely provoked from the Soviet side, that the John Kennedy administration was not dangerously confronting the Soviet Union. Unmentioned is that, since 1959, the US had had nuclear missiles deployed in Turkiye which bordered the USSR.

    Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev was “a grey and mediocre functionary” (p 253) who “had more practical than intellectual capacities.” (p 254)

    The Soviet Union would collapse on President Mikhail Gorbachev’s watch. Boris Yeltsin’s ascent to the Russian presidency would coincide with the political demise of Gorbachev; however, Yeltsin would personify the Peter Principle. He was completely out-of-his-depth. Figes asks, “How can we explain the failure of democracy under Yeltsin, and the reemergence of dictatorship under Putin’s leadership?” (p 268) Figes explains that under Yeltsin, the people called the system a “shitocracy.” (p 270) Was this solely due to Russian incompetence? There is scant attribution to the role played by western nations and institutions such as the IMF that advised Yeltsin’s team to apply the shock therapy of neoliberalism (a “social disaster” says Figes, p 269) that helped precipitate the downfall of Yeltsin and pave the way for a new face and new direction.

    Figes writes that Vladimir Putin became the successor to Yeltsin by agreeing to protect Yeltsin and his family from their corruption. (p 271) Putin is also accused of corruption; Figes footnotes harsh Putin critic Masha Gessen’s book The Man without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin (2012) as substantiation. As testament to her analytical prowess, Gessen predicted in her book’s epilogue, “Putin’s bubble will burst.” Yet in July 2022, Putin still enjoys immense popularity in Russia.

    Figes likens Putin to a grand prince where Russian oligarchs are “totally dependent on his will” much as the boyar clans were reliant upon the royal court in Russia. (p 54)

    According to Figes, Putin’s Russia is a managed democracy where electoral results are determined beforehand.

    The author criticizes laws he identifies as protecting an ahistorical image of Russia; for example, a law requiring foreign-funded NGOs to register as a “Foreign Agent.” (p 278) Not mentioned is that the US has its own Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) (FIRA in Canada) and that NGOs are cited as instigators behind so-called color revolutions.

    Figes further criticizes Putin for weaponizing the memory of war against foreign powers. Here a bias of Figes stands out by referring to a non-aggression pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany (commonly referred to as the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) as the Hitler-Stalin Pact. (p 279) Is Figes unaware that the West collaborated with Nazi Germany? In his book The Myth of the Good War, historian Jacques Pauwels told of European elitists’s support for fascism as a bulwark against Bolshevism, (p 42, 47) which was also true in the US. (p 53)

    Figes also takes issue with Putin for comparing “Ukraine’s nationalists to collaborators with the Nazis in the war.” (p 279) The evidence of Nazism in Ukraine is so prolific that one must be either ignorant or purposefully blind:

    Azov Battalion fighters with Nazi flag (WikiCommons)

    Not being a professional historian, I will focus on Figes’s rendering of contemporary history, which seems particularly disputable on factual and logical grounds.

    1. As stated, Figes pooh poohs the “Ukraine-Nazi myth” (p 298): “The Kremlin’s Russian media outlets consistently referred to the interim Ukrainian government as a ‘junta’, backed by ‘neo-Nazis’ and ‘fascists’, an obvious propaganda tactic …. They [the Kremlin] staged protests against the new authorities in Kiev…” (p 290)

    This is a one-sided presentation. According to the World Socialist Web Site:

    The background and implications of the 2014 far-right coup in Kiev, which overthrew the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, is critical for understanding the current Ukraine-Russia war. This coup was openly supported by US and European imperialism and implemented primarily by far-right shock troops such as the Right Sector and the neo-Nazi Svoboda Party.

    Salon wrote of US machinations:

    When Ukrainian President Yanukovych spurned a U.S.-backed trade agreement with the European Union in favor of a $15 billion bailout from Russia, the State Department threw a tantrum.

    Hell hath no fury like a superpower scorned.

    2. “the Kremlin launched a new Crimean War…. At the end of February [2014], Russian special forces occupied the peninsula, … oversaw a hurried referendum … in which 97 per cent of the people voted for reunion with Russia.” (p 290-291)

    Figes paints the expression of self-determinism in sinister language, but Figes doth protest too much, as he admits, “Even with a properly conducted plebiscite [in Crimea] the same decision would have been reached with a large majority.” (p 291) Since the Russians were so welcomed by Crimeans, this basically refutes Figes’s claim of a military occupation.

    3. “The warring parties failed to find agreement on the Minsk II Accords…” (p 291)

    From Wikipedia, the signatories are listed as:

    1. Separatist’s leaders Alexander Zakharchenko and Igor Plotnitsky
    2. Swiss diplomat and OSCE representative Heidi Tagliavini
    3. Former president of Ukraine and Ukrainian representative Leonid Kuchma
    4. Russian Ambassador to Ukraine and Russian representative Mikhail Zurabov

    4. Regarding Putin’s identification of NATO bases in Ukraine as a security threat, Figes writes, “From a western point of view this seemed mad and paranoid. NATO, after all, was a defensive alliance and had no reason to attack Russia.” (p 293)

    To paint NATO, after all, as a purely “defensive alliance” is disingenuous. Did NATO attack ex-Yugoslavia in self-defense? Guised as a European-Canada-US alliance was Libya a threat to NATO? With all due respect to the people of Afghanistan, was a country largely populated by sandal-wearing goat herders with a Kalashnikov rifle strapped over one shoulder a threat to NATO?

    Conversely, does the history of myriad western interventions not point to a potential threat for Russia?

    5. Figes claims the invasion of Ukraine has revealed that the “Russian army, it turned out, was not as good as people thought.” (p 296) “Putin, it was said, was hoping to announce a victory … on 9 May, Victory Day…” (p 297) It was said? Who said this? Figes applies his military analysis and reaches the same conclusion as another non-professional military analyst Noam Chomsky. They both equate the prowess of the Russian military to the duration of the military engagement.

    6. Figes writes of a mass-based opposition led by Alexei Navalny. (p 299) Yet this “mass-based opposition” leader, as Figes describes Navalny, is without any party members in the Russian State Duma.

    7. “The Russians carried out a number of atrocities in towns such as Bucha…” (p 296)

    Concerning the massacre in Bucha, Drago Bosnic, an independent geopolitical and military analyst, wrote:

    The Ukrainian side claims Russian troops killed at least 412 people, while so-called ‘independent’ sources state there were 50 victims. The peculiar claims were completely unsupported by any actual official investigation by any neutral side. The Kiev regime and their Western sponsors flatly refused to allow an international investigation, while any claims contrary to the official narrative were immediately suppressed.

    Why prevent an investigation that one claims should reveal war crimes perpetrated by the enemy? (Yes, US president Biden in a televised message tells Russian citizens: “You are not our enemy.” Biden expresses his scorn for the “war killer” Putin.)

    Former US Marines intelligence officer Scott Ritter — who graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in the history of the Soviet Union and departmental honors at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania — names the culprit behind the Bucha massacre: Ukrainian national police murdered Ukrainians.

    Without exception, without exception all of the data points to the Ukrainian national police carrying out a cleansing operation on April 1st that targeted pro-Russian collaborators and what they called saboteurs. And when we say cleansing operation, it means killing them. There is a video where a member of this national police unit asked permission to shoot people who aren’t wearing the blue armband, and he was given permission to fire.”

    The US has the satellite images of this says Ritter, who emphatically states:

    The US knows exactly what happened, but the US is not in the business of telling the truth. They are in the business of promulgating Ukrainian lies, and this lie was to create a narrative of Russia as a genocidal state trying to massacre innocent Ukrainian civilians. That is not what happened. The evidence is clear. If we took this to trial today Judge, I could guarantee you that I’d be able to make a very strong circumstantial case that this crime was committed by the Ukrainian national police and that they’d have nothing to defend with.

    Months afterward, Ritter remains firmly convinced that Ukraine was behind the massacre of its own people in Bucha (start watching video at 1:33:50):

    All the forensic data points to the absolute incontrovertible fact that Ukrainian security services carried out crimes against pro-Russian elements of the population of Bucha in late March, early April of 2022…. I will debate anybody, anytime, anywhere, on any platform, hell, I’ll travel to Ukraine to do it in front of the Ukrainian parliament if they want. I am not running away from these facts.

    Ritter has thrown down a figurative glove. Will Figes pick it up? Ritter looks at the evidence, does his research, and applies logic in reaching a conclusion. Too often, when evidence is demanded, Figes comes up wanting.

    Figes has made many claims and predictions, if the presence of Nazis breaks through the monopoly media censorship and propaganda, if Russia defeats Ukraine (and it already has according to Ritter), then what does that signify about Figes and his historical scholarship?

    Given all this, it is argued that The Story of Russia is, more accurately, A Story of Russia, a story according to Orlando Figes. As for what the history of Russia is, that is something to be discovered by curious and discerning readers and researchers.

    The post A Story of Russia first appeared on Dissident Voice.

  • Cutting Russia’s Component Pipeline

    Published in the May/June 2022 Issue – Russian military capability is likely to suffer as its war in Ukraine continues. Increasing economic and industrial pressure through growing international sanctions will mean that sources of key components that are needed for the manufacture of complex weapons and platforms are increasingly harder to source. While many major […]

    The post Cutting Russia’s Component Pipeline appeared first on Asian Military Review.

  • Amnesty International On Ukraine’s Violations Of International Law

    The human rights organization Amnesty International released a report Thursday showing that “Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals.”

    Amnesty International’s findings corroborate an earlier report by the United Nations which also provided evidence that the Ukrainian army has been using civilians as human shields in the conflict. Both of these recent reports come on top of extensive documentation of war crimes committed by the Ukrainian army and its neo-fascist paramilitary forces, particularly against Russian prisoners of war.

    Written in cautious language, Amnesty International’s report is a damning exposure of the criminal character of the imperialist proxy war in Ukraine in which the civilian population is but a pawn for the imperialist powers and their lackeys in the Ukrainian oligarchy and military.

    The post Amnesty International On Ukraine’s Violations Of International Law appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

  • My Neighbor, the Suspected War Criminal

    In July, a popular uprising in Sri Lanka forced the country’s president, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, to step down and flee the country. Rajapaksa is accused of carrying out massive atrocities more than a decade ago. 

    Reveal reporter and host Ike Sriskandarajah looks into why powerful people suspected of committing war crimes often walk free. Sriskandarajah spent six months investigating the U.S. government’s failure to charge accused perpetrators of the worst crimes in the world. The federal government says it is pursuing leads and cases against nearly 1700 alleged human rights violators and war criminals. Victims of international atrocities sometimes even describe running into them at their local coffee shop or in line at Walgreens.  

    After the end of Sri Lanka’s civil war, families seeking accountability for state-sanctioned violence filed a suit against a man they say is a war criminal. A private eye was tasked with hunting down Gota, Sri Lanka’s former defense minister. The P.I.  found the alleged war criminal in Southern California, shopping at Trader Joe’s. 

    At the close of World War II, dozens of former Nazi leaders came to the United States. After decades of inaction, in 1979, President Jimmy Carter created a special unit within the Department of Justice dedicated to hunting down Nazi war criminals. Decades after passing the first substantive human rights statutes that make it possible to prosecute war criminals for crimes like torture and genocide, the U.S. has successfully prosecuted only one person under the laws. Sriskandrajah talks to experts about why prosecutors often take an “Al Capone” strategy to going after war criminals, pursuing them on lesser charges like immigration violations rather than human rights abuses. 

    With little action from the government to prosecute war criminals, victims of violence are instead using civil lawsuits to try to seek accountability. Lawyers at the Center for Justice & Accountability have brought two dozen cases against alleged war criminals and human rights violators – and never lost at trial. But when the lawyers share their evidence with the federal government, it often feels like the information disappears into a black box. 

    This is a rebroadcast of an episode originally released on April 22, 2022.

  • People are baffled by Amnesty’s report into civilian deaths in Ukraine

    Amnesty International’s latest report on the Ukraine war has people baffled. The study contains details of how military equipment and troops were placed in built-up areas, leading to the endangerment and killing of civilians. The issue is that this was not by Russian forces, but by the Ukrainian military .

    The reaction from supporters of Ukraine on social media have ranged from confusion to outright anger. They echo the response by supporters of Israel to criticism over the treatment of Palestinians. But, they say something much more profound too.

    For many people war can be reduced to a sort of spectator sport, or a Hollywood narrative, in which there are good guys beyond reproach and bad guys who can only do evil. This is war through the eyes of the uninitiated.

    Urban areas

    Amnesty found that Ukrainian troops had been placed in urban zones, despite workable alternatives being available. This led to various incidents of civilian harm, including deaths.

    Amnesty lists a number of examples and adds:

    In the cases it documented, Amnesty International is not aware that the Ukrainian military who located themselves in civilian structures in residential areas asked or assisted civilians to evacuate nearby buildings – a failure to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians.

    This seems pretty clear. Yet Amnesty’s new publication was greeted with an immediate backlash. In spite of what looks like some fairly straightforward reporting, some branded Amnesty International a “joke”:

    Other even suggested it was somehow Russian propaganda:

    The NGO was also accused of victim blaming over the report:

    Civilian harm

    Yet the outrage did not reflect the content of the work. Which explained at some length the extent of Russian atrocities. For example, the authors wrote:

    Many of the Russian strikes that Amnesty International documented in recent months were carried out with inherently indiscriminate weapons, including internationally banned cluster munitions, or with other explosive weapons with wide area effects. Others used guided weapons with varying levels of accuracy; in some cases, the weapons were precise enough to target specific objects.

    They added:

    The Ukrainian military’s practice of locating military objectives within populated areas does not in any way justify indiscriminate Russian attacks.

    Amnesty correctly pointed out that “all parties” must “at all times”:

    ..distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects and take all feasible precautions, including in choice of weapons, to minimize civilian harm. Indiscriminate attacks which kill or injure civilians or damage civilian objects are war crimes.

    Hardly the stuff of Russian propaganda. Unless you have an agenda of your own to market.

    Parallels

    The outrage echoes another ongoing war. The one conducted by the state of Israel on the Palestinian people. In February 2022, Amnesty published a report on Israel’s apartheid regime. The NGO called it a “cruel system of domination and a crime against humanity”.

    This position attracted backlash against Amnesty. The media largely “both-sidesed” the findings, as The Canary reported at the time. And the Ukraine report has quickly been used by supporters of Israel to attack Amnesty over its earlier findings on Israeli apartheid:

    There were efforts to conflate the plight of Ukraine – a country which was actually invaded – with Israel, a country built through invading and colonising:

    The narrative being pushed is of a once-serious human rights group which has succumbed to sinister anti-Israel and anti-Ukraine forces:

    War fantasies

    Clearly some of the attacks are in bad faith. But a fanciful notion appears to underpin some of the response. That in war there are normally objectively good and bad sides, which the good side incapable of wrongdoing. This is not a view borne out by reality. In war, people are killed and property is destroyed by all sides, whatever their motivation. The fundamental anti-war position is that war, in and of itself, is terrible. And this is regardless of whether it is justified, which it may be in some cases.

    It does not diminish the Ukrainian right to resist Russian invasion, or let Russia off the hook, to say that there must be care and accountability when it comes to civilian lives. Precisely as it is laid out in the Geneva Conventions and other laws pertaining to armed conflict.

    Yet these widely known and well established rules seem to have been ignored in favour of a partisan approach. War is not sport, nor is it a blockbuster Hollywood plot line. And it should be in the interest of all parties that it is ended as soon as possible.

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

    By Joe Glenton

  • As voices for peace are shouted down, war in Asia looms large

    In February this year I was asked by friends – who mistook my interest in war and foreign policy for expertise – whether Vladimir Putin would invade Ukraine. No, I told them. This build-up was just posturing, precisely as there had been for years by that stage.

    Yet, quite soon after this I woke up to see that Russian armoured columns were streaming into Ukraine. And that centrist and Tory Russophobes and hawks were claiming that they were right all along to hype the threat of Russia. A first to be sure, though more by luck than judgement. A broken clock is right twice day after all.

    Add to this unpredictability the fact that anti-war voices are attacked by the powerful, and we’re faced with a dangerous climate.

    Great Powers

    What is clear is that, since February 2022, much has changed in terms of the rivalry between the Great Powers. Today, anything could happen – and US speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan on 2 August seems to highlight this.

    Only minutes after Pelosi landed, China announced it would start live fire drills close to Taiwan, which it historically claims as its own territory.

    As NPR points out, the US plays both sides:

    By law, the U.S. is obligated to provide Taiwan with weapons and services. But the U.S. policy of “strategic ambiguity” keeps open the question of whether it would intervene in the case of a military invasion by China.

    Yet in these conflicted times, where assumptions – including my own – have been up-ended, it’s hard to even guess at the future.

    Misdirection

    Meanwhile in the UK, the few prominent voices for peace are mocked by the self appointed ‘adults in the room’:

    This being despite none other than Tony Blair, whose politics closely align with Farron’s, making almost identical arguments:

    It also ignores the fact that Blair himself has a long history of taking pro-Putin positions:

    Dangerous moment

    The potential for an escalation with China can’t be ignored. This is a historical moment, as Ukraine shows, when events can run away from us. The West’s large-scale material support of Ukraine suggests that it might be hard to do the same in Taiwan if it were invaded in terms of resources – and we can’t predict if the US and UK will open up a proxy war on that front too.

    Given these tensions, prominent voices for peace are more important than ever. However, they are coming under increasing pressure from both out-and-out hawks and misguided centrists who are more concerned with attacking the Left than ending wars.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/MC3 Scott Pittman/U.S. Navy, cropped to 770 x 403, licensed under CC BY 2.0. 

    By Joe Glenton

  • Ukraine: a Potemkin Village Kind of War

    In his 2004 book on the 1914-18 European apocalypse, Cataclysm: the First World War as Political Tragedy, British historian David Stevenson states the war was “a cataclysm of a special kind, a man-made catastrophe produced by political acts” (from the “Introduction,” first paragraph).  Indeed, that is Stevenson’s thesis, that the Great War was a political tragedy of the first order of magnitude.  While Stevenson’s analysis perhaps over-emphasizes the role of the European political class, certainly terrible decision-making played a major part in both launching and then needlessly prolonging a war that wasted an estimated 10 million soldiering lives.  In the context of the current clash in Ukraine, Stevenson’s argument remains relevant.

    Today, whether it’s Biden, Boris Johnson, Macron, Trudeau, or the EU’s Ursula von der “Crazy” (peripatetic Cypriot commentator Alex Christoforou’s coinage for von der Leyen), the Collective West’s reaction to Putin’s “Special Military Operation” has been a spectacular failure.  This really is a gang that can’t shoot straight unless, of course, they are shooting themselves in their Collective foot.  “Sanctions and Arms!” “Sanctions and Arms!” they all shouted with self-righteous indignation when Putin finally struck, as if “Sanctions and Arms!” would bring the Russian Bear to its knees, exposing Putin’s folly and crushing his regime…

    Well, 3+ months into this horrific conflict, it appears that the TransAtlanticans’ policy of “Sanctions and Arms!” has proven ineffective, not to mention entirely delusional.  On the “Sanctions” front, this economic weapon has completely back-fired, with soaring fuel prices and open talk of looming food shortages — in the West!  Counter-intuitively, it seems as if Western leaders have declared war on their own citizens as much as the Russians.  Who could have foreseen that “Gas-for-Rubles” would become a catchphrase in 2022?

    With reference to the massive “Arms!” transfers to AmericaNATOstan’s Ukrainian proxy forces:  How many more dead or surrendered Ukrainians will it take to show incontrovertibly both the cruelty and imbecility of this “More Weapons!” policy?  The mid-May mass surrender of the cornered Ukrainian troops in the Azovstal Steel Works — AzovStalingrad? — in Mariupol provides one clue; the current Russian rolling-up of the Donbass will be the next.  In other words:  if NATO wants to fight Russia in Ukraine, they are going to have to do it themselves.

    The good news so far on this possible development is that the Death Star, or Pentagon, has no appetite for going “toe-to-toe with the Rooskie!” (Quote, if I recall it correctly, from General Buck “Bucky” Turdgeson in Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 film Dr Strangelove, although George C. Scott’s excitably nihilist character is actually advocating for fighting directly with “the Rooskie!” in the movie). In fact, the Pentagon has been far more sober in its assessments than either the US State Department or the American Congress (not to mention our rabid Blue-and-Yellow Press), which mindlessly voted $40 billion more for the “Ukrainian” war.

    So, the Ukraine Flag imogee crowd continues to maintain its “Stand by Ukraine!” Potemkin Village idiot mentality.  Of course, the Western Corporate Press is still leading the daily Cheers and “Rahs!” for Ukraine, painting a false narrative of constant Ukrainian victory — but only if we can get Zelensly a few more howitzers, tanks, planes, drones, Javelins, Harpoons (NATO boots-on-the-ground, perchance?), and bullets.  Oh, and maybe we can donate a Ouija board to President Comedian so he can summon back the “Ghost of Kyiv”?  That would truly clear the Ukrainian skies of the Russian invader this time, right?

    The Potemkin Village: a Historical Snap Shot

    “Potemkin spared no effort or expense in showcasing Russia’s power and resources.  He even surprised the Empress with a battalion of ‘Amazons’–100 Greek women dressed in crimson skirts and gold-trimmed jackets (spencers) topped by gold-spangled turbans with ostrich feathers.” 1

    Many things are meant, or possibly indicated, by the phrase “Potemkin Village,” which is generally understood as a kind of decorative front overlaid upon a particularly squalid or sordid reality so as to deceive the viewer as to the true state of affairs.  Today, we might call it a form of “disinformation,” whereas in times past the term “deception” would have adequately described this phenomenon.

    Roundabout 1775, Russian Empress Catherine the Second (aka “the Great,” who ruled Russia from 1762 to 1796, or rather a long run…) appointed her “flamboyant favorite,” courtier Grigory Potemkin, to the office of Governor-General over most of what is now known as “Ukraine.”  At that time, the newly acquired Russian imperial lands were known as “Novorossiya,” or “New Russia,” in accordance with a “new”-naming fad popular amongst the prevailing European imperial powers.  In 1787, to commemorate her 25th year upon the Muscovite throne, Catherine embarked upon a 6 month journey through Novorossiya to Crimea, an extravagant political vacation with Lots of FireWorks!

    Legend has it that Potemkin conspired to erect fake villages staffed by Walt Disney Peasants in order to impress the Empress with touristic delight during her voyage down the Dnieper.  This story is generally considered to be a wild exaggeration, although obviously World leaders, even today, are typically not treated to the most derelict of places they visit; quite the contrary.  U2, or the half of U2 that recently played a dolled-up underground subway stop in Kiev (or Kyiv, and I have to ask the math-musical question here:  Does one half of U2=”U1″?) certainly got the “Catherine 2,” or “Potemkin,” treatment in the Ukrainian capital.

    However, there is a wholly other layer of irony to the “Potemkin Village” myth, namely:  Potemkin quite literally founded several villages that would go on to become key cities in what is now — at least for the moment — known as Ukraine, including Nikolayev, Dnipro, and Kherson.  Kherson, of course, was the first large city that Russia captured, way back in March, to little fanfare.  The Zelensky-fawning Western Blue-and-Yellow Press was strictly printing stories of heroic Ukrainian resistance then, so Russia taking a major Black Sea Ukrainian littoral town didn’t make the cut, and especially didn’t fit the “Potemkin” Narrative of plucky little neo-Nazi infested Ukraine beating the Big Bad Bear.  But:  “What about Snake Island?”  What about, indeed?  Potemkin Island would be a good title for any documentary about this conflict, or even The Ghost of Potemkin Island…

    If the “Mainstream” were anywhere near the Reality Stream, many a red — and not merely “false” — flag should have been raised over the issue of “something rotten in the state of” — Ukraine.  A “Democracy” run by oligarchs with a President whose chief qualification for the job was having played the “President of Ukraine” in a comedy TV skit might have topped the list, especially after the “Trumpman Show” in the US.  Then there’s the bit about Trump’s successor, Joe “Bidenopolous” and Son’s wanton corruption in Ukraine during Obama’s reign:  What to make of that?  What to make of the Western-styled “Potemkin Village” of Democracy that is Ukraine?  How about some more “Sanctions!”, and surely more “Weapons!”

    Truly, the propaganda scaffolding around this “Potemkin Village” Ukraine has been so preposterously poor that one wonders if the Covid-19 phenomenon had not only cooked, but then also eaten, the brains of the Western Elite Establishment?  Blinken blinks, absently; Nuland “Coup”-lands, hesitantly, as she describes Bio-Research Labs in Ukraine connected to the U$ under oath in a Senate hearing; and Jake Sullivan evokes an even paler shade of Jared Kushner every time he appears, which sometimes includes an MbS tantrum (although apparently pale Sullivan took Mohammed “Bone-saw” Salman’s tongue-lashing like a good boy…).

    Clearly, there is a crisis of political leadership in the West, to the tune of:  These people are not fit to rule.  Instead of “isolating” Putin’s Russia as a harsh consequence for “Operation Z,” as they have all so imperiously claimed, these incompetent Western overlords have only managed to further isolate themselves from the rest of the World which everyone knows that they, the AmericaNATOstanis, view with absolute contempt.  Indeed, a mere modicum of respect for Russia and the Minsk Accords could have averted this catastrophic war that is destroying Ukraine.  In a very real-world sense, then, the Ukrainian war is certainly a “political tragedy.”

    1. Catherine the Great: Life and Legend, John T. Alexander, 1989, p. 260.
    The post Ukraine: a Potemkin Village Kind of War first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Bill of Impeachment Against President Biden to Stop War with Russia!

    117th Congress H.Res. XX
    1st Session
    Impeaching Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., President of the United States
    For high crimes and misdemeanors

    _____________________________________________________________________________
    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    July 28, 2020
    Mr./Ms. Y submitted the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

    A RESOLUTION

    Impeaching Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

    Resolved. That Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., President of the United States, be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:

    Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America, against Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

    ARTICLE I

    In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in a campaign of non-neutral acts and belligerent acts and acts of war against the Russian Federation without the express authorization of the United States Congress in violation of the War Powers Clause of the United States Constitution set forth in Article 1, Section 8 thereof and in violation of Congress’s own War Powers Resolution of 1973 set forth in 50 U.S.C. Sections 1541 to 1548. In all of this Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

    Wherefore Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

    ARTICLE II

    In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in a campaign of non-neutral acts and belligerent acts and acts of war against the Russian Federation in violation of the United States Neutrality Legislation set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section 960, which is a crime. To wit:

    §960. Expedition against friendly nation. Whoever, within the United States, knowingly begins or sets on foot or provides or prepares a means for or furnishes the money for, or takes part in, any military or naval expedition or enterprise to be carried on from thence against the territory or dominion of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States is at peace, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 745; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147 (emphasis added).

    The United States Congress has not declared war against the Russian Federation and therefore constitutionally and legally the United States of America still “is at peace” with the Russian Federation. In all of this Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

    Wherefore Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

    ARTICLE III

    In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in a campaign of non-neutral acts and belligerent acts and acts of war against the Russian Federation in violation of the 1907 Hague Convention Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, 36 Stat. 2310, and in violation of the 1907 Hague Convention Concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, 36 Stat. 2415. Both of these Hague Neutrality Conventions are treaties to which the United States of America is a contracting party and thus “the supreme Law of the Land” under Article VI of the United States Constitution. Both the Russian Federation and Ukraine are also contracting parties to these two Hague Neutrality Conventions. In all of this Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

    Wherefore Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

    The post Bill of Impeachment Against President Biden to Stop War with Russia! first appeared on Dissident Voice.

  • All That I Ask Is That You Fight for Peace Today

    Fuyuko Matsui (Japan), Becoming Friends with All the Children of the World, 2004.

    The fragility of Europe’s energy supply has once again been on display in recent months. Gas shipments through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, which runs from Russia to Germany, were reduced to 40% of capacity in June, a cut that Moscow said was due to delays in the servicing of a turbine by the German firm Siemens. Shortly thereafter, on 11 July, the pipeline was taken offline for ten days for annual routine maintenance. Despite receiving assurances from Moscow that the supply would resume as scheduled, European leaders expressed fear that the shutdown would continue indefinitely in retaliation for sanctions imposed on Russia following the invasion of Ukraine. On 21 July, the flow of Russian gas into Europe resumed. Klaus Müller, the head Germany’s energy regulator, said that gas flows through Nord Stream 1 were below pre-maintenance levels during the first few hours of resumption, though they have now returned to 40% capacity.

    European anxieties related to energy supply are linked to fears amongst the region’s governments of further instability in the Eurozone. On the same day that Nord Stream 1 resumed operations, Italy’s Mario Draghi resigned as prime minister, the latest in a dramatic series of resignations by heads of government in Bulgaria, Estonia, and the United Kingdom. Resistance from Europe to a peace agreement with Russia comes alongside recognition that trade with Russia is inevitable.

    At No Cold War, an international platform seeking to bring sanity to international relations, we have been closely observing the shifting tenor of the war in Ukraine and the US-driven pressure campaign against China. We have published three previous briefings from this platform in our newsletters; below, you will find briefing no. 4, The World Does Not Want a Global NATO, which details the emerging clarity in the Global South regarding the US-European attempt to drive a belligerent agenda around the world. This new clarity relates not only to the militarisation of the planet, but also to the deepening conflicts in trade and development, as evidenced by the G7’s new initiative, the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Development, which clearly targets China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

    In June, member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) gathered in Madrid, Spain for their annual summit. At the meeting, NATO adopted a new Strategic Concept, which had last been updated in 2010. In it, NATO names Russia as its ‘most significant and direct threat’ and singled out China as a ‘challenge [to] our interests’. In the words of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, this guiding document represents a ‘fundamental shift’ for the military alliance, its ‘biggest overhaul… since the Cold War’.

    A Monroe Doctrine for the 21st Century?

    Although NATO purports to be a ‘defensive’ alliance, this claim is contradicted by its destructive legacy – such as in Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), and Libya (2011) – and its ever-expanding global footprint. At the summit, NATO made it clear that it intends to continue its global expansion to confront Russia and China. Seemingly oblivious to the immense human suffering produced by the war in Ukraine, NATO declared that its ‘enlargement has been a historic success… and contributed to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area’, and extended official membership invitations to Finland and Sweden.

    However, NATO’s sights extend far beyond the ‘Euro-Atlantic’ to the Global South. Seeking to gain a foothold in Asia, NATO welcomed Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand as summit participants for the first time and stated that ‘the Indo-Pacific is important for NATO’. On top of this, echoing the Monroe Doctrine (1823) of two hundred years ago, the Strategic Concept named ‘Africa and the Middle East’ as ‘NATO’s southern neighbourhood’, and Stoltenberg made an ominous reference to ‘Russia and China’s increasing influence in [the Alliance’s] southern neighbourhood’ as presenting a ‘challenge’.

    Pavel Pepperstein (Russia), Grandfather and Grandmother Are Long Gone, 2013.

    85% of the World Seeks Peace

    Although NATO’s member states may believe that they possess global authority, the overwhelming majority of the world does not. The international response to the war in Ukraine indicates that a stark divide exists between the United States and its closest allies on the one hand and the Global South on the other.

    Governments representing 6.7 billion people – 85% of the world’s population – have refused to follow sanctions imposed by the US and its allies against Russia, while countries representing only 15% of the world’s population have followed these measures. According to Reuters, the only non-Western governments to have enacted sanctions on Russia are Japan, South Korea, the Bahamas, and Taiwan – all of which host US military bases or personnel.

    There is even less support for the push to close airspace to Russian planes spearheaded by the US and European Union. Governments representing only 12% of the world’s population have adopted this policy, while 88% have not.

    US-led efforts to politically isolate Russia on the international stage have been unsuccessful. In March, the UN General Assembly voted on a nonbinding resolution to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: 141 countries voted in favour, 5 countries voted against, 35 countries abstained, and 12 countries were absent. However, this tally does not tell the full story. The countries which either voted against the resolution, abstained, or were absent represent 59% of the world’s population. Following this, the Biden administration’s call for Russia to be excluded from the G20 summit in Indonesia was ignored.

    Tadesse Mesfin (Ethiopia), Pillars of Life: Harmony, 2018.

    Meanwhile, despite intense backing from NATO, efforts to win support for Ukraine in the Global South have been a complete failure. On 20 June, after several requests, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed the African Union; only two heads of state of the continental organisation’s 55 members attended the meeting. Shortly thereafter, Zelensky’s request to address the Latin American trade bloc, Mercosur, was rejected.

    It is clear that NATO’s claim to be ‘a bulwark of the rules-based international order’ is not a view which is shared by most of the world. Support for the military alliance’s policies is almost entirely confined to its member countries and a handful of allies which together constitute a small minority of the world’s population. Most of the world’s population rejects NATO’s policies and global aspirations and does not wish to divide the international community into outdated Cold War blocs.

    Bahadır Gökay (Turkey) Evvel (‘Before’), 2013.

    In 1955, ten years after the US dropped an atom bomb on Hiroshima (Japan), the Turkish poet Nâzim Hikmet wrote a poem in the voice of a seven-year-old girl who died in that terrible act. The poem was later translated into Japanese by Nobuyuki Nakamoto as ‘Shinda Onnanoko’ (‘Dead Girl’) and frequently sung in commemorations of that atrocity. Given the harshness of war and the escalation of conflict, it is worthwhile to reflect once more on Hikmet’s beautiful, haunting lyrics:

    I come and stand at every door
    But no one hears my silent tread.
    I knock and yet remain unseen
    For I am dead, for I am dead.

    I’m only seven, although I died
    In Hiroshima long ago.
    I’m seven now as I was then.
    When children die, they do not grow.

    My hair was scorched by swirling flame.
    My eyes grew dim; my eyes grew blind.
    Death came and turned my bones to dust
    And that was scattered by the wind.

    I need no fruit, I need no rice.
    I need no sweets, nor even bread.
    I ask for nothing for myself
    For I am dead, for I am dead.

    All that I ask is that for peace
    You fight today, you fight today
    So that the children of the world
    May live and grow and laugh and play.

    The post All That I Ask Is That You Fight for Peace Today first appeared on Dissident Voice.

  • Putin’s Repression Is Driving Many Antiwar Russians Abroad

    We look at how the Russian war in Ukraine is impacting the Russian people, with many Russian dissidents who oppose the invasion choosing to flee abroad after facing violent crackdowns at home. Ilya Budraitskis is a Russian historian and political writer who left his home in Moscow after the war in Ukraine began, and recently launched the media outlet Posle. Meanwhile, Putin’s Russia looks like an extremely “conformist” society, where “some 200 kilometers from your home you have a full-scale war with the army of your country that started this war, and you pretend not to follow the news, not to disturb your normal way of life with this terrifying information,” says Budraitskis.

    TRANSCRIPT

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

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

    As we continue to look at the war in Ukraine, now in its sixth month, we’re joined now by Ilya Budraitskis. He is a Russian historian, political writer, author of the award-winning book Dissidents Among Dissidents: Ideology, Politics and the Left in Post-Soviet Russia. We first spoke to Ilya from Moscow in February, three weeks prior to the invasion. He’s since left Russia amidst President Vladmir Putin’s crackdown on Russian civil society.

    Ilya Budraitskis, if you can talk about why you left? And what do you think will end this war? And specifically, as we talked to Oksana about Ukrainian and Russian society response, your understanding of what Russians are feeling now?

    ILYA BUDRAITSKIS: So, hello. Thank you for having me here.

    I left Russia in the week after the start of the war. And, in fact, this week was — it was a terrible week. It was the moment when in the biggest cities, the small or not so big, not so important antiwar demonstrations were brutally smashed by the police. It was the week when all the independent media, which still existed in the country for that moment, were banned. And it was the moment of the high — of the lack of any predictability. Yes, so, there were expectations that some general mobilization for the army will be possible, that the borders will close, and so on.

    So, in fact, during two months after the war, the government implemented the huge wave of repressions with the aim to destroy any possible resistance, any possible antiwar public statements and sentiments in the Russian society. So, for now, the situation is quite strange, because most of the people in Russia, they were scared. They understand that any expression of their disagreement with the war and the regime will put them at risk. And in the same time, they pretend that the situation somehow come back to normal, because there was not such a huge decrease of the Russian economy, as it was predicted in the beginning — in the beginning of the war, and also because it is just very kind of conformist way of life that is very general for the modern societies, but taken extreme forms in Putin’s Russia, where, you know, in some few hundred kilometers from your home you have a full-scale war with the army of your country that started this war, and you pretend not to follow the news, not to disturb your normal way of life with this terrifying information.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: Ilya, could you explain — I mean, you’ve said in a recent interview that, effectively, now there is no possibility of an opposition in Russia, because its structures have been destroyed. So, if you could elaborate on that, and then the question of sanctions, the impact that sanctions have had on Russia? You’ve just said that the economy has not been as weakened as anticipated.

    ILYA BUDRAITSKIS: Yeah. So, to the first question, in fact, the recent two years were used by Putin to prepare the society for this situation of silence, of conformism, of depoliticization, of a lack of any resistance, because, if you remember, in the beginning of 2020, the amendments to the Russian Constitution were implemented, and according to these amendments, Putin got a right to stay in power for some — you know, for some decade or even more. And, in fact, that was important, decisive moment that was kind of the hidden coup d’état, which in fact was realized from the top of the Russian state. And then, in 2021, the main structure of nonparliamentary opposition, the movement of Alexei Navalny, was totally destroyed. Alexei Navalny personally was jailed. Many of his followers were arrested or forced to leave the country. So, in this way, you can see that to the beginning of the war, the main elements of the dictatorship were already there.

    As for the sanctions, well, in the recent report by IMF, International Monetary Fund, the expectation of the fall of the Russian economy to the beginning — to the end of this year would be some 6%, which is less than it was predicted in the beginning of the war. So, in fact, Russian economy, of course, will lose a lot. A lot of workplaces will disappear. A lot of people will lose their incomes because of the inflation and so on. But, in fact, the main elements of the stability of the Russian economy, they are still in the place. That’s the export of gas and oil. And we know that the gas prices now are — you know, jumped, and they’re as high as never before in the recent decades. So, in this sense, Russia probably will not be shaken politically only because of the impact of the sanctions.

    I will say that probably the human cost, the cost of human lives, the cost of the huge losses among the Russian soldiers during this war, could be even more important reason for some protest feelings in Russian society.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: Ilya, finally, now we see Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has been in Africa meeting heads of state, trying to establish that Russia has not been entirely globally isolated. Now, you’ve drawn a distinction between the Soviet Union of the Cold War period and Russia today, saying, quote, “During the Cold War it could at least be said that the Soviet bloc, for all its obvious faults, was a bearer of ideas of social liberation and anti-colonial struggle. Today we see the choice between the reactionary NATO bloc and the even more reactionary potential Russia-China bloc.” So, could you talk about that specifically with respect to this visit of Lavrov in which he is invoking this old Soviet tendency or reputation for supporting anti-colonial struggles in the countries where he is now, where he’s been visiting?

    ILYA BUDRAITSKIS: Yeah, you’re very true that — you’re very right that Putin, Lavrov and the Russian regime, in general, are trying to promote this kind of anti-colonial rhetorics for now. So, even before Putin made the speech where he said that you have a so-called golden billion which rule the Earth and which provide some kind of unjust, unequal relations between the developing countries and the West, and the aim of Russian military operation in Ukraine is to change this domination of the West. So, you have totally the same message behind Lavrov’s visit to the African states.

    But the main problem is what kind of alternative Russia is trying to propose by all this — all these relations. So, definitely, Russia itself not looks as the kind of role model, some alternative model to the Western — to the Western domination. And the way in which Russia is trying to gain some African countries, for example, for its side is very cynical, is a pure commercial and neoliberal. So, they are just proposing some — I don’t know — discounts for oil or some discounts for the weapons coming from Russia and things like this. There is nothing about the economic development. There is nothing about any real social and political alternative to the current order of things.

    AMY GOODMAN: Ilya Budraitskis, we want to thank you for being with us, Russian historian and political writer, author of Dissidents Among Dissidents: Ideology, Politics and the Left in Post-Soviet Russia. We’re not saying where he is. He left Russia after Putin invaded Ukraine.

  • Forde report confirms the obvious as new survey lays bare more Islamophobia

    The fallout from the Forde Report is still rumbling on, but there aren’t many outlets that have bothered to cover its findings. Indeed, sociologist Tom Mills put together some figures on how little traction the report has gained in the mainstream media:

    Middle East Eye said of the conclusions of the report:

    Damning report says antisemitism was treated as a ‘factional weapon’ by both supporters and opponents of Jeremy Corbyn in senior party positions.

    However, the Labour Muslim Network also found that the report points to “institutional Islamophobia within the Labour party”.

    All of this comes just as a new survey from advocacy organisation CAGE looks at yet another facet of Islamophobia. We’ll get to that in a moment, but first it’s worth looking to the people of colour who’ve had to take the lead, once again, on calling out Islamophobia.

    Kick in the teeth

    Labour MP Kate Osamor said:

    MP Nadia Whittome also called for the Labour leadership to respond:

    Journalist Rachel Shabi said:

    Media Diversified‘s Samantha Asumadu organised a Twitter space to discuss the findings of the Forde report, and called for more people to listen:

    The Canary’s own Afroze Zaidi was a speaker at this event, and shared her thoughts:

    Clearly, there is a strong feeling that Labour has not addressed its Islamophobia and racism problems in any meaningful way.

    Solidarity

    Islamophobia is rampant and rife throughout Britain, not just in the Labour party. A new survey from CAGE shows just how bad things have become. The survey recieved 532 responses from parents, students, and teachers. They asked how involved schools were with support for people in Ukraine.

    The survey found that:

    • 96% of respondents confirmed “proactive engagement” on the Ukraine issue, such as donation appeals or mentions in newsletters.
    • 62% of respondents said schools had fundraised or hosted donation drives for Ukraine.
    • 17% of respondents said that children were encouraged to wear the colours of the Ukraine flag to school, or to have the flag on school property.

    Shockingly, CAGE found that in some cases “schools were also raising funds for military gear”.

    In its analysis, CAGE stated:

    The figures lie in stark comparison to the treatment of Palestine last year, where our cases – as well as those of other advocacy organisations and countless anecdotes – indicated that pupils (and staff) were treated punitively for attempting to express solidarity.

    Last year, textbooks on Palestine and Israel were pulled from schools by the government. In February of this year, the Department for Education (DfE) told schools to present a “balanced” view of what it called the Israel-Palestine “conflict.” There have been multiple instances where children have been punished for wearing Palestinian flags or excluded for showing support for Palestine, with teachers also enforcing objections to mentions of Palestine.

    As Al-Araby reported, the DfE also said this about Black Lives Matter (BLM):

    It says those teaching about particular activist groups such as certain organisations linked with the “Black Lives Matter movement… should be aware that this may cover partisan political views” – those which are outside the “basic shared principle that racism is unacceptable”.

    What’s the pattern here, then?

    Racism

    There’s a reason that support for Ukraine is seen as politically neutral. It’s because white people’s bodies are seen as neutral. Palestine and BLM are singled out because Black and brown bodies are always seen as political, no matter how people behave or what their political views are.

    The head of research at CAGE, Azfar Shafi, said:

    Despite the sharp differences, the research uncovered some notable convergences in the way that the government approached the questions of Palestine and Ukraine in school. Whether under the banner of countering ‘extremism’, preventing ‘antisemitism’ or tackling ‘disinformation’, there has been a concerted effort to stage-manage the terms of political discussion in school, including through the use of security thinktanks, to firmly align with British foreign policy interests.

    The response to the Forde report from mainstream media – or rather, the lack of a response – shows that neither institutions like the Labour party nor politics at large are interested in meaningfully tacking anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or anti-Blackness. CAGE’s report is invaluable in showing that children are used as political tools. If it’s okay for children to support Ukraine, why isn’t it okay for children to support Palestine or BLM?

    Children are being weaponised in this culture war, which is being waged across the political spectrum. With all of this, whether it’s the lack of response to the Forde report, or how children in schools are treated, one thing is clear – this is white supremacy in action.

    Featured image via Unsplash/Latrach Med Jamil and Unsplash/Nati Melnychuk

    By Maryam Jameela

  • The War “Diplomat”: How Borrell, the West Lost the “Global Battle of Narratives”

    In a blog entry, reflecting on the G20 Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Bali, Indonesia on July 7-8, the High Representative of the European Union, Josep Borrell, seems to have accepted the painful truth that the West is losing what he termed “the global battle of narratives”.

    “The global battle of narratives is in full swing and, for now, we are not winning,” Borrell admitted. The solution: “As the EU, we have to engage further to refute Russian lies and war propaganda,” the EU’s top diplomat added.

    Borrell’s piece is a testimony to the very erroneous logic that led to the so-called ‘battle of narratives’ to be lost in the first place.

    Borrell starts by reassuring his readers that, despite the fact that many countries in the Global South refuse to join the West’s sanctions on Russia, “everybody agrees”, though in “abstract terms”, on the “need for multilateralism and defending principles such as territorial sovereignty”.

    The immediate impression that such a statement gives is that the West is the global vanguard of multilateralism and territorial sovereignty. The opposite is true. The US-western military interventions in Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and many other regions around the world have largely taken place without international consent and without any regard for the sovereignty of nations. In the case of the NATO war on Libya, a massively destructive military campaign was initiated based on the intentional misinterpretation of United Nations Security Council resolution 1973, which called for the use of “all means necessary to protect civilians”.

    Borrell, like other western diplomats, conveniently omits the West’s repeated – and ongoing – interventions in the affairs of other nations, while painting the Russian-Ukraine war as the starkest example of “blatant violations of international law, contravening the basic tenets of the UN Charter and endangering the global economic recovery” .

    Would Borrell employ such strong language to depict the numerous ongoing war crimes in parts of the world involving European countries or their allies? For example, France’s despicable war record in Mali? Or, even more obvious, the 75-year-old Israeli occupation of Palestine?

    When addressing “food and energy security”, Borrell lamented that many in the G20 have bought into the “propaganda and lies coming from the Kremlin” regarding the actual cause of the food crisis. He concluded that it is not the EU but “Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine that is dramatically aggravating the food crisis.”

    Again, Borrell was selective with his logic. While naturally, a war between two countries that contribute a large share of the world’s basic food supplies will detrimentally impact food security, Borrell made no mention that the thousands of sanctions imposed by the West on Moscow have disrupted the supply chain of many critical products, raw material and basic food items.

    When the West imposed those sanctions, it only thought of its national interests, erroneously centered around defeating Russia. Neither the people of Sri Lanka, Somalia, Lebanon, nor, frankly, Ukraine were relevant factors in the West’s decision.

    Borrell, whose job as a diplomat suggests that he should be investing in diplomacy to resolve conflicts, has repeatedly called for widening the scope of war on Russia, insisting that the war can only be “won on the battlefield”. Such statements were made with western interests in mind, despite the obvious devastating consequences that Borrell’s battlefield would have on the rest of the world.

    Still, Borrell had the audacity to chastise G20 members for behaving in ways that seemed, to him, focused solely on their national interests. “The hard truth is that national interests often outweigh general commitments to bigger ideals,” he wrote. If defeating Russia is central to Borrell’s and the EU’s “bigger ideals”, why should the rest of the world, especially in the Global South, embrace the West’s self-serving priorities?

    Borrell also needs to be reminded that the West’s “global battle of narratives” had been lost well before February 24. Much of the Global South rightly sees the West’s interests at odds with its own. This seemingly cynical view is an outcome of decades – in fact, hundreds of years – of real experiences, starting with colonialism and ending, presently, with the routine military and political interventions.

    Borrell speaks of ‘bigger ideals’, as if the West is the only morally mature entity that is capable of thinking about rights and wrongs in a selfless, detached manner. In addition to there being no evidence to support Borrell’s claim, such condescending language, itself an expression of cultural arrogance, makes it impossible for non-western countries to accept, or even engage, with the West regarding the morality of its politics.

    Borrell, for example, accuses Russia of a “deliberate attempt to use food as a weapon against the most vulnerable countries in the world, especially in Africa”. Even if we accept this problematic premise as a morally driven position, how can Borrell justify the West’s sanctions that have effectively starved many people in “vulnerable countries” around the world?

    Perhaps, Afghans are the most vulnerable people in the world today, thanks to 20 years of a devastating US/NATO war which has killed and maimed tens of thousands. Though the US and its western allies were forced out of Afghanistan last August, billions of dollars of Afghan money are illegally frozen in Western bank accounts, pushing the whole country to the brink of starvation. Why can Borrell not apply his ‘bigger ideals’ in this particular scenario, demanding immediate unfreezing of Afghan money?

    In truth, Borrell, the EU, NATO and the West are not only losing the global battle of narratives, they have never won it in the first place. Winning or losing that battle never mattered to Western leaders in the past, because the Global South was hardly considered when the West made its unilateral decisions regarding war, military invasions or economic sanctions.

    The Global South matters now, simply because the West is no longer determining all political outcomes, as was often the case. Russia, China, India and others are now relevant, because they can collectively balance out the skewed global order that has been dominated by Borrell and his likes for far too long.

    The post The War “Diplomat”: How Borrell, the West Lost the “Global Battle of Narratives” first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Poverty Division Democratic Destruction: The Johnson Legacy

    It’s a tad over three hundred years since Britain had what is generally regarded as its first Prime Minister. Since 1721 and Robert Walpole, 76 have held the highest public office, some good, some indifferent, many rubbish, but none as appalling as the current resident of 10 Downing Street. The soon-to-be-ousted Boris “there were no parties” Johnson, who is without doubt the worst prime minister Britain has ever had.

    Not only is he a compulsive liar, an arrogant, spoilt misogynist, he and his gaggle are completely incompetent. As a result of their appalling governance over the last 12 years, yes the Conservatives have been in power in one form of another for 12 disastrous years, they have created a catalogue of crises that will take a generation to put right, and unless they are ejected from office swiftly, could relegate the UK to a second tier nation – economically and socially, including health care, education and other public services, many of which are in tatters.

    It is hard to overestimate the damage the Tories have done. First there’s Brexit, something Johnson claims as one of his three major achievements, that he “got Brexit done”. Brexit should never have happened and it would not have happened had the 51% that voted to leave been given the correct information and understood the implications. The Leave Campaign, with Johnson as its loudest mouthpiece, repeatedly and knowingly lied, completely distorting and misrepresenting issues including the economic impact, which is and will continue to be devastating. Immigration,  employment, environmental standards, workers rights, etc., etc. They didn’t just mislead and manipulate, they trampled on the truth and seasoned their lies with large dollops of tribal nationalism and British bravado, hiding duplicity in the folds of the flag.

    Brexit followed on from years of austerity administered by a previous Conservative government led by PM David Cameron (who gave in to the far right fanatics in the party to grant the EU referendum in 2016). Brutal cuts in funding for public services, including the National Health Service (NHS) were made under the guise of fiscal responsibility, pay was frozen for workers in low paid jobs, inequality deepened, and continues to increase, geographically and between the rich and the rest.

    The response to Covid, in particular the vaccine program, is another area where Johnson blubbers success. Currently it is estimated that 178,000 people have died in the UK from Covid/Covid related causes. This is 266 per 100,000 and places the UK seventh in the list of countries with the highest rates of Covid deaths (behind, in order, the US, Brazil, India, Russia, Mexico and Peru): this is hardly a success. The UK government was slow to lockdown, had no workable testing system for months in 2020, making diagnosis impossible, and allowed untested patients to be discharged from hospitals to care homes in England and Wales, which resulted in more than 20,000 deaths of elderly/disabled people between March and June 2020. A barrister representing the daughter of someone who died prematurely in a care home told the BBC, that the government’s failure to protect residents of care homes and decisions that allowed Covid to infest care homes “represent one of the most egregious and devastating policy failures in the modern era.” As for the vaccine, this was indeed offered and delivered quickly, but it was administered by the NHS and had little or nothing to do with Johnson, who routinely claims the credit.

    The final area that Johnson claims as a triumph is his government’s response to Russia’s attack on Ukraine. The UK has provided weapons, some training of military personnel and a badly designed, appallingly managed asylum program for Ukrainian refugees. By supplying arms and making outlandish, unrealistic claims about Ukraine “winning the war”, Johnson and co., have prolonged the conflict and condemned hundreds of Ukrainians to death who need not have died.

    If peace is the objective (of the UK, US etc) in Ukraine (and elsewhere), and it’s a big if, and if conflict resolution is the test of success in relation to the war, Johnson (and others) has failed totally. Engagement/discussion with Putin is needed (as President Macron of France has been attempting) not more and more arms. At the same time NATO should be scaled back, with the view to disbanding it completely, not increasing troop numbers and raising defense spending, as is happening. When will humanity learn? Preparing for war is the guarantee of conflict, death and terrible suffering, it is not the way to peace. But men and women like Johnson and his monstrous foreign secretary, Liz Truss (who looks like to become the next PM), have no interest in peace and even less in Ukraine; they are concerned only with stirring up their misguided supporters, strengthening nationalism/idealism – the single greatest cause of conflict – agitating hate and division.

    Domestically the UK is facing acute problems; headline issues include: huge increase in the number of people living in poverty (estimated to be around one in five of the population or 14.3 million), with 2,173,158 forced to use a (registered) food bank in 2021/22, up from 40,000 in 2008/9 – before which there were no such things as food banks; inequality has deepened and growth is forecast to be the lowest in the G20 with the exception of Russia. Inflation at 11% is a forty-year high; 6.6 million patients are waiting for NHS treatment (May figures); ambulances are taking on average 50 minutes to respond to emergency calls (the target is 15 minutes) because hospitals are full, because patients cannot be discharged as there is no functioning social care provision; airports have seen huge delays in flights due to lack of staff – many of whom were laid off during Covid or returned home, to Poland or Spain; e.g., after Brexit poisoned the collective atmosphere for European workers; the asylum system is totally broken; Britain’s international standing, particularly within the EU has been trashed and after a litany of Johnson lies and cronyism trust in politicians is at an all-time low.

    Dishonesty, incompetence and social erosion

    On 7th July, after an unprecedented 53 members of the government resigned over Johnson’s serial deceptions, he was forced, kicking and screaming, to step down. But lacking any self-respect and moral fiber, instead of going immediately and allowing the deputy PM to stand in while a new Conservative leader was elected, he remained in office, and will be there until the replacement is chosen (5th September). It’s Conservative members (180,00 roughly) only, not the general public, that get to vote – this is plainly undemocratic. In circumstances when the leader of the party in government, and therefore the PM, is driven out, a general election should be called.

    Constitutional reform with the establishment of a written constitution, which does not currently exist, is required to look at a plethora of democratic inadequacies revealed by Johnson’s abuse and manipulation of power. Included in the changes is the urgent need to move from the unjust first-past-the-post election system to proportional representation; greater regional/national devolution, including perhaps Home Rule for Scotland, and a binding ministerial code of conduct, among other matters.

    Johnson and his cronies have presided over a shambolic, deeply damaging period in British politics and national life. A period in which truth has been sacrificed, facts dismissed and the political and social landscape has been poisoned totally. Divisions have intensified (Brexit being the loudest example), tolerance of differences and common sense routinely sacrificed upon the alter of ambition and ideological arrogance, the rule of law ignored; a shameful period of dishonesty, incompetence and social erosion. Johnson’s legacy, as Jeremy Corbin recently said in the House of Commons, is “[greater] poverty, [intensified] inequality and [grinding] insecurity.”

    As the final two Conservative leadership candidates (Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss) – is this really the best they have to offer — are demonstrating, the policies and general approach of the Conservative party, which has moved increasingly to the right/far right of the political spectrum, is completely out of step with the needs of the people and the planet. They are ideologically imprisoned in the past and, despite their robotic rhetoric to the contrary, are driven by a determination, not to serve the needs of the populous and be a force for peace and unity in the world, but by raw ambition and a determination to remain in power by appealing to the lowest common denominator – tribal nationalism, hate and prejudice – no matter what damage is done to the country, its reputation or the environment, which they care not a tot about.

    In many ways Johnson (like Trump, Putin, Bolsonaro of Brazil, Modi of India, Orban of Hungary etc.) and the toxic brand of Conservatism he represents is a product of the age, The Age of Populism, which has infected many democracies. Such malignant, mendacious men and women (Liz Truss loud, stupid and incompetent) represent, and are powerful expressions of the backward-looking, divisive and deeply dangerous reactionary forces that are standing in the way of change. And if there is ever to be peace and social justice in our world, and if we are to have any chance at all of stopping the environmental catastrophe that is unfolding, they must be swept aside totally.

    ;

    The post Poverty Division Democratic Destruction: The Johnson Legacy first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A new wave of migration is coming – Europe is not ready | Simon Tisdall

    Britain and the EU responded dismally to the 2015 migrant crisis. The number of ‘irregular entries’ is up by 84% this year – and the ways to deal with the issue now range from limited to bizarre

    In a week when Russia threatened to annex more territory in Ukraine, gas shortages loomed, and inflation and Covid surged across Europe, it seems almost unkind to remind EU and UK leaders of another crisis that is unfolding, largely unremarked, right under their noses. As Claudius laments in Shakespeare’s Hamlet: “When sorrows come, they come not single spies, / But in battalions.”

    As if defeating Russian aggression was not enough of a challenge, Europe now also faces rapidly rising new “waves” of undocumented asylum seekers. Given the sociopolitical upheavals that ensued after 1 million refugees, mostly Syrians, arrived on Europe’s shores in 2015, the EU and UK might be expected to be better prepared this time.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Home Office ‘mistakes and delays’ mean girl, 4, must stay trapped in Ukraine

    Alika has a UK sponsor, and applied for visa in March, but is one of few children left in her Kharkiv neighbourhood

    A four-year-old girl remains stranded in a block of flats on the Ukrainian frontline four months after attempts began to bring her to the UK, a delay campaigners have blamed on a series of government “blunders”.

    Efforts to rescue Alika Zubets from the city of Kharkiv began on 21 March when her UK sponsor applied for a visa under the Homes for Ukraine scheme and expected her to reach north Staffordshire by mid-April at the latest. Instead, she remains one of the few children left in her Kharkiv neighbourhood, with no schools or nurseries open and the constant threat of shelling from Russian forces nearby.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Donbass (2016)

    An exposé about the people of the Donbass.

    In 2016, the French journalist Anne-Laure Bonnel released a documentary following the lives of the Ukrainians separatists of the Donbass Region.

    Bonnel, a young director and mother of a French family, decided to accompany Alexandre, a father of Ukrainian origin, to the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine in a pro-Russian zone. Bonnel captures the terrible images of a deadly conflict and an unprecedented humanitarian disaster. Donbass is an immersive, gripping documentary film in a war-torn country.

    Filming war is not only filming combat. When war is treated as a spectacle, we often tend to forget what surrounds it. Off-screen, entire populations struggle to live, or rather to survive. Donbass informs about the struggle. Through her documentary, Bonnel films the conflict in its universality and presents that which we are usually not shown.

    This is not a political message for or against any side of the conflict. Viewers are strongly advised to listen to the testimonies from all sides before reaching any definitive judgment.

    The post Donbass (2016) first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Ukrainian workers’ war on two fronts

    When Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, social conflict inside the country was not put on hold: any illusion that its defence needs might produce a truce in the class struggle soon vanished, reports Dick Nichols.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Calling Putin ‘Hitler’ to Smear Diplomacy as ‘Appeasement’

    NYT chart of Russian articles about Ukraine that mention Nazism

    The New York Times (7/2/22) attributed a spike in mentions of Nazism at the start of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine to Putin describing Ukraine as “full of Nazis,” but did not discuss Western media comparing Putin to Hitler.

    Earlier this month, a New York Times (7/2/22) report, “How the Russian Media Spread False Claims About Ukrainian Nazis,” argued that falsely branding people as Nazis is inherently propagandistic:

    The lie that the government and culture of Ukraine are filled with dangerous “Nazis” has become a central theme of Kremlin propaganda about the war.

    To say Ukraine is “filled” with Nazis is an obvious exaggeration, although even a relatively small number of Nazis has wielded disproportionate influence in the Ukrainian government (Kyiv Post, 3/26/19; Euronews, 8/4/21). Nevertheless, FAIR (3/7/14, 1/15/22, 1/28/22, 2/23/22) has covered the Western media’s denial of the far-right’s role in the Ukrainian 2014 coup, as well as their complicity in amplifying Ukrainian neo-Nazi publicity stunts during the war. 

    But if it’s true that falsely associating a government with Nazism is a manipulation worthy of condemnation, how then should one judge Western media efforts to tie Russian President Vladimir Putin to Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler?

    FAIR (3/30/22) has previously noted how evidence-free caricatures in Western media of Putin as irrational (and perhaps psychotic) make diplomatic efforts to end the Ukraine crisis seem pointless. Tracing a connection between Putin and Hitler is an even more insidious attempt to make the idea of a negotiated end to the war seem like a moral outrage.

    ‘Striking similarities’

    Auschwitz Memorial tweet
    In the early days of the Ukraine crisis, former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul implied to guest host Ali Velshi on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show (3/11/22) that Putin was worse than Hitler, because Putin was killing his own people, while Hitler “didn’t kill ethnic Germans.” McFaul’s comments were later shared without attribution or pushback by the Maddow blog on Twitter (3/12/22)—suggesting that Maddow’s show endorsed McFaul’s comparative ranking of Putin and Hitler—before being removed following social media backlash and a correction by the Auschwitz Memorial. (Many of the Jews killed by Hitler were, of course, ethnically German, as were countless other victims of Hitler, if that makes a moral difference.)

    Historian Richard J. Evans (New Statesman, 4/9/22) listed several ways Putin could be compared to Hitler, including the argument that genocide was at “the heart of the Nazi project,” and Russia’s actions in Ukraine amount to genocide because Ukrainians “are being killed because they are Ukrainians, and for no other reason.” Furthermore:

    Both men had imposed dictatorial rule over their respective countries, both men suppressed dissent and eliminated independent media, both men had no hesitation in murdering people they considered a threat to their rule. Both Hitler and Putin invaded a series of neighboring countries, both used lies and disinformation to justify their actions, both used a symbol–in Putin’s case “Z,” in Hitler’s the swastika–to advertise support for their aims. Both men had no hesitation in causing death and destruction on a massive scale to further their ends.

    Many of these features would seem to apply to virtually any authoritarian ruler, from Augusto Pinochet to Ferdinand Marcos—though not every dictator has a distinctive logo, were they all Hitler as well? 

    Political scientist Alexander Motyl wrote an op-ed for The Hill (5/3/22), “Putin’s Russia Rose like Hitler’s Germany—and Could End the Same,” that argued that the “striking similarities between Vladimir Putin’s Russia and Adolf Hitler’s Germany are not accidental,” because their “imperial mindsets, militaristic ambitions, personality cults and demonization of minorities (Jews and Ukrainians)” made it “almost inevitable that Hitler and Putin then embarked on major wars.”

    NYT Headline: We Should Say It. Russia Is Fascist.

    “We err in limiting our fears of fascism to a certain image of Hitler and the Holocaust…But today’s Russia meets most of the criteria that scholars tend to apply. It has a cult around a single leader, Vladimir Putin,” wrote Timothy Snyder for the New York Times (5/19/22).

    Historian Timothy Snyder’s New York Times op-ed (5/19/22), “We Should Say It. Russia Is Fascist,” averred that we “err in limiting our fears of fascism to a certain image of Hitler and the Holocaust,” but claimed there are similarities between “Mr. Putin’s war” and “Hitler’s main war aim” of conquering Ukraine in 1941. In any case, Snyder suggested that, as with Hitler,(“ABC World News Tonight” OR “CBS Evening News” OR “The Situation Room” OR “Special Report” OR “The Beat” OR “Nightly News” OR “All Things Considered” OR “NewsHour”) AND (“Oil” OR “gas”) w/100 (“prices” OR “cost”) there was no point in negotiating with Putin, because the only way to deal with such leaders is to hand them a military defeat: “The fascist leader has to be defeated, which means that those who oppose fascism have to do what is necessary to defeat him,” he asserted, warning that if “Ukraine does not win, we can expect decades of darkness.”

    ‘More dangerous’ than Hitler

    In the London Telegraph (5/10/22), Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki argued that Putin is “more dangerous” than Hitler (or Stalin), because not only does Putin “have deadlier weapons at his disposal, but he also has the new media at his fingertips to spread his propaganda.” While it “seems impossible that Hitler or Stalin could return in our time,” Morawiecki wrote, they apparently did so when the “inconceivable became fact when rockets fell on Kyiv, Kharkiv and other cities of a sovereign, democratic state in the heart of Europe.” (Serbia was also, like Ukraine, a sovereign state with an at least nominally elected government—but NATO rockets falling on its cities during the Kosovo War did not seem to herald the second coming of World War II–era dictators.) 

    Morawiecki claimed that Putin’s “Russkiy Mir” ideology is “the equivalent of 20th-century Communism and Nazism,” and a “cancer” that poses a “deadly threat to the whole of Europe.” It is “not enough to support Ukraine in its military struggle with Russia,” he declared; nothing less than rooting out this “monstrous new ideology entirely” would be satisfactory to him.

    Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine is a violation of international law, condemned by 141 out of 193 countries in a UN General Assembly vote. But claims that Russia is committing genocide—a charge that carries automatic repercussions under international law—have to reckon with the comparison between the Ukraine invasion and the largest US military operation of the 21st century, the Iraq War. The UN’s count of civilian deaths in the first four months of Russia’s war was 4,677; the tally in the first four months of Iraq, according to Iraq Body Count, a project that monitored press accounts of civilian casualties, was 8,576. 

    Both numbers are horrific, and each surely underestimates the true civilian toll of these wars. But if Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine, what was the US doing in Iraq?

    “I know it’s hard…to swallow that the carnage and destruction could be much worse than it is,” a US Defense Intelligence Agency analyst told Newsweek (3/22/22). “But that’s what the facts show. This suggests to me, at least, that Putin is not intentionally attacking civilians.”

    If one genuinely wants to compare Putin’s brutality to Hitler’s, one has to look at the actual civilian toll of World War II. In the European theater alone, tens of  millions of civilians were killed; some 14 million of these deaths were inflicted in the Soviet Union, which comprised both Russia and Ukraine. When you assert that the enemy of the day is as bad as Hitler, you’re also asserting that Hitler is no worse than the enemy of the day.

    A parade of new Hitlers

    Political scientist Michael Parenti pointed out in Against Empire that the corporate media often demonize the leaders of Official Enemy states as an evil personification of the entire population in order to justify US aggression against them, and there are few better ways to vilify foreign leaders in the West than by making exaggerated accusations that they are Adolf Hitler reincarnate. The glib trope demonstrates how frivolously historical comparisons are thrown around to advance US geopolitical goals. 

    British journalist Louis Allday (Ebb Magazine, 3/15/22) compiled a list of instances where Western journalists and officials have compared foreign leaders to Hitler—with Hitler sometimes coming off better in the comparison. Hitler-like leaders include Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Yugoslavia’s Slobodan Milošević, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and even Cuba’s Fidel Castro. 

    If we take all of these allegations at face value, we should all be shocked by how many Hitlers have emerged after World War II. Or one could reasonably infer that Western journalists and officials will compare any foreign leader they dislike to Hitler, trivializing the atrocities of Nazi Germany and the suffering endured by their victims. Allday argues that these flippant Hitler comparisons are “effectively tantamount to a form of Holocaust denial and even an insidious rehabilitation of Nazism.”

    Diplomacy = ‘appeasement’

    One inevitable feature of these Hitler comparisons is frequent reference to “appeasement” when reporting on the US’s dealings with foreign leaders. This presents any attempt at diplomatic negotiations with foreign leaders opposed by the US as a misguided or unprincipled effort to placate an irrational or evil dictator bent on expansionist conquest. 

    Even before Russia invaded Ukraine, as it amassed troops near its border, British Secretary of State for Defense Ben Wallace worried that “there was a whiff of Munich in the air.” This was a clear reference to what is commonly perceived to be a failed policy of diplomatic efforts to prevent World War II in the West, when European powers agreed to let Hitler annex part of Czechoslovakia in the 1938 Munich Agreement (BBC, 2/13/22). 

    Ian Bond (Guardian, 2/22/22), the director of foreign policy at the Center for European Reform, wrote that although Putin is “not a charismatic madman,” there are still “echoes of 1938 in current developments,” as what “Putin has in common with Hitler” is a “mystical belief in a nation stretching beyond his country’s current borders.”  Bond criticized Western officials for appearing to focus on “accommodating” Putin instead of deterring him, arguing that deterrence is “impossible” if “leaders keep telling Putin what they are not prepared to do” by ruling out in advance escalation into World War III.

    New York Times columnist David Leonhardt (5/9/22) made it seem as if US leaders can only choose between their “old strategy” of “appeasement,” which supposedly caused Putin to “become more aggressive,” and their “new strategy” of “confrontation,” which would risk “a fight with a nuclear power that many Americans and Europeans do not want.” 

    This is a false dichotomy. Although establishment Western pundits and officials like to claim that the Russian invasion was “unprovoked,” FAIR (1/28/22, 3/4/22) has pointed out that this self-serving narrative omits a record of conscious provocations against Russia via NATO expansion towards Russian borders, in violation of promises made to Soviet reformer Mikhail Gorbachev. Leonhardt falsely described the US’s previous foreign policy toward Russia as a “strategy of non-confrontation ” rather than encirclement and antagonism. 

    (A poll of Ukrainians conducted by the Wall Street Journal and the National Opinion Research Center—6/9-6/22—found 58% thought the US bore “some” or “a great deal of responsibility” for the current conflict, along with 55% for NATO, while 82% said the same of Russia. This majority opinion in Ukraine would be difficult to utter in an establishment US media outlet.)

    Poll of Ukrainians about who bears responsibility for the conflict

    According to a Wall Street Journal and the National Opinion Research Center poll, 58% of Ukrainians believe the US bears “a great deal/some responsibility” for the war in Ukraine.

    Accusations of “appeasing” Russia or Putin have been raised towards influential Western officials who have either engaged in diplomacy or advocated de-escalation through negotiations. Zelenskyy has made contradictory remarks throughout the conflict, arguing that diplomacy is the only way to end the war, while also advocating for escalation through more NATO military support and setting up a “no-fly-zone.” Western media outlets (e.g., Reuters, 5/26/22; Newsweek, 5/26/22) amplified Zelenskyy’s Munich references, with no pushback, when he criticized former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for advocating Ukrainian territorial concessions as a path to ending the war. Zelenskyy mocked Kissinger, stating that his “calendar is not 2022, but 1938,” and suggesting that Kissinger was speaking to an audience “in Munich back then.” 

    Former German chancellor Angela Merkel has also had to defend her record of diplomacy with Putin numerous times from charges of “appeasement,” as Zelenskyy blamed her and former French president Nicholas Sarkozy for not doing enough to prevent the situation. Other op-eds (Politico, 5/23/22; Bloomberg, 6/9/22) denounced her as the “Neville Chamberlain of our time”–evoking the British prime minister who met with Hitler at Munich–because of her insufficiently aggressive policy. 

    Russia’s ‘appeasement’ history

    Comparisons that depict diplomacy with Russia as a reenactment of Munich gloss over Russia’s unique history with Nazi Germany. The popular narrative of “appeasement” in 1938 often omits that World War II might not have happened if Britain and France had accepted Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin’s offer to form a military alliance to preemptively attack Nazi Germany in August 15, 1939 (Telegraph, 10/18/08). Britain and France’s rejection of Stalin’s offer arguably led to the USSR signing a nonaggression treaty with Nazi Germany (also known as the Molotov/Ribbentrop Pact) on August 23, 1939; it was this agreement that set the stage for WWII, not Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler in Munich.

    World War II is known in Russia as the Great Patriotic War, because approximately 26 million Soviet citizens died in the conflict, while around three-quarters of all Nazi wartime losses came from fighting the Red Army (Washington Post, 5/8/15). But there are other historical memories that drive Russia’s perception of threats coming from the West. Another fact seldom recalled in US media is that Russia was invaded by the US and 14 other nations in 1918, who were intervening on behalf of the White Russian Army against the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War (National Interest, 9/3/19; Consortium News, 7/18/18). 

    Putin delivering his speech upon invading Ukraine.

    “The attempt to appease the aggressor ahead of the Great Patriotic War proved to be a mistake which came at a high cost for our people,” Putin said in his February 24 speech.

    Indeed, Putin cited Russia’s history of being invaded by the West in the 20th century as a major reason behind the timing of his decision to preemptively invade Ukraine. In his speech announcing the “special military operation” in Ukraine, Putin invoked his own version of the “appeasement” trope in justification of military aggression:

    The attempt to appease the aggressor ahead of the Great Patriotic War proved to be a mistake which came at a high cost for our people. In the first months after the hostilities broke out, we lost vast territories of strategic importance, as well as millions of lives. We will not make this mistake the second time. 

    Recreating empire?

    An oft-repeated corollary to the Western media’s frequent Hitler comparisons is that there was little point before the invasion in addressing Russia’s security concerns surrounding NATO expansion and the US’s unilateral abandonment of arms control treaties, since Putin supposedly wanted to recreate the Soviet Union or Russian Empire despite his repeated explicit denials. Putin’s alleged belief that the modern state of Ukraine has no right to exist, the argument goes, is proof of his supposed Hitlerian expansionist ambitions.

    Headline: Putin's Nazi rhetoric reveals his terrifying war aims in Ukraine

    “Talk of ‘de-Nazification,’ while absurd on a factual level, is nonetheless revealing. It tells us that Putin is acting on his long-held belief that the Ukrainian government has no right to be independent. It hints at his ultimate goal: to transform Ukraine into a vassal of a new Russian empire,” wrote Zack Beauchamp for Vox (2/24/22).

    The two sources Western media most cite to make this claim are Putin’s speech (2/21/22) recognizing the independence of the separatist Donbas republics, and an essay he wrote last year (7/12/21) titled “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.” Vox’s Zack Beauchamp (2/24/22) wrote that Putin “believes that Ukraine is an illegitimate country that exists on land that’s historically and rightfully Russian.” Ha’aretz (3/17/22) published an op-ed comparing Putin’s July essay, with its “Hitlerian motifs,”  to Hitler’s Mein Kampf—particularly “the notion of an artificial and tragic division of a people that must be rectified by reunification.”

    Perhaps the most frequent purveyor of this narrative is Timothy Snyder (4/18/18), who claimed that the war in Ukraine is a “colonial war”:

    In a long essay on “historical unity,” published last July, [Putin] argued that Ukraine and Russia were a single country, bound by a shared origin. His vision is of a broken world that must be restored through violence. Russia becomes itself only by annihilating Ukraine.

    However, when one actually reads both sources, rather than relying on secondhand sources to explain what Putin meant, it quickly becomes apparent that these are blatant misrepresentations of what Putin said. Putin’s essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” is long and convoluted, but although Putin talks about Russia and Ukraine’s shared historic, religious and linguistic heritage, and claims that “modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era,” he also stresses that Russia has acknowledged new geopolitical realities:

    Things change: Countries and communities are no exception. Of course, some part of a people in the process of its development, influenced by a number of reasons and historical circumstances, can become aware of itself as a separate nation at a certain moment. How should we treat that? There is only one answer: with respect!… The Russian Federation recognized the new geopolitical realities: and not only recognized, but, indeed, did a lot for Ukraine to establish itself as an independent country. 

    This point was repeated in Putin’s later speech (2/21/22), where Putin blamed the existence of the modern Ukrainian state on Vladimir Lenin and the USSR. Putin’s claim was not that Moscow should continue to govern all of Ukraine, however, but that Russia’s recognition of Ukrainian independence was an act of political generosity, in contrast to what he presented as Kyiv’s ungenerous treatment of the residents of Donbas:

    Despite all these injustices, lies and outright pillage of Russia, it was our people whdoo accepted the new geopolitical reality that took shape after the dissolution of the USSR, and recognised the new independent states. Not only did Russia recognise these countries, but helped its CIS partners, even though it faced a very dire situation itself. This included our Ukrainian colleagues, who turned to us for financial support many times from the very moment they declared independence. Our country provided this assistance while respecting Ukraine’s dignity and sovereignty.

    Putin’s efforts to justify Russia’s invasion are not based on events that happened centuries ago; his historical accounts in these two texts, however self-serving, are not linked to attempts to justify violence. Rather, the speech (2/24/22) that declared the “special military operation” did so on the grounds that the “eastward expansion of NATO” that began in 1999 is “a matter of life and death,” and a “red line” for Russia’s security that had been crossed despite several warnings. 

    He also maintained it was to “protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime” in the Donbas region. Such concerns are generally dismissed as pretextual in the West, but the UN’s count of civilian deaths in the Ukrainian civil war—3,321 as of January 2019 (UN OHCHR, 9/23/21)–is comparable to the UN civilian death toll from the Russian invasion, with a tiny fraction of the international outrage.

    The cost of ‘appeasement’ charges

    The hyperbolic comparisons between Russia and Vladimir Putin to Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler, as well as constant accusations that anyone who attempts to negotiate with Russia for a peaceful end to the war is engaged in “appeasement,” have cost the world opportunities to de-escalate. The Biden administration has not encouraged the Ukrainian government to engage in serious negotiations with Russia (Jacobin, 5/30/22), no doubt well aware that doing so would bring more Chamberlain analogies. 

    Adam Johnson and Nima Shirazi, cohosts of the Citations Needed podcast (10/9/19), point out that the emotionally manipulative and thought-terminating comparisons to Hitler and Munich are designed to suggest that 

    every so-called dictator is a new Hitler and every negotiation, every potential negotiation even, with those countries is a new Munich, is a new abdication of world responsibility that will inevitably lead to what else: a new Holocaust. 

    The extreme caricatures of Putin as equal to or worse than Hitler are setting up Ukraine and the world for a grim fate. A BBC report (6/20/22) last month featured NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg urging the West to “prepare to continue supporting Ukraine in a war lasting for years,” while the head of the British Army, Gen. Patrick Sanders, asserted that the “UK and allies needed to be capable of winning a ground war with Russia.” The frequent Nazi comparisons and Munich references made by Western media paint those who would prefer a negotiated settlement to years of bloodshed, the risk of World War III and nuclear war as “appeasers” of a Hitlerian dictator with genocidal ambitions.

    Featured Image: Illustration by The New York Times; Photographs by Clive Rose, Alexander Nemenov and Kirill Kudryavtsev, via Getty Images

    The post Calling Putin ‘Hitler’ to Smear Diplomacy as ‘Appeasement’ appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • The West Against Russia: The Strategy is being Played Out in Ukraine

    GEOFOR:  Greetings!  Since our last conversation, the conflict between Russia and the West has only continued to gain momentum. How far do you think this proxy war in the Ukraine can go? Is there a chance that the situation will improve?

    Peter Koenig:  Thank you for having me again for an interview.

    This is a million-dollar question.  Especially when we consider that Russia, by far the world’s largest and resource-richest country, was for over hundred years in the crosshairs of the western empire, led by the US and since WWII also by NATO, to be overtaken or to become a “colony” – similar – or worse – than western Europe.  The European Union (EU), has become a colony of Washington’s and NATO’s.

    It is worth a distinction, though, between the people of Europe and the  governments of western Europe; i.e., the EU member countries and the European Commission (EC), the latter consisting of unelected members.

    The EC currently, headed by the hawkish EC President, Ursula von der Leyen (unelected), former Minister of Defense of Germany, and close ally of Klaus Schwab’s. In fact, she is a Member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum. It is unlikely that Ms. Von der Leyen would deviate from the WEF’s globalist agenda. And it looks like part of this globalist agenda is “regime change” in Russia.

    On behalf of Washington, it’s driven by NATO and the EU.

    Let me make this clear: the EU and EC are not representative of the 500-plus million people of Europe. The European Parliament that is supposed to represent the interests of the people has practically no voice. Most people, educated people, inquired about Russia, have a positive opinion about Russia. They want peaceful relations. While perhaps not agreeing with the Ukraine war, they understand what may have led up to it.

    The people of Europe want sanctions on Russia to stop. The sanctions are foremost hurting Europe, but not Russia. On the basis of these sanctions, the planned One World Order (OWO), currently represented by the World Economic Forum (WEF), is using these sanctions, or rather Russia’s reaction to the sanctions, as a justification for causing massive energy and food shortages throughout the west, and to some extent, also the Global South.

    They want to cause suffering and death. This is a gigantic western agenda of mass starvation, possibly mass death – fitting well into the Great Reset’s population reduction program. Having said this, it is difficult to imagine that the west will let go and pursue a Peace Agreement between Russia and Ukraine.

    That would, in fact, be easy.

    All Ukraine would have to do is to adhere to the Minsk II Agreement (February 2015), which was sponsored by France, President Macron, and Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel; by the very countries which are now coming down strongest, following US sanctions on Russia.

    Let’s just for a moment look at NATO’s Madrid Summit 22-point Declaration, released on 29 June 2022. Item two is a statement of utter hypocrisy and point 3 reflects an outright hatred against Russia:

    1. We are united in our commitment to democracy, individual liberty, human rights, and the rule of law.  We adhere to international law and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.  We are committed to upholding the rules-based international order.
    2. We condemn Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine in the strongest possible terms.  It gravely undermines international security and stability.  It is a blatant violation of international law.  Russia’s appalling cruelty has caused immense human suffering and massive displacements, disproportionately affecting women and children.  Russia bears full responsibility for this humanitarian catastrophe.  Russia must enable safe, unhindered, and sustained humanitarian access.  Allies are working with relevant stakeholders in the international community to hold accountable all those responsible for war crimes, including conflict-related sexual violence.  Russia has also intentionally exacerbated a food and energy crisis, affecting billions of people around the world, including through its military actions.  Allies are working closely to support international efforts to enable exports of Ukrainian grain and to alleviate the global food crisis.  We will continue to counter Russia’s lies and reject its irresponsible rhetoric.  Russia must immediately stop this war and withdraw from Ukraine.  Belarus must end its complicity in this war.

    Then, point 4, starts with a love declaration for Ukraine’s President Zelensky:

    1. We warmly welcome President Zelenskyy’s participation in this Summit.  We stand in full solidarity with the government and the people of Ukraine in the heroic defense of their country……..

    That means and justifies for NATO continuing supplying billions worth of weapons to Ukraine – weapons that already now are ending up largely in the hands of dark and criminal weapons dealers. Brussels and Washington know it, but they will not stop it.

    Zelenskyy, of course, is not free at all to take any decisions on his own. His decisions are dictated by the west.

    These circumstances give a bleak outlook for Peace. But one should never lose hope.

    GEOFOR:  Can the statements of a number of Baltic politicians on the need to take Kaliningrad away from Russia lead to a new hotbed of military confrontation already in Lithuania?

    PK:  The Kaliningrad Oblast/District, a Russian enclave between Poland and Lithuania, has also an important Baltic Sea port for Russia. Who knows what will really happen, but I do not believe that Poland and / or Lithuania will dare intervene in Kaliningrad.

    These statements or declarations may be just hot air or a new type of western-style anti-Russia propaganda. From my point of view, not to be taken seriously.

    GEOFOR:  The sanctions confrontation has, apparently, finally gone beyond reasonable explanations. Canada, following the UK, introduced them even against Patriarch Kirill… Tell us, is the bottom already reached, or should we expect new surprises?

    PK:  Another good question.  Frankly I don’t know. I think rather that the Europeans, as well as Washington, start realizing that they are the ones suffering, I mean them – particularly also the elite, not just the people, about whom they do not care.

    Therefore, it just might be that they are quietly trying to make arrangements with Russia for energy deliveries – dropping “sanctions” and accepting Russia’s ruble-billing and more.

    It has been clear from the beginning that the Global South, meaning China and associated Asian countries, like the members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), ASEAN, the BRICS-plus Iran – as well as most of Africa and many of Latin American countries, will not adhere to sanctions.

    These are also the countries that Russia keeps supplying with energy resources and food.

    The west has clearly overreached with their sanctions, totally illegal sanctions, mind you.  Sanctions, any kind of “sanctions”, from one country to another, impacting another country’s economy and the people’s well being, are illegal under International Law.

    That’s also a reason why the east, led by China and Russia, will disassociate from the western currency and payment system (via US banks and SWIFT) and become an autonomous, sovereign politico-economic force. That may happen soon, possibly later this year or in early 2023.  A shock-wave may be expected.

    It could well be that the financial-economic decoupling of the east from the west – already ongoing – may be the “surprise”, when it reaches its final stages.

    And that in the meantime, the west is quietly back-paddling, as they realize to what extent they have been shooting themselves, unwittingly embarking on committing socioeconomic suicide.

    GEOFOR:  Autumn is coming soon, will be followed by winter. Judging by the statements of the Europeans, they will not have time to fill in the gas storage facilities, even despite the fact that many companies have agreed to pay for Russian hydrocarbons “in rubles”, and the United States supplies liquefied natural gas. What will Brussels do in such a situation?

    PK: Some of my assessment is already given above.  And, of course, supposedly NATO approves (despite 28 of the 30 NATO members being European, decisions are made in Washington), they may go back to Russia, quietly “lifting” some (or all) sanctions and trying to re-activate Nordstrom I and activate Nordstrom II.

    It is clear that the Middle East, the Saudis, for example, will not jump in to supply Europe and the US with gas and oil to replace deliveries from Russia. The results of the recent Joe Biden visit to the Saudis may be an indication.

    For the Middle East replacing Russian gas would be like “sanctioning” Russia, when they have clearly indicated that their future trading inclination is more eastwards, Russia, China and SCO and other eastern socioeconomic associations.

    The Middle East realizes that the future is in the east. The west has been digging their own grave for decades. But they apparently still cannot admit it. Instead of seeking Peace, they are confronting an impending collapse.

    GEOFOR:  And the last question. Against the backdrop of the financial and economic crisis gaining momentum, the ratings of leading Western politicians are beginning to fail. B. Johnson is no longer the leader of the Conservatives. They are increasingly talking about the upcoming political crisis in Germany, and the midterm elections to the US Congress are not far off… What are we to expect from all this?

    PK:  Yes, Boris Johnson is out. But his “outing” was most likely a planned outing. In the west, there are no decisions nor elections made by the people or Parliaments. They are all imposed or planned from the beginning with the consent of the leaders in question – by the WEF and its handlers, or commanders; i.e., the interlinked corporate financial oligarchs of this world, the amalgamation of Black Rock, Vanguard and State Street. Plus, there are other important players – like Chase, Bank of America, JPMorgan, City Group et al.

    The WEF is the executioner according to the Great Reset and following the script of UN Agenda 2030. Only people themselves, waking up, can stop this drive to total destruction. And, yes, I’m positive that LIGHT will prevail over darkness.

    It is said the “financial emperors” control close to 90% of the western corporate industrial and service world with majority shareholdings. Under these circumstances it is not difficult to decide who “presides” over what country – and when they have to go.

    Boris Johnson will be replaced by another vassal of the financial emperors, the one which best suits their current agenda.

    As to Germany’s Olaf Scholz, he has been put into the German Chancellorship just a bit over six months ago, after a long vetting process with important players like the EC, Washington and not least NATO. He had the right profile for what the west is all about.

    If one reads or listens to his history, it is amazing that he is not in jail. See this The Olaf Scholz File – His Words, his Deeds (English spoken – 3 March 2022)

    Yes, an economic crisis is coming. Even to Germany. According to many economists, Germany is de-industrializing. I agree. Self-made, by the insane “sanctions”. But even that is part of the plan.

    During and after a harsh winter 2022 / 23, there may be lots of bankruptcies, unemployment, poverty to extreme poverty, perhaps even deadly famine for the poorest.

    This is not a coincidence. There are no coincidences. This is shifting capital from the bottom and the center to the top – the financial elite, that pretends to rule the world. If they – the WEF-led globalists – have their way, there would be a One World Government. But that will not happen.

    The globalist agenda is falling apart. That was already visible at the WEF’s Davos meeting last May. People around the world are waking up to the globalist agenda. The vast majority of them has been suffering under the global everything – and now the attempt of global digitization, meaning total control of every move you make, via the financial system.

    Russia and China may lead humanity into a new future, a multipolar world. This is the hope. And the peoples will, to be expressed in solidarity and peace, may prevail.

    •  An interview with Peter Koenig on July 18, 2022.  See Russian translation here.

    • Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).  Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

    The post The West Against Russia: The Strategy is being Played Out in Ukraine first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • ‘Monumental’: Russian tennis player Daria Kasatkina praised for coming out as gay

    Activists and athletes say this is an important and symbolic moment for rights of LGBTQ+ people in Russia

    Russian human rights activists and fellow athletes have described the decision to come out as gay by the nation’s highest-ranked female tennis player, Daria Kasatkina, as a monumental and symbolic moment for the rights of LGBTQ+ people in the country.

    “When I heard the news about Kasatkina, I couldn’t believe it, I was so proud,” said Nadya Karpova, a footballer, who became the first openly gay Russian national team athlete when she came out last month. “I was ecstatic, jumping around like crazy in my flat.”

    Continue reading…

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

  • Ukrainian boy held hostage by Russia tells of cleaning up torture rooms

    Vladislav Buryak was kept for 90 days and describes people screaming and a room with bloodstains and soaked bandages

    A 16-year-old Ukrainian boy has described how he was held hostage by Russian soldiers for 90 days as he heard other prisoners being tortured in a nearby cell.

    Vladislav Buryak, who was separated from his family on 8 April at a checkpoint while attempting to flee the city of Melitopol, was released after a months-long negotiation between his father, Oleg – a local Ukrainian official – and Russian soldiers, who wanted to exchange Vladislav for an individual of interest to the Russian military.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Ukrainian Refugees Now Have Expedited Entry to US But No Pathway to Green Cards

    When Russia invaded her homeland in February, Brooklyn, New York-based Ukrainian immigrant Yuliya Z. and her adult daughter formed New York Communities for Ukrainian Refugees and quickly began organizing. Together, the pair, who have been living in the United States since 2013, began amassing resources for Ukrainians arriving in the tri-state area: lists of places to go for pro-bono legal assistance and free food, clothing, translation, medical care, counseling and English classes.

    But while Yuliya says it helped her to do something concrete, she was constantly worried about her 74-year-old mother, who was still in Odessa. Then, in late April, the Biden administration announced the Uniting for Ukraine (U4U) program, an expedited process to bring Ukrainians to the U.S., and for the first time in months, Yuliya saw a way to get her mother to safety.

    “It was amazing,” Yuliya told Truthout. “I submitted all the documentation to the office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and applied to sponsor her. It took just three days to get approved.” Her mother arrived in Brooklyn in mid-July.

    Yuliya’s elation is audible. At the same time, she understands that the road ahead will not be easy. “I’m a single parent. I paid for my mother to travel to the U.S. and will, of course, provide for her, but we live in a small apartment. There’s no privacy,” she explains. “My mother was always a happy person, but she is now depressed — not destroyed — but her mental health needs attention. She could not sleep for months due to Russian missile strikes.”

    Despite these challenges, Yuliya calls Uniting for Ukraine a godsend and hopes that the program will provide a way for tens of thousands of Ukrainians to enter the U.S. as recipients of “humanitarian parole.”

    Under the streamlined program, any residents who were living in Ukraine on February 11 can enter the U.S. once they have a sponsor — someone like Yuliya who agrees to provide them with financial and other support during their time in the United States. Sponsors can be relatives or strangers who have the financial wherewithal and desire to help. Moreover, U.S. citizens, permanent residents, or folks with “temporary protected status,” a designation that allows newcomers to live and work anywhere in the 50 states for up to 18 months, can serve as sponsors.

    Temporary protected status (TPS) is typically given to people fleeing war or environmental calamity; in this case, Ukrainians — including tourists, students and Ukrainians who had come to the US to do business and were here at the start of the conflict — have been deemed eligible for TPS protections.

    Uniting for Ukraine allows refugees to live in the U.S. for up to two years — six months longer than the time afforded under temporary protected status. During their stay, they are permitted to apply for work authorization, and benefits including food stamps, Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid.

    According to Monna Kashfi, vice president of content and communications at Welcome.US, a nonpartisan, privately funded nonprofit that has brought 250 community-based organizations and businesses together to help newly arrived immigrants get their bearing, the U4U program is moving quickly. As of July 8, 74,000 U4U applications had been filed and 47,600 Ukrainians had been approved for travel to the United States. Already, 21,000 have received humanitarian parole, with most settling in New York, Illinois, California, Florida and Washington state.

    But despite the pace of the program’s implementation, the agencies that typically assist refugees and asylum seekers are scrambling to meet the demand. “We were still catching our breath and reactivating our resettlement sites when the Afghan crisis began,” says Kelly Agnew-Barajas, director of refugee resettlement at Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York. “Afghans coming into the U.S. still do not have protections to enable them to stay in the U.S. long-term, and now we’re facing an influx of an additional 100,000 people from Ukraine.”

    Agnew-Barajas is referring to cuts enacted by the Trump administration. These cuts — 472 administrative changes imposed between 2016 and 2020 — resulted in the dismantling of more than 100 established refugee resettlement projects throughout the country. This diminished the groups’ capacity to assist new arrivals. And even though refugee groups began rebuilding their infrastructure after Biden took office in January 2021, enormous challenges continue to stymie the agencies’ capacity to help. For one, unlike more traditional refugee admissions programs that are overseen by the Department of State, U4U does not provide recipients with a direct pathway to either citizenship or a green card.

    At the same time, Naomi Steinberg, vice president for policy and advocacy at HIAS (previously the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, but now known only by the acronym), told Truthout that U4U proves “that when the government wants to move quickly, it can. This shows that when there is the political will, there can be a political way.”

    That said, she says that the speed with which the U4U program took off has been somewhat unsettling to other immigrant populations, including Afghans, who have been making their way through other, more-typical and slow-moving, refugee channels. “The obvious differences in how Ukrainians are being treated are not lost on Afghans or other refugee populations,” she says. “HIAS wants to see a response that reflects global need and that addresses the diverse and desperate needs of refugees throughout the world.”

    In addition, Steinberg says, while Ukrainians are now arriving in the U.S. and are being united with sponsors, significant difficulties are becoming more and more blatant. “Employment authorization documents are taking way longer than we would have hoped under U4U,” she says. “The wait is running between four-and-a-half and 10 months, which leaves people in a bind. Sponsors as well as refugees are stuck. When people go through traditional refugee resettlement channels, employment documents are provided almost immediately.”

    Jodi Ziesemer, director of the New York Legal Assistance Group, a free legal services program for low-income residents of the five boroughs, told Truthout that prior to the U4U launch, if Ukrainians appeared at the U.S.-Mexico border, they were usually allowed in, given humanitarian parole, and allotted a fixed amount of time — from a few days to close to a year — to stay in the country and pursue asylum.

    Now, under U4U, Ukrainians can enter for only two years; although they can complete all required paperwork online, there is not a direct route to citizenship. In addition, Ziesemer says, “the sponsor provides a nonbinding agreement of financial support for the person or family they wish to bring in, but there is no inquiry into where the refugee will be housed and no enforcement if the sponsor does not actually support the people who are arriving.”

    Then there’s the issue of potential exploitation. Already, Ziesemer says, advocates are hearing stories of sexual trafficking and forced work. “There can be a mismatch of expectations,” she says. Sponsors, many of them recent arrivals to the U.S. who are living in or near poverty themselves, are often well-meaning but get frustrated because they assume “the U.S. government will provide social service support to the person coming in.”

    When this help is not forthcoming, Ziesemer adds, tempers can flare, setting the stage for potential conflicts or abuse. “The refugee ends up feeling trapped,” and has few options beyond going to a domestic violence or homeless shelter if their living situation becomes untenable.

    These are not Ziesemer’s only concerns. Once refugees arrive, she explains, there is no follow-up to make sure they’re doing okay. “Once someone lands in the U.S., it’s on them to explore legal protections, apply for work authorization, enroll children in school, and apply for benefits they’re eligible for. The Ukrainians coming into the U.S. have huge needs, but the U4U program still does not know if it is dealing with enduring needs or short-term needs and the war is being treated as a temporary crisis,” she says.

    What’s more, Ziesemer adds, the government is using U4U to shore up its reputation as a safe haven for all. “While it does cut through a lot of red tape,” she continues, it is of limited value without a robust social safety net.

    Furthermore, Ziesemer echoes Agnew-Barajas’s concerns, noting that this crisis is coming on the heels of the still-unfolding Afghan refugee crisis. “We’re still midstream in helping Afghan refugees get paroled into the U.S.,” Ziesemer says. “There is so much desperation among Afghans. The humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan is continuing.” In addition to ongoing fighting, there is widespread famine, and a recent earthquake added another layer of misery. “But Congress has to date not passed an Afghan Adjustment Act to help Afghan arrivals become lawful, permanent residents once their humanitarian parole ends. This has made the pivot to Ukraine extremely difficult,” she told Truthout.

    Add in the influx of recent immigrants from Argentina, Bolivia, Haiti, Syria and Venezuela — people who have not been as widely or enthusiastically welcomed as Ukrainians — and it is obvious why staff at refugee agencies feel completely overwhelmed.

    Jessica Bolter, associate policy analyst of U.S. immigration policy at the Migration Policy Institute, agrees that U4U is imperfect. Nonetheless, she calls it “an innovative way to make use of community support for Ukrainians.” At the same time, she stresses that the program gives people only a temporary reprieve. “Yes,” she says, “it’s possible that U4U will be renewed, but renewal is not guaranteed. A person who has not secured a green card or applied for asylum can be left without status if U4U expires.”

    In the past, she continues, whenever large groups of migrants or refugees were admitted to the country, Congress followed up by passing legislation, called adjustment acts, to allow them to file for permanent protections. “Adjustment acts were common throughout the 20th century,” Bolter says. “Since it is becoming clearer and clearer that the war in Ukraine will not be resolved quickly — and that the country will need years to rebuild once it ends — it seems obvious that many Ukrainians will have an interest in staying in the U.S. for more than the two years U4U gives them.”

    For their part, advocates are pushing Congress to pass adjustment acts to protect both Afghan and Ukrainian refugees far into the future. Meanwhile, immigration activists continue working on the ground to help the newly arrived from both countries — and elsewhere — adjust to the nuances of U.S. domestic life.

    Even before completing the U4U application to bring her mother into the United States, Yuliya Z. understood the possible pitfalls of bringing her to a new place. Nonetheless, she is grateful to her adopted country for allowing the family to reunite. “My mom was alone and scared in Odessa, but here we can take care of her,” she says. “I am thankful for everything.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Ukraine’s recovery must benefit the people. The West has other ideas

    On the eve of the Ukraine Recovery Conference, in Lugano, Switzerland, Ukrainian democratic socialist Vitaliy Dudin outlined an alternative vision for reconstruction to deregulation and liberalisation.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Russian anti-war socialist: ‘Putin cannot tolerate an independent Ukraine’

    Federico Fuentes spoke to Ilya Matveev, Russian anti-war socialist and editorial collective member of Posle, a new anti-war website, about the background and motivations behind Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Family of captured Ukrainian human rights activist plead for help

    Campaign launched to highlight plight of Maksym Butkevych amid fears he is being wrongly labelled a ‘British spy’

    Family and friends of a prominent Ukrainian human rights activist who signed up to fight Russia and was captured have launched a public campaign to highlight his plight over fears he is being wrongly accused of being a “British spy” due to his ties to the UK.

    Maksym Butkevych, 45, a former BBC Ukrainian service producer who studied at Sussex University and who sits on the board of Amnesty International’s Ukraine section, is well known as a human rights defender due to his work with refugees in Ukraine.

    Continue reading…

  • The Rise of BRICS: The Economic Giant that is Taking on the West

    The G7 summit in Elmau, Germany, June 26-28, and the NATO summit in Madrid, Spain, two days later, were practically useless in terms of providing actual solutions to ongoing global crises – the war in Ukraine, the looming famines, climate change and more. But the two events were important, nonetheless, as they provide a stark example of the impotence of the West, amid the rapidly changing global dynamics.

    As was the case since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, the West attempted to display unity, though it has become repeatedly obvious that no such unity exists. While France, Germany and Italy are paying a heavy price for the energy crisis resulting from the war, Britain’s Boris Johnson is adding fuel to the fire in the hope of making his country relevant on the global stage following the humiliation of Brexit. Meanwhile, the Biden Administration is exploiting the war to restore Washington’s credibility and leadership over NATO – especially following the disastrous term of Donald Trump, which nearly broke up the historic alliance.

    Even the fact that several African countries are becoming vulnerable to famines  – as a result of the disruption of food supplies originating from the Black Sea and the subsequent rising prices – did not seem to perturb the leaders of some of the richest countries in the world. They still insist on not interfering in the global food market, though the skyrocketing prices have already pushed tens of millions of people below the poverty line.

    Though the West had little reserve of credibility to begin with, Western leaders’ current obsession with maintaining thousands of sanctions on Russia, further NATO expansion, dumping yet more ‘lethal weapons’ in Ukraine and sustaining their global hegemony at any cost, have all pushed their credibility standing to a new low.

    From the start of the Ukraine war, the West championed the same ‘moral’ dilemma as that raised by George W. Bush at the start of his so-called ‘war on terror’. “You are either with us or with the terrorist,” he declared in October 2009. But the ongoing Russia-NATO conflict cannot be reduced to simple and self-serving cliches. One can, indeed, want an end to the war, and still oppose US-western unilateralism. The reason that American diktats worked in the past, however, is that, unlike the current geopolitical atmosphere, a few dared oppose Washington’s policies.

    Times have changed. Russia, China, India, along with many other countries in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and South America are navigating all available spaces to counter the suffocating western dominance. These countries have made it clear that they will not take part in isolating Russia in the service of NATO’s expansionist agenda. To the contrary, they have taken many steps to develop alternatives to the west-dominated global economy, and particularly to the US dollar which, for five decades, has served the role of a commodity, not a currency, per se. The latter has been Washington’s most effective weapon, associated with many US-orchestrated crises, sanctions and, as in the case of Iraq and Venezuela, among others, mass hunger.

    China and others understand that the current conflict is not about Ukraine vs Russia, but about something far more consequential. If Washington and Europe emerge victorious, and if Moscow is pushed back behind the proverbial ‘iron curtain’, Beijing would have no other options but to make painful concessions to the re-emerging west. This, in turn, would place a cap on China’s global economic growth, and would weaken its case regarding the One China policy.

    China is not wrong. Almost immediately following NATO’s limitless military support of Ukraine and the subsequent economic war on Russia, Washington and its allies began threatening China over Taiwan. Many provocative statements, along with military maneuvers and high-level visits by US politicians to Taipei, were meant to underscore US dominance in the Pacific.

    Two main reasons drove the West to further invest in the current confrontational approach against China, at a time where, arguably, it would have been more beneficial to exercise a degree of diplomacy and compromise. First, the West’s fear that Beijing could misinterpret its action as weakness and a form of appeasement; and, second, because the West’s historic relationship with China has always been predicated on intimidation, if not outright humiliation. From the Portuguese occupation of Macau in the 16th century, to the British Opium Wars of the mid-19th century, to Trump’s trade war on China, the West has always viewed China as a subject, not a partner.

    This is precisely why Beijing did not join the chorus of western condemnations of Russia. Though the actual war in Ukraine is of no direct benefit to China, the geopolitical outcomes of the war could be critical to the future of China as a global power.

    While NATO remains insistent on expansion so as to illustrate its durability and unity, it is the alternative world order led by Russia and China that is worthy of serious attention. According to the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Beijing and Moscow are working to further develop the BRICS club of major emerging economies to serve as a counterweight to the G7. The German paper is correct. BRICS’ latest summit on June 23 was designed as a message to the G7 that the West is no longer in the driving seat, and that Russia, China and the Global South are preparing for a long fight against Western dominance.

    In his speech at the BRICS summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed the creation of an “international reserve currency based on the basket of currencies of our countries”. The fact that the ruble alone has managed to survive, in fact flourish, under recent Western sanctions, gives hope that BRICS currencies combined can manage to eventually sideline the US dollar as the world dominant currency.

    Reportedly, it was Chinese President Xi Jinping who requested that the date of the BRICS summit be changed from July 4 to June 23, so that it would not appear to be a response to the G7 summit in Germany. This further underscores how the BRICS are beginning to see themselves as a direct competitor to the G7. The fact that Argentina and Iran are applying for BRICS membership also illustrates that the economic alliance is morphing into a political, in fact geopolitical, entity.

    The global fight ahead is perhaps the most consequential since World War II. While NATO will continue to fight for relevance, Russia, China, and others will invest in various economic, political and even military infrastructures, in the hope of creating a permanent and sustainable counterbalance to Western dominance. The outcome of this conflict is likely to shape the future of humanity.

    The post The Rise of BRICS: The Economic Giant that is Taking on the West first appeared on Dissident Voice.

  • Capitalism’s new Marshall Plan for Ukraine

    Western capital is eyeing the profit potential of a new Marshall Plan for Ukraine, writes William Briggs.

  • A Ukrainian-Led School Emerges in Germany to Teach Refugee Children

    Julia C. stands in front of her 24 10th-grade pupils at The Ukrainian School — a school in Dresden, Germany, staffed by teachers from Ukraine who are working with the sudden influx of school-aged refugees. The school’s curriculum covers nearly all the standard school subjects while also helping Ukrainian students learn German and adjust to their new lives.

    The Ukrainian School program was created in April 2022, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent influx of Ukrainian refugees and their children. The director of the newly reopened school is simultaneously the director of Dresden’s more standard German-language High School Number 116.

    As of July 14, more than 5.8 million Ukrainian refugees fled to Europe, according to data from the UN Refugee Agency. Educating around 400 pupils from grades 5 to 10, eight teachers, who all escaped from Ukraine in 2022, work in the high school.

    After instructing her students in German, Julia, who asked to be identified only by her first name due to fear of getting into trouble for expressing political critiques, teaches her Ukrainian colleagues the German language as well. The young woman herself arrived in Germany from Ukraine in 2009.

    “Life was hard. First, I wanted to go as far away as possible, across the ocean, to the U.S.,” Julia tells Truthout. “Then I decided to stay in the area, so I can still see my family.” Before immigrating to Germany, Julia completed a bachelor’s degree in German language instruction. She also went on to study German philology at the University of Dresden.

    Sofia, a teenage student of Julia’s, fled Ukraine with her mother on March 8. “In Kharkiv, we had to pass several military controls and I heard bombs,” Sofia tells Truthout. “And from Charkiw to Lviv, we were constantly controlled by military.”

    Olesa, another one of Julia’s students, is from Odessa. She also escaped Ukraine, along with her parents and baby sisters. “We did not travel ad hoc; on February 24, we packed our bags, then we thought about leaving or not,” Olesa tells Truthout. “Then, on the night of March 8, we left.”

    Yuliia D. is another German language teacher at the school, having arrived in Germany from Ukraine in April. Her big blue eyes seem to lose color when she talks about her experiences back home. “We got information that the war could start. Some were prepared; I wasn’t. I didn’t want to believe it,” she tells Truthout. Once the war began, she had hoped that it would end soon. “I saw rockets flying to Kyiv, over the roof of my house.” After that, she, her family and her neighbors were hiding for 16 days in their cellar, without electricity, heating or water. “The government said, ‘Stay in the cellars and just leave when there is an official OK,’ so we waited and started to believe that it was impossible to get away, and just wanted to die.”

    She and her 15-year-old-daughter tried to escape once, but the Russian military did not let them proceed. The following day, they succeeded in fleeing with a little suitcase containing a folder with their most important documents and some sweaters. “I passed burning cars. [I] didn’t see deaths, but my family and friends know people who were killed,” Yuliia says. She and her daughter left from Kyiv to Lviv by train, taking a car to the border, and crossing into Poland by foot, then catching a bus to Warsaw, then a train to Berlin and then finally to Dresden.

    “For me, it was impossible to stay in the country; I was mentally totally cracked,” Yuliia says. Other family members decided to stay, including her husband. “Men have to protect the country; if they escape, they will be criminally prosecuted,” she added. Three days after she escaped, her neighbors’ house was bombed with two rockets.

    Before the war, Yuliia had been in Germany many times through school exchanges and as a child. Before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, she lived in Germany for four years, where she finished 9th grade. She also lived many years in Russia.

    “I speak Russian with my husband and my daughter — it’s my mother tongue, besides Ukrainian, and it’s no problem to speak,” she said. Yuliia explains that the Soviet Union prohibited the Ukrainian language, but still her mother attended a Ukrainian school in Kyiv. Julia is ethnically Bulgarian. (Bulgarians are one of roughly 10 main minority groups living in South Ukraine.)

    Yuliia says her mental health situation is still very complicated, as is that of her students.

    “In class, I focus on German, grammar, words, dialogues — but no politics,” she tells Truthout. “When I mention the time in the cellar, my daughter gets aggressive and says that she does not want to talk about this topic,” Yuliia says.

    She also doesn’t talk about politics with the students’ parents, who just ask how their children are doing in school.

    “When the kids started school, they were very silent, they were afraid of other people, but now we’ve also seen happy kids, who smile and laugh,” she says. “I’m grateful that we can learn without danger, and that I can work here in my profession. We would have never dreamt about this possibility.”

    In The Ukrainian School in Dresden, pupils don’t get grades, and after an assessment of their language competence, they can switch to regular schools. In order to get a report card before Ukrainian summer vacation, the kids had to learn online. “Now parents have to decide if they want to stay or return,” says Yuliia. “If they want to return, they should continue with the online classes; if not, they should focus on getting their children into the regular schools, as soon as possible.”

    Olesa and Sofia are curious about switching schools. Sofia wants to study medicine in Berlin; Olesa’s dream is to work as a psychologist somewhere in Germany. They already speak a couple of languages, including Ukrainian, Russian, a little English and a little German. They say that the differences between Latin and Cyrillic letters are not difficult for them, as they have learned either English or German since 1st grade.

    As the war goes on, more blood is shed, and more land becomes dead land. “Everything that happens is because of politics, not because of the people,” says Julia.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.