radiofree.asia

Category: Ukraine

  • NATO Membership May Spell the End of Finland and Sweden as Social Democracies

    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was a godsend for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which had been declared “brain dead” by French President Emmanuel Macron as recently as 2019. Now, NATO has not only gained a new lease on life but also is expected to grow, with Finland and Sweden inching closer to NATO membership. In fact, Putin’s criminal attack on Ukraine has managed to keep Europe within the sphere of U.S. hegemony and thus to halt any aspirations that Europeans may have had of seeing the continent shift toward greater autonomy.

    In the interview that follows, Finnish political scientist Heikki Patomäki provides a critical look into the reasons why Finland and Sweden have opted to join NATO and the potential consequences for Nordic social democracy. Patomäki’s views have been demonized for simply going against the frenzied dictates enforced by Western governments and the corporate media regarding proper responses to the ongoing war in Ukraine. Patomäki is professor of global politics and research director of the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies at the University of Helsinki. He is a member of the Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters and author of scores of books and academic articles.

    C.J. Polychroniou: Heikki, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reinvigorated NATO. Indeed, a new era seems to be underway as Finland and Sweden have decided to end decades of neutrality and join the transatlantic alliance. Let’s talk about Finland, which has a long and unique relationship with Russia on account of its history. Why does Finland want to join NATO? Is there really a security concern? What are the domestic debates surrounding its membership in NATO?

    Heikki Patomäki: A simple but very incomplete answer is that the actions of Putin’s regime have caused Finland to join NATO. The first peak of support for NATO membership was in 2014-2015, but especially the impact of the 2022 invasion has been dramatic. While a significant part of the political elite has favored Finnish NATO membership for years either publicly or privately, for the bulk of the population the main motivation is now primarily fear. Most lay proponents of NATO seem to think membership will deter Russia from attacking Finland, which of course presupposes that such an attack is an imminent possibility. In their eyes, the North Atlantic alliance is like a big father with big guns who comes to protect us if needed. I think that is a rather primitive argument, even if somewhat understandable under the circumstances.

    Finns — like many Europeans — seem to be relating themselves to this war in a very different way than to say the war in Syria or Yemen, or the wars in Iraq (2003-2011, 2013-2017). An aspect of this is clearly related to Eurocentrism: Ukraine is in Europe, and this war is close to us. The distance from Helsinki to Kyiv is about the same as that to the northernmost part of Finland. The invasion of Ukraine evokes historical memories of the Winter War (1939-40) and Russia as the eternal enemy. This evocation constitutes a regressive historical moment involving turning to stories that were prevalent in the 1920s and 1930s when the right was defining Finland as the outermost post of Western civilization against the “barbarism” of Russian Bolshevism. The current understanding is in sharp contrast to the developments after the Second World War when a new cooperative understanding of Finland’s eastern neighbor evolved, despite very different social systems. What I hear now is Western Cold War mentality: The Russians are not only inherently bad but there may be no way we can ever cooperate with them again.

    At a deeper level, the impact of the Russian invasion cannot be disentangled from longer-term processes of political change. Responses to the invasion in Ukraine stem in important part from gradual changes in the taken-for-granted background of social understandings, media representations and political rhetoric, which have prepared the ground for what can be seen as a further shift to the right cutting across all political parties. In the 1990s, the identity of Finland was redefined as a Western country, and as a member of the EU, to replace the earlier idea of a neutral social-democratic Nordic country, though the two coexisted for some time. Neoliberalization in turn has gradually changed meanings, mentalities, practices and institutions in Finland, paving the way to the rise of nationalist-authoritarian populism in the 2010s that followed the global financial crisis of 2008-2009 and its aftermath, including the Euro crisis. Some details may be peculiar to Finland, but otherwise, these processes are common across the interconnected world.

    Since 1994, Finland and Sweden have participated in NATO’s Partnership for Peace plan. Particularly the Finnish armed forces have been matched with the NATO systems, culminating in a recent decision to buy 64 nuclear-weapons compatible F-35 fighters from the U.S. In the 2000s and 2010s, both countries participated in NATO’s “peace-support” operations and concluded NATO host nation support agreements. Hence, the invasion and the consequent turn in public opinion have merely enabled and triggered the ultimate step in the long process of integration with NATO, namely formal membership.

    How would Finnish and Swedish accession to NATO contribute to European security?

    Despite the long process of integration with NATO, the step of formal membership is not insignificant. It has potentially far-reaching implications for international relations in Europe and globally. It is prone to spell the end to Nordic progressive internationalism, at least for now.

    Whereas during the Cold War the Nordic countries achieved a pluralist and non-military security community amongst themselves and promoted solidarity and common good in their external relations, the step of joining NATO is accompanied by the militarization of society and belief in the capacity of the military might prevent war through superior deterrence. Ultimately, this step is based on the theory of deterrence — including nuclear deterrence — that relies on the abstract calculative logic of self-interested and strategic rational actors. The shift resonates with a wider ideational shift toward the logic of rational choice and optimization under constraints, which is the basis of mainstream neoliberal economics. The concept of common or public good has disappeared from these discussions, except in the form of stability to be achieved by employing deterrence. The term deterrence means to frighten and to fill the other, who is feared, with fear. The ultimate form of this kind of deterrence is MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. Whereas the Cold War-era neutrality was understood, at least at times, as an attempt to transform the worldwide conflict threatening humanity, the current response stems from a rather narrow self-regarding perspective that is committed to the theory of deterrence. Moreover, the fear of Russia includes a simplistic Manichean story about a hero fighting for freedom and democracy against an evil empire.

    It is evident that Russia has started a highly counterproductive war, the byproducts of which now include Finnish and Swedish membership in NATO. A problem is that this membership is in turn a step in the process of escalation of the conflict between Russia and NATO and, so far to a lesser extent, between Russia and the EU. The NATO expansion eastward has been a key issue in the conflict that has escalated step by step since the 1990s. The problem is not only that Finnish and Swedish NATO membership threatens to further escalate the NATO-Russia conflict. This decision will also reinforce the EU’s reliance on Washington. A more global problem is that this step is part of a process in which the world is increasingly divided into two camps in the world economy characterized by trade wars and weaponization of interdependence. Concerns about the effects of the expansion of Western military alliances are widely shared not only in Russia but also in the Global East and South. Moreover, this is no different from Australians and Americans being concerned about the alliance of the Solomon Islands with China. Current alliance formations and reformations are reminiscent of processes that led to the First World War. In the end looms the possibility of a global military catastrophe. Even if this does not happen immediately, such events are part of the development towards a catastrophe in the next 10-20 years — unless the course of world history is altered, for example by a new non-aligned movement.

    Russia has threatened to retaliate over membership move on the part of Finland and Sweden. Why is Russia terrified of Finland in particular joining NATO, and how could it retaliate?

    The Russian perspective is relatively clear. Russia has been opposed to NATO expansion all the way through. For example, in the 1990s President Boris Yeltsin was often considered Western-minded, yet at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe conference in Budapest in December 1994, he had a public outcry over plans to expand NATO. In various contexts, Yeltsin used consistently words such as “humiliation” and “fraud” to describe plans to extend NATO to the countries of Eastern (Central) Europe. Although in 2000-2001 Putin had discussions about the possibility of Russia joining NATO, what he seemed to have had in mind was the transformation of NATO into something more akin to the idea of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

    With increasing alienation between Russia and the neoliberal West in the 2000s, in Russia NATO has more and more often been framed as a security threat. Finland has more than 1300 kilometers (km) of border with Russia and is located close to its main centers, in particular St. Petersburg (only 300 km from Helsinki), Russia’s Northern Fleet’s headquarters and main base in the Kola peninsula (similarly close to the Finnish border), and Moscow (1.5 hours flight from Helsinki). Depending on the specific conditions of Finnish membership, membership may mean NATO military installations directly on the western side of Russia and an expansion of territory that would in effect be under U.S. military command in case of a war. The Russian military planners will have to respond by reorganizing their capabilities one way or another.

    Nonetheless, the word “retaliation” in your question seems a bit too strong. This is even though for example Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson of the Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, has talked about “surprising military countermeasures and actions.” Mostly the Putin regime appears to have adopted a line according to which Finnish NATO membership does not matter that much, not least because Finland was already so close to NATO. The downplaying of the importance of formal membership is in some contrast to the mutual understandings that prevailed until late 2021 and may indicate that Russian decision makers failed to anticipate this consequence of their invasion.

    Moreover, any forceful interference — whether taking the form of manufactured migration flows, cyberattacks, or missile strikes — would be very counterproductive. Such an interference could only serve to further strengthen the already strong Russophobia and Russia-hatred among the population and its support for NATO membership. The mood now is fairly belligerent and many Finns back the idea of “defeating” Russia in Ukraine by military means, whatever that may take or imply.

    Finland and Sweden are often described as being welfare capitalist societies, both still practicing a watered-down version of the Nordic model, which shows that economic prosperity can go hand in hand with the social welfare state. In fact, Finland has been named the happiest country in the world by the World Happiness Report for several years in a row. Do you think that Finland’s decision to join NATO would undermine what is left of the social democratic model?

    While in terms of income (less so in terms of wealth distribution) Finland remains a relatively egalitarian country, the continuity to the era of social democracy is limited to certain functions of the democratic welfare state model, especially health and education. Both have been transformed in the neoliberal era, yet all citizens continue to have access to fairly inexpensive public health care and free education.

    However, the health care system is increasingly dual track, part private, part semi-public, the latter involving a lot of private outsourcing. The educational system has been made more responsive to and selective in relation to the social background of pupils and students. Also, it has been reorganized following New Public Management and the pedagogical ideas premised on the innate capacities of the young people. Nonetheless, education remains free to all Finns and citizens of the EU, even at the university level. (Fees have been introduced to overseas students.)

    What is striking but not widely discussed is the fact that there has been no real economic growth in Finland since 2007-2008. Yes, it is true that Finland remains prosperous and that in that sense economic prosperity can go hand in hand with the remains of the social welfare state. Nonetheless, the overall picture is complex. It is also true as you say that Finland has been named the happiest country in the world by the World Happiness Report for several years in a row. Happiness in these reports is a composite index, it does not refer to “happiness” as a feeling. This has been a continuing source of amusement among Finns, most of whom do not feel particularly “happy.” For example, suicide in Finland takes place at a higher rate than the European Union average.

    It goes without saying that under these circumstances, what is left of the social democratic model is contested. Consider the case of the Left Alliance. The current Left Alliance is a moderate and culturally liberal social democratic party that has focused on domestic affairs, especially on social security, health, education and identity politics (for example LGBTQ issues), and to a degree also on national economic policy. The party is strongly in favor of active climate policy, but possible measures and political differences are seen primarily in national terms. All this is fine but also rather limited. Foreign and security policy has been largely left to other parties. The EU lies in the background, and the future of the union is not really discussed. For example, the Left Alliance has tacitly approved the idea that Finland is part of the “frugal four” in the EU. The lack of European and global vision explains why the party has now seemed so weak on the issue of NATO membership.

    Traditionally, the Left Alliance has been strongly opposed to NATO membership but was divided in the parliamentary vote. Yet only a few Left Alliance MPs voted against the proposal of Prime Minister Sanna Marin’s government. (The Left Alliance is part of the government coalition.) I hasten to add that the government decided already in December 2021, to buy 64 F-35 combat aircrafts from the U.S. at the price of at least 10 billion euros, while within the government, the Left Alliance is struggling to get a few extra tens of millions of euros to a particular social purpose. (Ten million is 1/1000 of 10 billion.) In the 1990s, the GDP share of military expenditure could have been as low as 1.1 percent but is now close to 2 percent (the NATO norm). For one, the director of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs is proposing that the GDP share should lie somewhere between 3 percent and 4 percent.

    It seems to me that after their decisions to join NATO, Finland and Sweden are on the wrong side of history. For all I know, these decisions spell the end of the Nordic social democratic ideal.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • U.S. Effort to Hurt Russia Undermines Itself and the World

    The United States continues to shoot itself in the foot in its futile effort to damage the Russian economy. It is also asking other nations to do likewise and live with inflation, food scarcity, and rising energy prices. European countries have gone along with the sanctions which cut off their natural gas supplies from Russia when there is no logical alternative source for them. However, the rest of the world has refused to join in U.S. and EU condemnations or accept that they must live with privations caused by the reckless actions of other nations.

    Of course, the ongoing state of delusion just continues the fantasy foreign policy decision making in Washington. The Countering Malign Russian Influences in Africa Act, HR 7311 , is just one example. But while the U.S. makes up nonsense as it goes along, the real problems that African nations have with the U.S. and their desire to have good relations with Russia go unaddressed.

    The post U.S. Effort to Hurt Russia Undermines Itself and the World appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Climate Change Was Already Causing Hunger to Spike. Then Russia Invaded Ukraine.

    The war in Ukraine is causing shortages in the global food supply. Climate change was already creating widespread food insecurity before Russia invaded Ukraine, and the number of people facing famine or a food crisis globally is growing faster than any other time in the 21st century. Gernot Laganda, director of the Climate and Disaster Risk Reduction Service at the World Food Program, explains how it’s all connected in this episode of “Climate Front Lines.”

    Music by Dan Mason.

    TRANSCRIPT

    Note: This a rush transcript and has been lightly edited for clarity. Copy may not be in its final form.

    Welcome back to “Climate Front Lines,” the podcast about the people, places and ecosystems on the front lines of the climate crisis. I’m your host, Mike Ludwig, and I’ve been reporting on the war in Ukraine since Russia’s brutal invasion in February. I am horrified by the war, as well the war in Yemen, which for years has been another destination for weapons made by private military contractors in the United States.

    But it’s difficult to look away from Ukraine, especially after speaking to Ukrainians living through this war. And the conflict is sending shockwaves across the world as prices rise and vital exports of grain, wheat and other staples are blocked from leaving Ukraine’s ports, a problem Ukraine and Russia blame other for as international negotiators push to reopen shipping lanes in the Black Sea.

    Last year Ukrainian grain fed 400 million people around the world, and if the war drags on unabated, the number of people experiencing acute hunger globally is expected to rise by 47 million, according to the United Nation’s World Food Program, which relies on Ukrainian grain to feed people around the world. Climate change compounds this threat to global food supply by contributing to famines, droughts, heat waves and unpredictable weather. The World Food Program is the world’s largest humanitarian aid organization, so I reached out to the group’s top climate expert in Munich, Germany to find out more.

    Gernot Lagonda: So, my name is Gernot Lagonda. I’m leading the climate and disaster risk reduction programs at the United Nations World Food Program. And when we look into the issues of climate, uh, climate change, then we look at this through the prism of hunger.

    And we unfortunately live in a, in a day and age where the number of people who are in food crisis or emergencies is really, you know, rising faster than any time before in the 21st century.

    In 2021, 193 million people in 53 countries and territories have experienced high acute food insecurity. Those are 40 million more than in 2020. Um, and yeah, toxic mix of conflict, climate change, economic disruptions is driving these trends. People who have been okay, uh, and you could call the middle class two years ago are now in a situation where they depend on external humanitarian assistance.

    And also, when you look at the really extreme end of the, of the vulnerability spectrum, when people are in feminine-like conditions, we have more than half a million people who are at risk of dying of hunger. So, when you think that famines are something of the past, because, you know, we, as a global society, we have never been as wealthy.

    Um, and we have really spent unprecedented amounts after COVID and also military spending is, is really big. I mean, at the same time we see more and more dying of hunger. And that is now a perspective that is really difficult to, really difficult to address. But, you know, in the, in the World Food Program, of course we provide humanitarian assistance to over 120 million people every year. Helping many people who are trapped in these in these, um, in this perfect storm between climate conflict, economic disruptions survive.

    But at the same time, we of course try to strengthen resilience so that the next shock that is going to hit is not going to hit as hard. And, basically, people have a few assets and the few strategies to rely on so that they do not become dependent on humanitarian assists, but this is more or less the space.

    Mike Ludwig: Gotcha. And you said that some people who we might consider to be middle-class are now facing hunger. What, is there an example of a place like that you could give us? And also, what breaks down, you know, what changes in a food supply or an economy that causes people who might want to be stable to now be facing a food shortage?

    Well, there are certain regions in the world where climate has always been a persistent driver of, of problems for people, especially for people who have rural livelihoods and are dependent on climate sensitive resources, such as agriculture. So, as the hell belt, the horn of Africa. So as a, as a humanitarian agency, we are, we’re quite alert and aware about these flashpoints.

    But then when you look for example into Central America, you know, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, all of a sudden you can see a combination of factors where the most active Atlantic hurricane season on record has hit families that were already weakened by years of poor rainfall, economic recessions in the wake of COVID-19. So then basically you have stronger and more frequent climate extremes hitting more vulnerable conditions. And that then creates new hunger hotspots in the world. And there, of course you can also have internal displacement people basically losing, uh, or having no capital to fall back on, having to move.

    We have, of course, then another problem in the humanitarian space, which is that there are many countries where we have conflict. South Sudan is an example, northern Nigeria, Afghanistan. And in order to provide humanitarian aid there, you also need access and you need to work on protection of civilians, but very often also there climate-related issues are erupting or setting back the humanitarian relief.

    Um, you can have heat waves where all of a sudden, you know, you, you cannot go out, because it is 50 degrees [Celsius]. Right now, in Pakistan or in India the heat waves are impacting not only the crop year, they are wiping out the harvest. They are also impacting the labor force, and basically agricultural workers cannot go out. You have heat stress in, in, in people, in livestock and crops.

    So, there is, apart from that, you also have a big, big drain on the, on the energy system, because all the ventilation in the air conditioning is going on. So, you have this link also of climate extremes interrupting humanitarian and development progress through to these extremes.

    And what does the aid look like? Have you worked on the ground in a country that you could share a story about, or just tell us what it looks like to deliver aid? I mean, you said that the program provides age 120 million people worldwide. What does that look like? In the United States, we might think, oh, that’s sacks of flour being dropped from an airplane or something, but I imagine that there’s actually a bit more complicated process to actually helping people access food.

    Yeah. So, part of our work is humanitarian relief after emergencies, you know, to people who are in a potentially life-threatening situation. Um, and this can basically take the shape of distributing food in places where markets have broken down or when markets are not accessible.

    So, when you are in a, in a setting where you have civil war or conflict, and you need to provide food behind the front lines, and sometimes also through air drops. Other times, you know, some regions are cut off through, through flood events. South Sudan is for example, the country where we have been doing air drops. So, there is really food distribution through a very heavy logistical chain. But then in other places, especially the ones where market are accessible, we have shifted more and more to cash transfers. Because this is, does not only have the advantage that it stimulates the local economy and can bring a local economy back on its legs, it also gives people a choice on what they spent the cash for and which kind of foodstuffs they buy. So, a lot of what we provide, especially in places where markets are or recovering or where they are active is cash transfers.

    And maybe another aspect here on the, on the type of transfers that we provide. Cash transfers are a very important element also in displacement settings, because often when people get displaced and they move, they move into, into new spaces, there is potential for social tensions or conflict with the host population, because people think, okay, um, they’re drawing on, on our local resources, and it’s, it’s a more of a conflictual situation. When you provide displaced communities with cash, then they spend it in the local economies and then you can also reduce, uh, reduce conflict.

    That makes so much sense.

    Yeah. I mean, this is, this is the humanitarian part of our work. That means basically, whenever you have people who do not have access to food, either economical access or physical access, we provide that. But, you know, providing food or cash after things have happened is, is actually the last resort that you, that you, that you should have available because projects and initiatives that build the resilience of people before they get hit and equip them with the knowledge, the information, the, you know, the tools, the seeds, the agricultural inputs, so that they have resilient livelihoods so that when then a seasonal, dry spell or a drought rolls around, they can buffer this autonomously. And they do not rely on an external aid, but a big part of our programs is also in this space.

    So, I imagine that when these markets break down, have you seen markets break, you talking about market breakdown. Have you seen food markets breakdown? Is it usually because of climate and conflict? Like for instance, the war in Ukraine, or can markets just break down because of a heat wave that paralyzes a certain part of a country?

    I guess I’m being broadly general here. I’m curious about what that looks like when all of a sudden you just can’t go to a market, for instance, and buy food.

    Yeah. So, there’s different markets, right? There’s a global market and there are regional ones, national ones, and then local markets. And you can see market breakdowns, you know, very localized. If, for example, the particular district in a, in a country has been hit by a flood or a drought, or you have repetitive droughts, like in Madagascar, for example, in the south of Madagascar, uh, the, the food markets have all but broken down. The local ones. Now people are really in a very, very difficult situation because they are so vulnerable that, um, really every, they have used up all their reserves. They have no livestock left to sell. They sold all their tools, all their assets, they have no cash left. They have nothing in storage. So no, no grain in storage, all the grain is eaten. So, they are now then in, in a situation where they require external.

    So that can, it can be localized breakdown on market, but of course, when you have a conflict, like in Yemen or in Syria, you have the entire economy breakdown. And then of course there are opportunities for certain regions may be in that country to still have local markets and work a little bit more with the principle of self-sufficiency rather than selling surplus to the markets, because all the access roads are, are broken down and you cannot get the diesel to drive your pumps and you cannot get your fertilizer, but you can still produce locally for your family. So that, that may well be possible in, in certain, um, in certain places, Afghanistan, for example, is, is a, is a country where you have, uh, these local markets even at a global, uh, sorry at the national, uh, level, uh, the food insecurity is very high now because it’s also rain fed agriculture, extremely drought prone, extremely prone to being hit by these, these climate extremes. And of course, in Afghanistan as we all know, it’s not only a, uh, you know, climate problem, you have the political, problem there as well. You have a social tensions, conflict, high levels of poverty. So, it’s usually when people go hungry, when markets break down, usually it’s a combination of things, but again, it’s context specific depends on the depends on the country we’re talking about.

    Your description of Afghanistan really kind of struck me mostly because after the United States made its final military withdrawal. I talked to so many people, many of them more middle-class or had been in some way employed closer to the U.S. government or NATO or to the former government of Afghanistan. And they were so desperate to get out, uh, whether or not they had a connection to the United States. They were very desperate to leave as soon as the U.S. left because with it, the U.S. took a lot of wealth that it had been injecting into the economy.

    What has been your experience with Afghanistan, especially with the heat waves and with the U.S. leaving. How dire is the situation there right now?

    Not only because of the political situation and the human rights situation, but also because of water stress in mostly rain fed agriculture. When you look at how Afghanistan’s average temperature has increased, I mean, globally, we have increased by about 1.1 degree centigrade since pre-industrial times, you know, global average surface temperature in Afghanistan, this is more than that. You know, we are talking about 0.8 degrees centigrade, so it’s, it’s really higher than the global average, and rainfall events have become more extreme and unpredictable. Um, there is really this pattern where you see the rainfall that may have fallen over several weeks to months is now coming down in one or two afternoons, washing away everything, your way that has been planted.

    And as a result, you know, you have, you have high degrees of erosion. And also, you know, when you have drought conditions like you did last year, um, and we had 25 out of 34 provinces facing drought conditions. So around half of Afghanistan’s population right now are in a food crisis or emergency. And this is largely also a climate narrative, not only a conflict one.

    Um, and yeah, we, when we look at these situations, I think we always look at these different drivers of risk for people, you know, climate extremes being one, but then of course there is conflict drivers, and then there is economic drivers and economic drivers have been especially prominent after COVID-19, when you had basically market blockages and inflation, but also now in the wake of Russia’s invasion in Ukraine, where now food prices are going up all over the globe.

    And this is then something that these poor communities in, in places like Afghanistan or in the horn of Africa or in Sub-Saharan Africa or that are down in southern Africa, even they feel, you know, as much as 9,000 kilometers away, you see food price inflation of around 20 percent for important staple crops. You see fertilizer prices increase in business then basically that it comes all together into that toxic mix of risk that people experience.

    Right. I know. I imagine that when there is this toxic mix, or there is a shock to global food markets or to the economic system, it is probably the most vulnerable people in countries like Afghanistan or like Yemen who are hit first and hardest by a food shortage. I would imagine it kind of works like that where, you know, things might be okay, but in a vulnerable place, one shock, one pandemic, one war, a thousand miles away will hit the most vulnerable first. Is that what you have seen?

    Yes, that’s correct. I mean the front lines of the climate crisis are really not the places that are well off, you know, those are places that have started to unravel at this intersection, climate, conflict, skyrocketing inflation. And, um, when you look a little bit into the projections, oh, in, in, in where these hotspots are, and you see that in places like that are already very fragile in, in South Sudan and Afghanistan, Somalia, those are the hotspots where really people are more and more dependent on humanitarian aid.

    This is where basically our operations have to have to support more and more people. And in a, in a warming climate, you know, this number is only going to increase. I mean, we, we did some modeling a while back that if global temperatures keep rising to 2 degrees centigrade, and this is keep in mind, we’re already at 1.1 above pre-industrial average, we would have at least an additional 189 million people in food crisis or, or worse.

    So in such a future, you know, the World Bank has modeled that also 216 million people could become displaced within their own countries by climate shocks and stresses alone. Around seven times more than, than today. And if you turn on the heat to four degrees and the number of hungry people could increase by as many as 1.8 billion people. So, neither governments nor the international aid system are ready to handle such a future. Um, and you know, so, so for us, there’s of course this very important advocacy element here to make sure that, um, these climate, uh, negotiations deliver on ambition.

    I mean, we cannot go to a future that is warmer than 2 degrees because we will all be at breaking point in the international aid architecture. And, you know, you will see mass displacement, you will see mass starvation. You immediately will see destabilization at a scale that we have never experienced yet.

    So, we’re really bracing for impact. I think we, we still have time to, uh, frame some smart, intelligent, strong, and scalable programs ride now in the next decade, but then we, we really calculate that in the early thirties, we will have blown past at 1.5 degree warming target that is enshrined in the international climate negotiations. So, um, I’m is running out very, very fast.

    Time is absolutely running out. I want to zero in really quickly on Yemen and Ukraine, because those are two conflicts that we’re talking a lot about in the United States, because our government has been involved in those conflicts. In Yemen, there has been a ceasefire. Um, I’m not sure if it’s still holding. But it has been hailed as a moment where humanitarian aid has been able to access the country a little bit easier than during times of fighting. Do you have any updates on Yemen or the humanitarian aid work that is going on in of area?

    I would probably relay you to our country office in Yemen. Again, you know, I’m the focal point for climate and disasters, production protection of civilians in, uh, basically conflict affected countries when it comes to our logistical supply chain. Um, then I think other people are better placed to answer that question.

    No, no, no, of course. And real quickly, as far as climate and supply chains, can you, uh, explain or help us understand how, you know, the blockade or Russia stealing wheat or grain from Ukraine, how that that ripples out into the markets and how that affects people? I mean, what does that actually look like?

    I mean, it’s just, it just comes down to — there was food coming to a port in another country. Now it’s just not coming. And that changes everything in that local area.

    Basically you know, when we look at this, the impact of the Russian invasion in Ukraine, on the global food markets, and this is nothing that has to do with climate. It’s not climate element here. It’s basically scarcity on the market. Because the two countries, Russia, and Ukraine, they are really important for global wheat production.

    They are really important for sunflower oil production for a number of staple crops that are, that not only are important for food importing countries, but they’re also important for the humanitarian system because we buy these foodstuffs and then we use them for our humanitarian operations in, for example, Syria or Yemen.

    So basically, when the food prices now go up and this inflation directly affects the number of people that we can feed. So we had, uh, um, the latest number I’ve seen is that we have a monthly, additional costs of around $29 million. Just to feed the same number of people, just because of the inflation.

    Effect on the food prices and the inflation effect on the energy prices, which are also very important in the entire picture. Because in order to distribute food, you do not only need to, to buy the food. You also need to transport it. Um, and basically every so sort, that’s the first factor here that I think is important is the prices increase because there is not as much product on the market.

    And then of course you have the blockages of the, of the supply lines now. So, you cannot, if you cannot ship your, your grain out, why, uh, the port of Odessa basically, then, then you have to all around to reach him, which costs so much more. Also, when we, when, when energy prices are high, when basically you, you pay much more for, uh, to fill a truck, uh, the tank will have a truck that is producing food, uh, transporting food, but this is in the, in the end, you know, the two factors that, that I think are really important for, for all the supply chains.

    I mean, it’s the overall prices of the, of the food commodities that we need, we need in our programs. And then the, uh, the logistics, uh, are becoming more complicated because certain routes that we usually use and that have been very, very efficient and now not accessible. And we need to find other means and ways to get our, our trucks, uh, to the places where people are.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Invasion News Fits on Front Page More When an Enemy Does the Invading

     

    New York Times front page feauturing stories on Ukraine invasion

    The New York Times front page for April 5, 2022, featured four stories on the Ukraine War, including three at the top of the page.

    The New York Times’ slogan “All the News That’s Fit to Print” has appeared on the paper’s front page since 1897. But a comparison of Times coverage of the 2022 Ukraine War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq shows that the same kinds of news don’t always fit on the front page.

    FAIR examined front pages of the New York Times between April 1 and April 30, 2022, and compared them to those from May 1 to May 31, 2003. The dates represent the second full calendar months of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the US invasion of Iraq, respectively—major armed conflicts involving major world powers illegally invading  smaller countries.

    In April 2022, there were a total of 179 stories on the Times‘ front page, and  79 (44%) concerned the Ukraine invasion. All but three were located at  the top of the page (i.e., with no articles above them), where editors put the stories they consider to be the most important of the day. Fully 75% of all top-of-the-page stories were about the Ukraine war. Not a single day went by without a Ukraine story being published on the top of the page, and on 14 different days only stories about Ukraine were published on the top of the front page.

    In May 2003, when there were 226 stories on the front page, only 41 of them (18%) reported on the Iraq invasion. Thirty-two of those were at the top of the page, with nine below; 25% of all top-of-the-page stories were dedicated to the Iraq War.

    This means that a major conflict launched by the country where the paper is published was given less than half as many front-page articles—and a third of the top of the front page, where highest-priority stories are placed—compared to a war in which that country was not directly involved. Six days out of the month, the paper did not feature a single Iraq story at the top of the page, and the top-of-the-page stories were never exclusively about Iraq.

    The apparently greater newsworthiness of military aggression when committed by an official enemy isn’t just on display on the Times front page.  A study of the ABC, CBS and NBC nightly news shows (Tyndall Report, 4/7/22) found that the first full month of the Ukraine War got more coverage (3/22, 562 minutes) than the peak month of coverage of the Iraq War (4/03, 455 minutes).

    Civilian deaths newsworthy or not

    New York Times Front Page

    In May 2003, the Iraq War was just one of many stories to the New York Times (5/10/03)—and was sometimes pushed off the front page altogether.

    Of the 79 front-page New York Times stories on the war in Ukraine in May 2022, 14 of them were primarily about civilian deaths as a result of the Russian invasion, all of which appeared at the top of the page. As FAIR has argued in the past (e.g., 3/18/22), coverage of the civilian toll of war is well-warranted, as civilians usually face the worst impact of modern warfare. By the beginning of May, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (5/2/22) estimated that there were at least 3,153 civilian deaths in Ukraine.

    In contrast, during the month of Iraq coverage, there was only one story (5/1/03) about civilian deaths at the hands of the US military on the front page, a report describing an event in which US soldiers killed two protesters (described as part of “a crowd of angry Iraqis [who] chanted and threw stones”). The lack of coverage, however, did not reflect a lack of civilian casualties during this period: Iraq Body Count estimated that at least 7,984 civilian deaths had occurred by the end of May 2003.

    Other stories about Iraqi noncombatants being killed in the war sometimes made the paper (e.g, 5/11/03), but not on the front page.  The Times has a history of downplaying civilian casualties at the hands of the US military (FAIR.org, 9/18/15). The contrast between intense interest in civilians killed by Russia and minimal attention to civilians killed by the United States matches a previous FAIR study (3/18/22). It found 27 mentions on the nightly network news shows in the first week of the Ukraine invasion identifying Russia as responsible for harming civilians, as compared to nine mentions in the first week of the Iraq invasion that reported on the US harming civilians—fewer than the 12 mentions that depicted the US helping Iraqi civilians.

    It should be noted that in 2007, the New York Times (7/18/06) announced it was decreasing its physical page size as a result of budget cuts. While Bill Keller, the executive editor at the time, estimated that the change would only result in a 5% reduction of news, because pages were added, the front page suffered greater losses as a result of the smaller format; comparing May of 2003 to April of 2022, there were 20% fewer stories overall. But the Ukraine War still managed to get more reports on the front page than the Iraq War in absolute numbers, as well as making up a greater percentage of front-page stories.

     

     

    The post Invasion News Fits on Front Page More When an Enemy Does the Invading appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • Biden’s Foreign Policy Is One Big Mess

    Over the last months I have written little about other U.S. foreign policy issues than the war in Ukraine.

    A short review shows that there is little that Secretary of State Anthony Blinken or his president could count as a success.

    Last month Biden traveled to Asia where he had meetings with the QUAD (Australia, Japan, India and the U.S.) as well as with South Asian leaders.

    The QUAD meeting was a failure as India showed no sign of joining the other three in their condemnation of Russia. Instead of sanctioning  Russia it is buying more oil from Russia which offers decent rebates. Such disunity does not look good for a U.S. designed anti-China coalition.

    Most noted though was that Biden came to Asia with empty hands.

    The post Biden’s Foreign Policy Is One Big Mess appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Sexual Violence by Russian Troops in Ukraine “Chronically Underreported”

    The United Nations is demanding an independent investigation into charges of rape and sexual assault committed by Russian soldiers in Ukraine since the start of the invasion. We speak with Pramila Patten, the U.N.’s special representative on sexual violence in conflict, who is just back from Ukraine and told the Security Council Monday about multiple shocking reports of rape and assault — all of which Russia has since denied. “We are dealing with a crime which is chronically underreported,” says Patten, who emphasized the need to establish safe spaces for victims to come forward and ensure no perpetrators be granted amnesty through a potential ceasefire or peace agreement. We also speak with Oksana Pokalchuk, executive director of Amnesty International Ukraine, whose organization is investigating the alleged war crimes.

    TRANSCRIPT

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

    AMY GOODMAN: The United Nations is demanding an independent investigation into charges of rape and sexual assault committed by Russian soldiers in Ukraine. Pramila Patten, the U.N. special representative on sexual violence in conflict, told the U.N. Security Council Monday about an increasing number of reports of sexual abuse and human trafficking. On Monday, Patten addressed both the U.N. Security Council and the U.S. Institute of Peace.

    PRAMILA PATTEN: We have all heard the accounts of horrific acts of sexual violence, reports of gang rape, rape in front of family members, sexual assault at gunpoint, women who have become pregnant as a result of rape, as well as the reports of refugee women and children being exploited by traffickers and predators who view this turmoil not as a tragedy but as an opportunity to abuse the vulnerable. …

    We have debunked the insidious myth that sexual violence in conflict is inevitable. Now we must demonstrate, through proactive protection and empowerment efforts, that it is indeed preventable.

    It is time to move from best intentions to best practice to catch the women and girls who may otherwise fall through our safety nets. Let us not forget that while the eyes of the world are on the Ukrainian women and girls who are caught in the crossfire, who are living in terror in occupied territories, and who have been deported or forced to flee their homes and homeland, they are looking to us. We must not and cannot fail them.

    AMY GOODMAN: Russia has rejected the accusations that its troops committed sexual violence in Ukraine. This is Vassily Nebenzia, Russia’s ambassador to the U.N.

    VASSILY NEBENZIA: [translated] The ratcheting up of accusations of Russian service personnel committing crimes of a sexual nature since the very beginning of our special military operation in Ukraine has become a favorite tactic of the Kyiv regime and our Western colleagues. We all recall how in the Ukrainian and Western media, and also in this room, our soldiers were repeatedly accused of sexual violence with reference to certain reports containing allegedly reliable data. However, no evidence was provided.

    AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined now by two guests. Pramila Patten, the U.N. special representative on sexual violence in conflict, she recently returned from Ukraine. Also with us, Oksana Pokalchuk, she is executive director of Amnesty International Ukraine. She’s been investigating war crimes by Russian forces since the full-scale invasion began at the end of February.

    Pramila Patten, let’s begin with you. You’re just off your address to the U.N. Security Council. Talk about what you found in Ukraine.

    PRAMILA PATTEN: Well, you will all recall that it was only a few days after the Russian invasion of Ukraine that the first reports of sexual violence began to surface. And as the conflict passes the 100-day mark, unfortunately, we continue to receive reports of sexual violence.

    I was in Ukraine from the 1st to the 5th of May, and I also went to Poland and Moldova. I did not meet with victims of sexual violence in Ukraine — I was in Lviv and Kyiv — for obvious reasons: security. But I met with civil society organizations who were frontline service providers who have engaged with victims. I also met with families of victims. And, of course, I met with government officials and signed a cooperation agreement.

    But what I can tell you is that the reports — credible reports — from civil society organizations, but also from government officials, like the Office of the Prosecutor General or the vice prime minister, Olha Stefanishyna, with whom I signed the framework of cooperation, shared a lot of information with me about brutal sexual violence being committed, significantly against women and girls, but also against men and boys.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Pramila, could you talk about the fact that, as many have pointed out, the number of sexual — incidents of sexual violence is likely massively underreported? Because a representative of the Ukrainian Women’s Fund, for example, said that sexual violence, in particular, is a hidden crime, because many women and girls will likely never come forward and report what’s happened.

    PRAMILA PATTEN: You are absolutely right. And that’s why I didn’t wait for accurate bookkeeping, hard data, to react. And that’s why I went to Ukraine, because we are dealing with a crime which is chronically underreported. And that’s my concern. And for me, going to Ukraine was to send a strong message, especially to victims, to urge them to break the silence, because their silence is the perpetrators’ license to rape.

    And as of the 3rd of June, only 124 reports of sexual violence are verifiable, are of a verifiable nature, and are being looked into by the human rights monitoring of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. And that verification process is ongoing. And you can imagine that we — due to security and access constraints, the verification process is taking time. But in 102 cases, perpetrators are reported to be Russian Armed Forces, and two cases from Russian-affiliated groups.

    But, for sure, that we are only dealing with the tip of the iceberg. And this is why I signed the framework of cooperation and discussed with the government in Ukraine, but also in Moldova and Poland as refugee-receiving countries, the need to establish safe spaces which will be conducive — to provide a conducive environment for the victims to report, because due to stigma and a host of reasons, this crime is very much invisible.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: I’d like to bring in Oksana Pokalchuk, a representative — you are the executive director of Amnesty international Ukraine. Your organization and you, yourself, have been carrying out an investigation on possible war crimes, including sexual violence, but broader war crimes, in and around the area of the capital Kyiv. Could you tell us what you’ve found?

    OKSANA POKALCHUK: Yeah, sure. So, the pattern of crimes committed by Russian forces in the Kyiv region — but not only, of course — that we have documented includes both unlawful attacks and willful killings of civilians. So, we have to face it that a lot of killings, and most of them, were just apparently extrajudicial executions. So it was a straight will to kill people there.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: And explain the areas you were in. Where all did Amnesty conduct investigations of this nature?

    OKSANA POKALCHUK: Sure. Our last report was about the Kyiv region. So, we were in different areas around Kyiv and which were in occupation for more than two months. So it was Borodyanka, Bucha, Hostomel, Stoyanka and many, many other cities and villages around Kyiv. So, for example, in Borodyanka, we found at least 40 civilians were killed in disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks which devastated an entire neighborhood and left thousands — really, thousands — of people homeless. So, in Bucha, for example, we documented 22 cases of unlawful killings by Russian forces. And yeah, as I said before, most of them were apparent extrajudicial executions.

    AMY GOODMAN: And how do you respond, Oksana Pokalchuk, to Russia saying you haven’t provided the evidence?

    OKSANA POKALCHUK: Well, how I would respond? We have evidences. And as far as I know, there are a couple of — there are a couple of cases that are already under the investigation by Ukrainian authorities — if you’re talking about sexual violence, of course, because it’s much more when we talk about other war crimes. But when we come back to the sexual violence, as far as I know, it’s a couple of cases are under the investigation. So I hope that soon we will see open and transparent court proceedings on the matter and it will be [inaudible] bring to justice.

    AMY GOODMAN: Pramila Patten, I wanted to ask you about the whole debate within Ukraine about how explicit to be. And you, I’m sure, have dealt with this around the world. I mean, there’s been the firing of a human rights official in Ukraine for being extremely explicit about the rape of children. And there’s a whole discussion within the human rights and journalistic community in Ukraine. Can you talk about how to talk about this?

    PRAMILA PATTEN: Well, this is one of the areas where my office and the United Nations system will be providing support to the Ukrainian government. And that’s part of the framework of cooperation, which I have signed, that is providing support in the area of justice and accountability.

    We are dealing with a very sensitive issue. And we know why victims do not come forward to report, and one of the reasons being the retraumatization and the revictimization. And there are guiding principles on how to engage with victims, on how to document evidence and how to investigate. And one of the fundamental principles is the “do no harm” principle, which is extremely important.

    And this is precisely why I will be deploying, following the framework of cooperation that I signed on the 3rd of May — will deploy staff with expertise on sexual violence documentation, investigation, prosecution. They will be embedded not only in the Office of the High Commissioner’s human rights monitoring team but also in the Office of the Prosecutor General to support the investigation, to support the documentation, to support the collection of evidence before the evidence trail goes cold. This is crucial. There will be no justice if that stage goes wrong.

    And we have seen a lot in the past, whether it is in Iraq or with the Rohingya in Cox’s Bazar, who have been interviewed, for example, over 15 times, with all the inconsistency that comes along, then making cases untenable in a court of law. So, we want to reverse that culture of impunity into a culture of justice and accountability. We have to get it right. And I’m very encouraged by the multiplicity of efforts to bolster justice, to bolster accountability.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Pramila, could you say — you’ve said explicitly that any peace agreement, whenever it comes, should state explicitly that there will be no amnesty for perpetrators of sexual violence. Could you explain why you think sexual violence should be treated differently from other war crimes, and in what instances amnesty has been granted in areas of conflict where sexual violence has been prevalent?

    PRAMILA PATTEN: Well, history has taught us that during multiple peace negotiations, the first item that has been on the negotiation table — where, of course, women are conspicuously lacking — the question of amnesty for crimes of sexual violence has always been on the table. And there are contexts where the option was women or peace. And as usual, women get sacrificed.

    So, I am very encouraged by the fact that the Ukrainian government was very receptive to my suggestion of this area of priority, this pillar in the framework of cooperation be included, that in the event of any ceasefire agreement or peace agreement, that there will be specific provisions to ensure that there is no amnesty for sexual violence crimes, because war have limits, and international humanitarian law makes it very clear. And sexual violence can never be excused, can never be amnestied. And we have a solid normative framework with resolutions of the Security Council on the question of amnesty.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: Oksana, there have been, of course, as you know, accusations of alleged war crimes — although, of course, much fewer in number — by Ukrainian forces. What do you know about those allegations? And what have you found in your investigations, alleged war crimes by, of course, Russian forces, but also Ukrainian forces?

    OKSANA POKALCHUK: We are now in a situation when a lot of territories where allegedly some war crimes were committed or are now committing, they are under occupation. So, we need to wait for the moment where we, as Amnesty, will be, and, of course, Ukrainian and international investigators will be able to reach this area and to do investigation on the ground, because without being on the ground, without collecting proper evidences, it is impossible to say about war crimes. I mean, we can’t — in my opinion, we can’t presume it.

    Of course, there are no war where there are one party of the war would be — I don’t know — will not violate international humanitarian law, and another part will. Of course, we have to face that, of course, Ukrainian army — I mean, we will find these evidences. But so far, we don’t have enough evidences to talk about it in legal terms. So we have to wait for liberation of occupied territories, come to the territory and just gather information, gather evidences there.

    AMY GOODMAN: Pramila Patten, as we wrap up, Ukraine was already one of the leading countries in Europe when it came to human trafficking. You also have addressed this issue. If you can describe what you saw and how this issue should be addressed?

    PRAMILA PATTEN: Well, with the displacement of close to 14 million people in the past hundred days, mostly women and children, with 6.8 million of women and children, mainly, having fled across borders, what I see is a human trafficking crisis within a humanitarian crisis. And human trafficking is not a separate issue. It is a symptom of a refugee crisis that breeds the exact conditions that human traffickers prey upon: economic impoverishment and a lack of better options. And we know from 2014, even in Ukraine and in the region, how human trafficking thrives. And human trafficking is one of the most serious organized crimes of the day, transcending cultures, geography and time. And we also know that for predators and human traffickers, war is not a tragedy, it is an opportunity.

    What I saw in both Moldova and Poland, where I visited reception centers, is that the majority of the refugees are living with host communities. And there are grave security and protection concerns in both countries. These reception centers are run by volunteers, with only a bare-bone presence of the United Nations agencies. There is a complete lack of oversight in terms of accommodation offers by private citizens, a lack of oversight of transportation arrangements. These are really serious concerns. The reception centers, although the premises have been offered by the local government, they are being run by a multiplicity of actors volunteering to provide services. And from what I saw, they have little or no training or experience in supporting victims, victims of trafficking or persons at risk of trafficking.

    And what is also clear, in all fairness, is that these refugee-receiving countries are overwhelmed. And they urgently need support to be able to allocate sufficient resources to support the responses, given that even service providers and NGOs have limited capacity to sustain an adequate and safe level of response.

    So, I think what is needed, what is critical, is that the international community mobilize to ensure that effective protection systems are in place in all transit and destination countries and at all border crossings. And given the challenges of this transnational organized crime, as well as the very complex nature and multiple dimensions of human trafficking, the response requires an integrated and holistic response, a concerted cross-border response by humanitarian partners, law enforcement agencies, border forces, immigration officials and political leaders. On Monday, when I briefed the Security Council, I urged for a regional European compact to be led by the European Council. And I have the firm conviction that this is what is required at this point in time.

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, Pramila Patten, we want to thank you for being with us, U.N. special rapporteur on sexual violence in conflict, and Oksana Pokalchuk, executive director of Amnesty International in Ukraine.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Imperialism Cannot Solve Our Problems

    In learning more about the Poor People’s Campaign Moral March on Washington set for June 18th, I came across this statement by Bishop William Barber, the campaign’s national co-chair:

    Republicans say poverty is just a personal failure. And Democrats too often talk about the working class and those trying to make it into the middle class but refuse to talk expressly about poverty. Our debates are locked in struggles around and about trickle-down concepts of neoliberalism, and middle-class considerations.

    He concluded that the country’s refusal to address poverty is “the basic moral contradiction” of our time.

    I have to admit that I initially bristled at the idea of a “moral contradiction” because, as a non-religious person, that language sometimes raises red flags for me. But I began to think about how Marxists talk about the concept of contradiction.

    What is a contradiction? All social phenomena contain contradictions. Contradictions aren’t simply accidents but essential features of what those objects are. For example, the U.S. is a society that describes itself as free and touts its wealth but is plagued by the poison of white supremacy and male supremacy. The constitutional system grants due process, but cops kill and beat thousands of people each year. It has 142 million people living in dire poverty or one paycheck, one health crisis, or one disaster away from financial desperation. More than 52 million workers earn less than $15 per hour and often can’t meet their basic needs.

    U.S. leaders and capitalists brag about advanced technology, such as medical technology and knowledge. Still, they couldn’t prevent the loss of 1 million lives from COVID or 100,000 opioid overdose deaths, or 46,000 deaths from guns. We wring our hands while little change takes place. We wonder why we never see these things coming and constantly react only after so many people have been harmed.

    Political leaders boast about an advanced educational system but cannot provide it free or at a reasonable cost to the mass of working-class people. Decades-long debt peonage is the best choice we have. As illiteracy grows and workers score poorly on tests that measure competence with mathematics and language, politicians cut school and university budgets.

    These are essential contradictions that define the U.S. as a social formation. They aren’t just bad choices made by an otherwise just society.

    This reality shapes how I read Barber’s comments. “Moral contradiction” causes one of the major political parties to demand the state control women’s bodies by banning safe abortions claiming the human rights of unborn fetuses. But then, the next day, it votes as a bloc against immediate steps to remedy a baby formula shortage. A baby formula shortage! They will demand pregnant women register themselves to track births and punish abortions but refuse to consider gun registration. The Republicans and fascists built a morally bankrupt political platform. But the moral contradictions of the capitalist market economy, which they cherish even above life itself, are central pillars of the whole system. Abortion, gun violence, and baby formula are just the most recent plain examples.

    Contradictions

    Why do we care about contradictions like this? Social systems change and develop based on how social and class forces address these contradictions and turn a system into a new substance. Many capitalists and their sympathizers see contradictions as mere inconsistencies or glitches. Reformers want to fix these glitches and bring our “values” back into alignment with our actions. Or, they want to mend these problems by creating philanthropic or socially innovative programs that help out the poor but leave the system intact.

    Billionaires and fascists have different ideas about resolving contradictions. Think of Elon Musk’s recent embrace of the Republican Party and its fascist platform. He is mad that the government continues to investigate his suspicious financial activities, and he is afraid unions will weaken his absolute power in his companies. He wants state power that he can personally bend to his will to help him get over his emotional problems. He wants more power to resolve contradictions through coercion and legal force.

    Imperialism uses war to resolve contradictions. Consider the U.S. government’s drive to perpetuate or expand the war in Ukraine. It manufactures images of Russian human rights abuses—some of which are undoubtedly true. But the U.S. record of torture, mass killings, destroying civilians, racist mass incarceration, assassinations, political interventions, and hybrid wars on a global scale, in just the past two decades, embarrass even people like Henry Kissinger, among the vilest of abusers. George W. Bush’s recent verbal slip wasn’t just a gaffe.

    Though immoral, these aren’t simply moral inconsistencies. They are contradictions that comprise the structure of U.S. capitalism and its political system. Its capitalist class, on the whole, believes that it must maintain these structural forms of power if the U.S. is to keep its hegemonic position in the imperialist world system. In simple terms, these contradictions make the U.S. what it is as a country. This structure drives us from war crisis to economic crisis to health crisis and back all the way around again. So far, our only means of psychological survival has been self-induced amnesia. Forgetting, like self-medication, eases the pain of this moral contradiction, which I believe most of us feel very deeply.

    Barber’s terminology about moral contradiction is essential. And amnesia is no longer a practical solution. However, working-class power transformed into social power could be the basis for an answer.

    Imperialist world system

    In the present world system, five fundamental contradictions are interconnected and reveal moral bankruptcy, logical inconsistencies, and anti-human tendencies that make capitalism what it is:

    • a world imperialist system that denies to most humans their national aspirations
    • worldwide poverty that denies human dignity on a scale of billions
    • deepening rates of exploitation that spark frequent crises of overproduction
    • global socialization of labor vs. the anarchy of national systems that rely on the capitalist market economy
    • excess capitalist production without rational planning for the survival of humanity and the planet.

    What is a world system? World system is not a conspiratorial term, nor does it refer to “globalism” or the “deep state” or any mystifying right-wing concepts about evil hordes of racial others dominating the U.S. or Europeans. Those racist and anti-Semitic theories drive right-wing capitalist agendas and fascist violence.

    The world system names the dominant form of global integration of countries into the capitalist-imperialist system in a particular period. For example, the European slave-trade-based capitalist development, led by Spain and Portugal in the 15th and 16th centuries, the Dutch in the 17th century, and Great Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries, formed a world system based on markets in human beings as a financial basis for market and industrial capitalist development. It created a settler-colonial-slavery complex, which also drove Indigenous genocide in the Americas. It made modern capitalism possible. (Gerald Horne’s The Dawning of the Apocalypse, The Apocalypse of Settler Colonialism, The Counterrevolution of 1776, Negro Comrades of the Crown, and Confronting Black Jacobins can be read sequentially as a study of this world system. Joseph Inikori’s Africans and the Industrial Revolution in England is also an informative study of one aspect of that system.)

    These kinds of global interactions gave capitalism a racial characteristic it still relies on to maintain its capacity to accumulate surplus value and recirculate it as new capital.

    By the end of the 19th century, this slavery-settler system transitioned to an imperialist-colonial system. It kept critical features of the former, as settler features persisted in Southern Africa until 1994. And Canada, the U.S., and Australia continue to deny land and sovereignty to the Indigenous people who hold rightful claims. European powers, sometimes with agreement among themselves but always in fierce long-term competition, strove to conquer and dominate the entire earth.

    That system collapsed during the Great Depression and subsequent global war. Fascism—the most extreme form of capitalism and imperialism—pitted Europeans against one another in unprecedented ways. Within two decades, the colonialism system followed suit.

    After this unprecedented collapse of the world system, the U.S. managed to rise to the top of the heap. The debts incurred by the imperialist powers and the U.S.’s skillful management of the shift to dollarized neo-colonial control of former European colonies enabled this transition. (W. Alphaeus Hunton’s Decision in Africa and Walter Rodney’s How Europe Under Developed Africa are essential for this history of U.S./European colonialism and neo-colonialism in African countries.)

    Essentially, the U.S. recreated and managed a world system that expropriated vast tons of raw resources from the colonized world to fuel its own and Europe’s redevelopment after World War II. The collapse of the colonial regimes through national liberation struggles aided by the socialist countries prompted a transition to the domination of finance capital in the neoliberal regime of structural adjustments, privatization, forced labor, and hybrid war.

    That new regime successfully produced wealth and power for U.S. capitalists that one commentator characterized as the “end of history.” Meanwhile, vast billions of the human population suffered from extreme poverty, hunger, lack of health resources, rapid environmental change, disease, war, and conflict.

    The end of “the end of history” came after a series of financialization crises from the late 1990s to the 2007 housing collapse, which ruined the bliss of everlasting capitalist success. The failure to conquer Iraq and Afghanistan, which sucked trillions out of the U.S. economy, further signaled U.S. decline.

    Unlike the 1930s, when the U.S. political system responded to manage the contradictions through “Keynesian” economic theory and New Deal social democracy, the present system blunders along with handouts to the banks, tax cuts for billionaires, and more austerity. Today, we are at the end of 60 years of declining rates of growth that pale in comparison to China’s 8%-9% rates of growth each year for the past 40 years.

    The U.S. political class frequently admits that it can’t afford the record hundreds of billions pumped into military spending and a universal health system each year. It can’t afford to buy new missile systems and quality schools and universities. It can’t provide a meaningful safety net and ensure record profits and wealth accumulation for millionaires and billionaires with low tax rates.

    Even as globalization generates the socialization of labor on a world scale, the anarchy of capitalist market economies within national frames produced new internal contradictions in those ruling-class agendas. (I am indebted to Cheng Enfu’s China’s Economic Dialectic for the phrasing of this contradiction.)

    This contradiction between the needs of the empire and the interests of national economic and political systems is evident in the conflict over Ukraine. Consider how deeply and violently the U.S. ruling class split over the Russia-Europe contest. Trump was willing to dump Europe for an alignment with Russia, while much of the U.S. capitalist maintains corporate ties to Western Europe. We have yet to understand how much this conflict has altered and shaped U.S. domestic politics. (And the impending internal conflict over links to China has only been kicked down the road.)

    Over here

    The U.S. capitalist class aspires to maintain its dominance of the imperialist world system. But this means they have to carefully manage an increasingly expensive military, intelligence apparatus, local police, and border patrol system. The institutions operate strictly for the purpose of global and domestic repression of dissent. These are the only spending priorities for which a nearly unanimous Washington consensus exists.

    At the same time, however, capitalists discovered that their goal of endless higher profits had been little more than accounting schemes and fantasy for some decades. Corporate policies drove record profits with higher prices, lower wages, and benefit cuts, all aided by a significantly weakened labor movement since the 1980s. Further, accounting tricks like stock buy-backs and debt schemes made bubbles and fantasy wealth a mainstay of Wall Street chicanery.

    The capitalist class’s drive to manage the top spot in the imperialist system propels deepening exploitation worldwide, and in the U.S. Initially, globalization of production made the prices of imported goods seem like a boon. But then, the loss of manufacturing jobs meant a weakened labor movement, lower pay, and more frequent cycles of simply not being able to buy things. In some communities, whole neighborhoods became ghost towns. City services vanished overnight. Workers found they needed more than one job to survive. Consumption levels dropped, producing new levels of poverty combined with new demands for higher exploitation rates.

    Racist mass incarceration became a mechanism for resolving some aspects of that crisis simply by cultivating and exploiting racism to punish Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and immigrant people with imprisonments, criminalization, and mass deportations. Euro-American racial solidarity seemed to be an appropriate alternative to multi-racial working-class solidarity.

    Today, the performance of racial reforms (that aren’t reforms) and openly fascistic racist doctrine (great replacement dogmas, ravings about critical race theory, book burnings, and xenophobia) stand in for actual resolutions to deepening exploitation. Philanthropy and the non-profit industrial complex take the place of systemic solutions to poverty.

    The anti-war movements (2002-2008), Occupy Wall Street (2011), #BlackLivesMatter (2014-2020), and worker uprising (2020-2022) have lain bare the crisis of the political system. They have uplifted specific analyses of different aspects of these five main contradictions.

    Imperialist double jeopardy

    Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan signaled the severe jeopardy of U.S. dominance of the imperialist world system. In contrast to the past, it appears unable to assert its agenda for Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the South Pacific, or even Latin America, which it had long proclaimed its “backyard.” De-dollarization combined with new military blocs appear to be steps toward sovereignty for some countries.

    Will this produce a new, competing imperialist system? Will this unique situation solidify into two new geopolitical and economic blocs? Are we simply witnessing a deadly realignment of imperialist forces? Yes, to each is possible—unless we bring forward internationalist, working-class revolutionary solutions.

    The U.S. intervention in Eastern Europe, specifically in Ukraine, from 2014 to the present, has centered on promoting a proxy military conflict with Russia. State Department officials recently admitted to this. However, like its invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the results have been mixed for U.S. imperialism. It feels compelled to continue with this dangerous and deadly strategy, unfortunately.

    While the most violent part of that conflict is still in its early stages, many ruling class commentators may already be crying “uncle.” The New York Times recently opined that a negotiated settlement that concedes territory inhabited by Russian-language speakers to Russia might be necessary. Further, to provide promised energy resources to European allies, the U.S. was compelled to walk back its de-humanizing sanctions regime against Cuba and Venezuela.

    On the gain side, the U.S.-Europe faction has drawn more “neutral” Sweden and Finland into its orbit and extracted billions in new contracts for U.S.-based weapons makers from Germany, the U.K., and other countries. But even these gains are fraught with localized contradictions as NATO isn’t an ideologically unified bloc, and its actors hold competing and contradictory interests.

    On the loss side, Russia controls vast amounts of natural gas and petroleum desperately needed in Eastern Europe. Their military power has proven to be far more robust than expected. Their restraint in this war (relative to U.S. “shock and awe” and Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo Bay-level atrocities) has proven disappointing to Western human rights watchers who regularly side with U.S. government interests.

    The petroleum element of this war produces an internal domestic problem for the U.S. government. Rationed resources have driven up prices, even as oil companies look to deepen their already sizeable profits on gas-guzzling U.S. consumers. High prices are another form of deepening exploitation of workers and provoke political instability. The fascists are already exploiting this instability.

    Meanwhile, the Western media and political establishments have soft-pedaled fascist movements that the U.S. has funded and used to spark international conflicts along the Ukraine-Russia border since 2014. Like a page out of the Cold War playbook, the U.S. government has supported extremists painted as “freedom fighters.” Those choices have never ended well for U.S. imperialism, even if it allows them to accomplish short-term goals. Think of the various U.S.-funded drug cartels in Central America (like Noriega’s in Panama), the mujahideen in Central Asia, the “contras” in Nicaragua, and the militarists in Chile, Indonesia, and South Korea.

    End of humanity?

    While the imperialist world system leaders plotted a Ukraine-Russia war, cried crocodile tears about “blonde, blue-eyed” refugees, and pumped billions of dollars into Ukraine to keep the war going. A United Nations call for immediate, urgent global attention to human-caused climate change went almost unheeded.

    UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stated in April 2022 that if the world continues on its present course, humans can expect new levels of suffering due to “unprecedented heatwaves, terrifying storms, widespread water shortages, and the extinction of a million species of plants and animals.” He referred to a report by the International Panel on Climate Change that showed swift and deep action is needed within the next couple of years to turn back the worst effects of the changing climate.

    Few within the U.S. political class seem concerned, let alone capable of leveraging the sorts of emissions reductions needed to protect human life. Indeed, maintaining world system dominance appears to be their only operating concern.

    What do we do with these contradictions? They show us that imperialism cannot cure itself. Imperialism cannot deliver human rights and dignity to the people it regularly exploits and oppresses. Capitalism cannot end racism or stop mass killers motivated by racist theories. It cannot suspend its need for racist super-exploitation or its exploitation and destruction of natural resources, like the air we breathe, water, and soil in which we plant crops.

    We have no time to celebrate the failure of capitalism to solve the problems it has created.

    The working class, especially its socialist and communist parties, can fight for more prominent organizations, clearer analysis, and class leadership. The socialization of labor on a global scale creates unprecedented levels of working-class power. It is the one lever with which we can move the immovable force of ruling class power and resolve the major contradictions of the present to change this world into something new. When working-class power becomes the supreme power in the world system, we have the means to win peace, avoid climate disasters, reduce exploitation, uplift the national aspirations of the world’s peoples, and bring our values into line with our actions.

    The post Imperialism Cannot Solve Our Problems first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • It’s Showtime in Ukraine!

    Let our bleeding proxy negotiate a settlement, NOW.

    Since early January, the corporate media have been proving their loyalty and their usefulness to the US foreign policy establishment. With faultless show-business efficiency, they manufactured an international political superstar, at least in Europe and the English speaking world. Vladimir Zelensky appeared on media screens, seemingly everywhere, including a turn on the 2022 Grammy Awards extravaganza.

    Sad but resolute Ukrainian refugees became fodder for a blend of news and entertainment that firmly established, in our hearts and minds, who were the Good Guys and who were the Evil Monsters.

    And we were encouraged to see that, sooner or later, the Ukrainian Good Guys were going to prevail over the brutal Russian fiends.

    But lately there have been some tiny cracks in the wall of totalitarian perception management. And now ….

    It’s time. It’s time to recognize the reality. It’s time for our bleeding proxy-warrior Ukraine to negotiate with Russia, in good faith, before it loses everything.

    Right off the bat, many readers will exclaim, “You can’t negotiate with Russia! The Russians are guilty of unprovoked and unjustified aggression.”

    Unprovoked and unjustified. Like an ancient Greek theatrical chorus, the corporate media have repeated that line until, now, it’s stuck permanently in our synapses. An ear worm, like a catchy melody.

    I’d ask those media-addled opponents of diplomacy to imagine, just for a moment, a hypothetical situation: First, make sure you have a complete grasp of the drama’s exposition, the entire, contrived, set of circumstances which the President of Russia was facing on February 24, 2022.

    Remember that the clever script writers of the US foreign policy elite had employed their best calculated, cold-blooded cunning to devise the perfect diplomatic double-bind for the drama’s Russian villain. (And, of course, they had choreographed their NATO dance line, to give their “diplomacy” the illusion of legitimacy.)

    Now, ask yourself whether any American President, facing a comparable dramatic conflict, would have acted differently?

    Or pretend, for a moment, that Winston Churchill, hero of numerous epic films, is, through the magic of your imagination, the President of the Russian Federation. Do you have any doubt that Churchill would have stoutly refused to bow down and appease the US/NATO leadership arrayed against him?

    Azov Battalion fighters with Nazi flag (WikiCommons)

    A second consideration, on the subject of Russia’s trustworthiness as a negotiating partner: The Western powers and their media mouthpieces have contemptuously dismissed Russia’s stated goal of de-Nazifying Ukraine. Western propaganda would have us believe that there is no serious neo-Nazi, ultra-nationalist threat whatsoever in Ukraine.

    To the contrary, a little research reveals that the threat is very real. I’m talking about ferocious, far-right fanatics, who are heavily armed, highly trained, strongly motivated and fiercely disciplined. Their electoral base is small, but that doesn’t matter. In the media-fiction of Ukrainian democracy, with oligarchs pulling many of the strings, the ability to mobilize real-life violence is a powerful tool.

    And we should remember that the US and NATO have been deeply involved in arming and training these forces, since 2014, making them an even more formidable part of Ukraine’s governing power structure. This arming and training took place off-stage, to be played out for an audience only when the time was right — when Russian tanks crossed the Belarus-Ukraine border, and the well-rehearsed Ukrainian military was unleashed, causing awesome, real-world damage and death.

    Not every Ukrainian soldier is a neo-Nazi or a hard-right ethnic cleanser. But I believe it’s fair to say that those elements are the spine of the Ukrainian military. Without them, I doubt that the media-touted under-dog’s esprit de corps would be nearly as robust.

    Let’s do an exercise in make-believe. Take the insurgents who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. As a theatrical event, the staging was a mess. It barely deserved to be called a riot. But that mob of actors was not lacking in motivation. Or raw talent. They clearly believed that their dramatic enactment was real. We in the audience were mesmerized and then relieved, when the play came to a sputtering end.

    Now, picture the actors in that mob again. The Justice Department estimates their number to have been between 2,000 and 2,500. In your mind’s eye, multiply them by twenty-five (40,000 to 50,000).

    Now, arm them. Train them hard. Organize them into squads, platoons, companies, battalions and brigades. Enforce strict discipline. Motivate them with a continued sense of ethnic superiority.

    This little exercise of the dramatist’s imagination, “based upon” our home-grown January 6, should give you some idea of the ultra-right’s strength and influence within the Ukraine power structure.1

    The Russians are very serious about confronting Nazis and ethnic supremacists in that country which sits right on their border. In Vladimir Putin’s February 21st speech to the Russian people, he was not using Ukrainian neo-Nazis as a flimsy pretext in a cheap melodrama.

    The people of Ukraine don’t need any more media spot-lighting. Their plight doesn’t need more daily dramatizing presented as “news.” Ukrainian civilians need a permanent cease-fire. So let the talks begin. And please, remember: We are in no position to judge the sincerity of Russian negotiators, in potential talks, aimed at a peaceful settlement of this bloody conflict. In the fog of war, you never know what might happen until the diplomatic actors take the stage and begin their dialogue. The old cliche applies: You never know until you try.

    The real blockage to peace talks is a triumphalist and misguided NATO and its Godfather in Washington. The US and NATO are going for broke. They are demanding that Ukraine fight on, bleeding and dying, until the US, NATO and their proxy achieve a decisive victory over Russian forces.

    Furthermore, if Zelensky and his foreign policy team decide to negotiate, before they lose even more territory, they risk the wrath of the neo-Nazi, ultra-nationalists who permeate their military and police forces. They will not survive without the Godfather’s protection.

    (See this article in the Kyiv Post, about veteran Ukrainian Donbas fighters confronting Zelensky, warning him, in 2019, NOT to seek peace in the Donbas. This dramatic verbal clash occurred just after his landslide election victory, playing the rôle of “peace candidate.”)

    It’s time. It’s time for President Biden to assume the rôle of statesman. His NATO minions cannot object if Biden tells the government and the people of Ukraine that more billions of dollars worth of weapons will not secure a final battlefield victory over the Russians. Ukraine’s railroads, which are the means of delivering those weapons to frontline fighters, have been severely damaged by Russian air and missile strikes. And the less effective means of transport, heavy trucks, face the obstacle of damaged roads and many destroyed bridges. And finally, as the war grinds on in the Donbas theatre, Ukraine will have fewer and fewer seasoned soldiers to operate the new, more complicated weapons.

    Unless Biden steps in, Ukrainians face, at best, a long, bloody stalemate, which Russia is better prepared to endure. (So far, Russia’s leaders have not called for a nation-wide, general mobilization.) Total victory for Ukraine is a cruel pipe-dream.

    Biden must come clean with Americans and Ukrainians. The two real geopolitical combatants in this war are Russia and the United States. Ukraine is the USA’s tragic, foolish proxy — our poorly prepared understudy. That’s not stage blood we’re seeing on MSNB-CNN. Ukrainians are bleeding and dying while Biden & Co. prolong the agony in a vicious quest to punish and weaken Russia.

    That is no way to ensure future peace. Talk. Now.

    1. From a report on hard right activity in Ukraine since 2014, from FreedomHouse.org:

      … [C]urrent polling data indicates that the far right has no real chance of being elected in the upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections in 2019. Similarly, despite the fact that several of these groups have real life combat experience, paramilitary structures, and even access to arms, they are not ready or able to challenge the state.
      Extremist groups are, however, aggressively trying to impose their agenda on Ukrainian society, including by using force against those with opposite political and cultural views. They are a real physical threat to left-wing, feminist, liberal, and LGBT activists, human rights defenders, as well as ethnic and religious minorities.
      In the last few months, extremist groups have become increasingly active. The most disturbing element of their recent show of force is that so far it has gone fully unpunished by the authorities. Their activities challenge the legitimacy of the state, undermine its democratic institutions, and discredit the country’s law enforcement agencies.

      Freedom House is a non-profit, majority U.S. government funded organization in Washington, D.C., that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights.

    The post It’s Showtime in Ukraine! first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Isolation of Russian Antiwar Academics

    Some professors are speaking out against sanctions, which they say are punishing antiwar academics twice.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  • The Isolation of Russian Antiwar Academics

    Some professors are speaking out against sanctions, which they say are punishing antiwar academics twice.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  • The Fractured Russian Opposition

    A conversation with Ilya Budraitskis on how the invasion of Ukraine has transformed Russian society.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  • Defense Contractors Are Using Tax Dollars to Profit Off War in Ukraine

    If United States taxpayers knew that half the income tax dollars they sent to the Internal Revenue Service every year was being spent on weapons, war and war preparation, political support for such programs might significantly decline. Unfortunately, no agency of the federal government communicates to taxpayers how the Congress spends their money.

    Massachusetts State Rep. Carol Doherty and State Sen. Jo Comerford have introduced a bill into the state legislature, the Taxpayers’ Right to Know Act, supported by Massachusetts Peace Action and allies. The bill instructs the state treasurer to communicate to Massachusetts taxpayers how the state and the federal government spend their income tax dollars. This is a first step toward federal legislation bringing transparency to the Congressional Discretionary Budget.

    Organizers hope to promote such bills in other states, given the roadblock against such open and honest reporting from the federal government. These are small but important first steps in focusing attention on income taxes being used to finance corporate drivers of dangerous and costly nuclear weapons purchases, especially in the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    Ukraine War Profiteering

    Purchasing weapons and military services with taxpayer dollars has always been, and continues to be, a highly profitable endeavor for defense contractors. But it is in a real war, such as in Ukraine, that such profiteering truly thrives.

    President Joe Biden recently sent to Congress his budget proposal for 2023. It included an astounding $813 billion for Pentagon and military expenditures. This is more than half the income taxes citizens send to the federal government each year, and a more than $31 billion increase over the already bloated fiscal year 2022 Pentagon budget. It also more than the defense budgets of the eight next biggest military spenders put together, including Russia, China and India.

    The proposed increase for 2023 was cloaked in the flag of support for Ukrainians, but make no mistake, most of this bloated budget was in the pipeline years back, prior Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    In late April, the president announced a plan to spend another $33 billion for weapons and military supplies for Ukraine. On May 19, Congress quickly passed an even larger $40 billion appropriation, with unanimous Democratic support. This included some humanitarian aid but was primarily for the $20 billion in weapons and weapons support, including Patriot anti-aircraft missiles, Javelin anti-tank missiles and artillery.

    This is closer to the true war budget, with built-in assumptions of material loss and need for replacement. Such expenditures can be even more lucrative than the base Pentagon budget. The weapons shipments to Ukraine will be considered justification for further purchases to maintain the U.S.’s stockpile, according to The New York Times:

    Noting that the more than 5,000 Javelins sent to Ukraine amounted to a third of the administration’s stockpile of anti-tank missiles, Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri asked the pentagon officials … if they were prepared to quickly replace the anti-tank missiles. “It is not only possible; we will do that” said Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III.

    The purchase of weapons and supplies in preparation for war and for maintenance of forces in the field is a singularly lucrative and profitable business because of the cost and nature of most contracts; the guarantee of Pentagon purchases; and the protection from offshore competition, such as industries in China, India or Mexico. During “peacetime,” missiles, artillery shells, airplanes and armored vehicles need to be replaced at a relatively slow rate. This limits the weapons sales market. That is part of the reason for pressure from the industry for “new” weapons to increase their markets.

    Beating the drums of war will enhance the corporate bottom line, as noted by Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes commenting on the benefits to their business of the Ukraine crises:

    We would expect … a benefit to the [Raytheon missiles and defense business] top line” and to the wider business, as defense budgets and replenishment orders increase over the coming years, chief executive Greg Hayes told analysts on the company’s first-quarter earnings call on Tuesday.

    Too often during Pentagon budget debates, foreign policy “concerns” obscure the driving imperative coming from the weapons industries. As The Nation pointed reported, at the onset of the invasion of Iraq,

    Even before US troops arrived in Baghdad, looting broke out — in Washington. While Republicans in Congress and their allies in the media yammered about the need to silence dissent and “support the troops,” corporations with close ties to the Bush Administration were quietly arranging to ink lucrative contracts that would put them in charge of reconstructing Iraq. Bechtel’s contract, worth up to $680 million, to rebuild Iraqi roads, schools, sewers and hospitals drew a lot of media attention, but it was chump change compared with the deal greased through by Vice President [Dick] Cheney’s old oil-services firm, Halliburton.

    Historians of World War II, often fail to emphasize the role of the major Japanese and German major manufacturing industries in driving their country’s war efforts. As long as the war continued, these businesses were guaranteed continuing weapons sale to their governments and military forces.

    U.S. naval historians note that the Japanese Kamikaze attacks were very wasteful, since both plane and pilot were lost and neither could engage in further sorties. But in fact, they were not wasteful for corporations like Mitsubishi, since every fighter lost meant a new sale to the Japanese government.

    The Pentagon Budget Is Only Peripherally for Protecting Ukrainians

    Earlier this year Congress voted $768 billion as the 2022 Defense authorization. Such bloated budgets have been voted for many years and are not a response to events in China, Ukraine or any actual foreign or military threat. Thus the 2021 Congressional Discretionary Budget was voted in 2020, long before the Ukraine conflict.

    Among the most expensive items — more than $34 billion — are the upgrades of all three legs of the U.S. nuclear triad: land-based intercontinental ballistic missile systems, nuclear-armed submarines and long-range bombers. Unfortunately, nuclear saber rattling by Russia and North Korea provides cover for these expenditures. These upgraded weapons systems won’t be operable for many years. They cannot be used to protect Ukrainians from their neighbors, Afghans from the Taliban, or South Koreans from the North Korean government.

    The presence of thousands of U.S. nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert hasn’t prevented the North Korean regime from moving ahead with their nuclear programs; Britain’s nuclear weapons did not prevent the Argentinian government from occupying the Falkland Islands; Russia’s nuclear weapons didn’t deter Chechen rebels from attacking Russia. Neither India nor Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals have deterred each other’s militants from attacking one another across the contested Srinagar boundary in Kashmir. Despite claims to the contrary, nuclear weapons cannot protect the people of Ukraine, who would be decimated in a nuclear exchange.

    Given that these weapons cannot be used in any conventional war, and if used would be disastrous for the U.S. public, why are our tax dollars being invested in upgraded nuclear weapons? The answer has nothing to do with foreign policy — the red herring used to justify the expenditures. These purchases are better understood as the business plan of the nuclear weapons and military-industrial-congressional complex, guaranteeing high profitability. As President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned Americans more than 60 years ago, our congressional budget has fallen fully under the control of a narrow segment of U.S. corporations.

    More than half of the Pentagon appropriation goes to large defense contractors, of which the leaders are Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman. Together, they reaped $198 billion in taxpayer funds last year alone. In 2020, the top 100 contractors took in $551 billion.

    The profits of these corporations are guaranteed by costly contracts; legislation prohibiting awarding such contracts to foreign firms, assuring virtual monopolies; and national security criteria used to prevent auditing and close fiscal oversight.

    At the same time Congress voted some $782 billion for Pentagon accounts, they couldn’t find the $5-$10 billion needed to insure that vaccination against COVID-19 is available to all Americans.

    One of the components of the bloated $782 Pentagon budget is for purchase of new nuclear-armed submarines, even though the U.S. already has 14 lethal Ohio Class submarines, each capable of launching 192 nuclear warheads. Cancelling two of these unnecessary and provocative new weapons systems would save more than $10 billion. This would easily provide the funds needed to insure vaccination for all Americans from COVID, and also to finance vaccines for those in under-developed economies.

    The pie chart below shows the division of the Congressional Discretionary Budget for 2021 — pre-Ukraine — among competing agencies and programs including the Defense Department, Veterans Affairs, the Department of Health and Human Services, food stamps, agricultural subsidies, the Department of Energy (nuclear weapons) and the National Science Foundation. (The discretionary budget does not include the two major mandatory funds Medicare and Social Security. These are trust funds — citizens pay in and hopefully are paid back. Congress cannot use these funds for other purposes.) A number of the categories in the annual congressional budget (from income taxes) are labelled here:

    Federal Discretionary Spending Fiscal Year 2021

    This pie chart from the National Priorities Project shows the allocation of our Congressional Discretionary Budget among diverse categories for the 2021 fiscal year, voted on in 2020, prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The military sector is underestimated, since a number of military-related programs, such as nuclear weapons and foreign military aid, are listed under domestic programs.

    The single most important fact is that more than half of the income taxes remitted to the U.S government are spent on Pentagon accounts. In general, citizens are not aware of the scale of these expenditures. Though the government is aggressive in collecting income taxes, no agency of the government reports back to the taxpayers how their tax dollars are spent. Thus, many Americans assume that taking care of service men and women wounded in war or other military actions are covered by the defense budget. In fact, Veterans Affairs and veterans’ hospitals are part of the civilian or “domestic” budget, often squeezed by pressures of the military-industrial-congressional complex to increase funding for the Pentagon.

    Pentagon Spending Versus Preventing Disease

    It’s very difficult to grasp the impact of a $782 billion Pentagon budget. One approach is to compare it to other appropriations. For the past two years, our nation and all the nations of the world have faced the crises of the COVID pandemic. The virus has killed more than 1,000,000 Americans. How did this happen in the wealthy, technologically advanced U.S., the world leader in biomedical research and development, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals?

    One major reason has been the failure to invest in a robust health care and public health system, as well as the failure to develop a comprehensive national testing and vaccination policies. However, a source of the failure to invest in these sectors has been to the diversion of tax dollars in the Congressional Discretionary Budget to Pentagon accounts. The development of diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics rests on the research federally financed through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), entirely dependent on annual congressional appropriations.

    The NIH budget of about $45 billion is responsible for developing prevention and cures of all the diseases that afflict us — cancer, heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and many others. Let’s consider only the health burden and social impacts on our population of people afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease. More than 6.5 million Americans suffer from this tragic and debilitating illness with the numbers steadily increasing. Alzheimer’s patients accounted for some 20 percent of Medicare and Medicaid’s budgets, more than $250 billion a year. Unfortunately the NIH investment in searching for a underlying mechanisms, more reliable diagnosis and more effective therapies was for 2020 on the order of $2.8 billion per year.

    Given the human suffering and debilitating social and economic impacts, this is clearly an inadequate investment. For a social cost of $250 billion, perhaps 10 percent of the $250 billion in medical costs — $25 billion — would approach a sound and humane NIH research budget. Though Congress couldn’t find it in the budget to appropriate such funds. Instead, they are sending $33 billion in primarily military aid to Ukraine.

    Many millions of Americans face suffering and death from these ills would be saved if we understood these diseases more deeply and invested more. There is no comparison between the health value of $45 billion NIH investments with the $782 billion defense budget. The new bombers, submarines and missiles don’t house us, don’t clothe us, don’t get us to work, don’t cure or prevent disease, and don’t protect our environment or climate.

    Sadly, these Pentagon expenditures will also not increase national security, at home or abroad. Rather, they will increase the chance of a devastating nuclear weapons exchange. They represent not the needs of the people, but the business plan of the military-industrial complex, which President Eisenhower so tellingly warned us against on leaving office, and scholar Seymour Melman described in detail in The Permanent War Economy.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Paradigm for Peace Applied to Ukraine: Proposal for a Peaceful Pathway Forward (Part 2A)

    Part 2A. Russian Fears for Life

    In the Paradigm for Peace model, the Roots of Violence are divided into seven categories. While a few of the categories aren’t as easily divided into defensive and aggressive motivations, for the most part, we examine how each party to the conflict may be defensively motivated or aggressively motivated to inflict violence with regard to each category. For example, with regard to the category Wealth, Land, and Possessions, a person using violence to protect his home from attack has a defensive motivation to use violence. A person using violence to attack another person’s home to seize that other person’s wealth and belongings has an aggressive motivation to use violence.

    Matters can get complicated, and it can sometimes be quite difficult to distinguish between defensive and aggressive. Sometimes the motivations are mixed within a single person or appear defensive or aggressive simply depending upon one’s perspective. However, without getting all harried about trying to figure out who exactly is motivated by what, it’s hugely helpful to be generally aware of these two categories of violence and to think in these terms so that we never rule out the possibility of legitimate motives in the so-called bad guys and illegitimate motives in the so-called good guys.

    Most importantly, it’s crucial to have policy solutions that address both Defensive and Aggressive Roots of Violence. After all, if US foreign policymakers’ policies are always based on the assumption that terrorists, Iranians, North Koreans, left-wing Latinos, and Russians are aggressive and malicious, then US policymakers will never implement policies that help address the very real and legitimate Defensive Roots of Violence in the so-called enemies. Also, note that while Defensive Roots of Violence have legitimate motivations, the use of violence for defensive reasons isn’t necessarily legitimate, especially if there are non-violent means to protect what’s under threat.

    In the condensed analysis below, I tend to spend more time writing about the Defensive Roots of Russian Violence and the Aggressive Roots of US Violence, rather than the Aggressive Roots of Russian Violence and the Defensive Roots of US Violence. This imbalance is largely due to the fact that I’m much more aware of these particular roots of violence for these nations. I’m not deliberately hiding anything to create this imbalance but am sharing what I know. This angle also helps place a counterweight to the dominant narrative in the US media that Russia is aggressive and the US and the Ukrainian government are defensive. However, please understand that in a full analysis with cooperative dialogue, equal attention should be paid to all sides’ defensive fears and all sides’ aggressive motivations.

    In this essay, we’ll look at the first of seven categories: Life and Safety.

    If we were creating a quick chart of the Roots of Violence, we’d list down the left side of the chart the seven categories. Across the top, we’d write in the names of the players in the external and internal conflict. We’d look at the first category, Life and Safety. How do people feel that the lives and safety of those they care about are under threat?

    For example, let’s start with Russia. We’d list under Russia’s and President Vladimir Putin’s fears for life several items. NATO has expanded straight across Europe into Slavic lands and former Soviet republics. This is obviously a severe threat to Russia’s survival. After all, NATO was formed precisely to combat the USSR, and now NATO is in Poland, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. It’s as if the American Southwest seceded, allied with Mexico, and deployed missiles in Texas aimed at Washington, DC.

    While those who support NATO may think of NATO’s expansion as enhancing US and European security, they fail to recognize the psychological ramifications of NATO on potential enemies: its existence topped by its expansion could easily cause physical insecurity by creating an ever-present threat to Russia. Emotional insecurity can lead to hostility, thus augmenting physical insecurity. And that, in fact, has happened with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    This failure to sympathize with an enemy’s perspective, to be able to imagine an enemy’s feelings of being threatened, to respect the need for another’s emotional and psychological security, is the Achilles Heel of US foreign policymakers, who perpetually only think of how to control and dominate enemies. It’s the Achilles Heel because, by provoking rather than alleviating tension in the so-called enemy, US foreign policymakers actually weaken US security, weaken respect and genuine friendship for the US, and weaken the international foundations of democracy—caring equally for all. The resulting policies are also extremely costly and deadly. This is why in cooperative dialogue, or right now in this essay, it’s important for us to practice really sinking into Russia’s shoes and pretending we’re the leader of Russia, feeling these threats, and determined to protect our people.

    When NATO expands, it means more than just a picture on the map of NATO covering nearly all of Europe. It means that physical weapons and military bases to potentially be used against Russia have also expanded in coverage across the continent. For example, Lockheed Martin’s Aegis Ashore Mark 41 Vehicle Land System with its SM-3 Block IIA missile interceptors has been deployed in Romania and Poland by the US through NATO. This system is capable of intercepting and destroying an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), thereby theoretically rendering ineffective Russia’s missiles and the strategy of mutual deterrence. If Russia can no longer feel safe, it will feel the need to develop more weapons and new strategies.

    Moreover, the Mark 41 VLS, while allegedly intended solely for defensive purposes, could be fitted with aggressive weapons. 1 Making the weapon-imposed threat even more precarious is the fact that the Trump administration withdrew in 2018 from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which had previously regulated land-based ballistic missiles and missile launchers. Even more ominous are the joint US-Ukrainian and NATO-Ukrainian military training in the nations and seas bordering Russia. 2

    US policymakers and media makers have denied Russia’s accusations of US chemical and biological weapon intentions in Ukraine, but with US policymakers and media makers so untruthful about so many things, even the representation of Putin’s essay, and with a terrible documented record throughout the decades of US presidential administrations lying to the American people and Congress, we would be foolish simply to believe these denials on faith alone. Therefore, we should open-mindedly consider these Russian reports and predictions. Russia’s Ministry of Defense recently claimed that forces loyal to Kiev are preparing a chemical attack in eastern Ukraine. Russia has also previously warned of chemical weapons being stored in Ukraine. US policy and media makers, as they have done repeatedly and without proof, reverse Russia’s claims and state that Russia is using its claim as a pretext for its own planned chemical attack. 3

    As civilians, how can we know the truth? Who’s preparing a chemical attack? Is anyone? It’s impossible for us to know. But we should understand one thing that’s based upon a long record of US government lies to the American people: there is absolutely no reason to believe US policymakers more than Russian policymakers. Just because we are Americans and each of us may be truthful does not mean that American policymakers are truthful. Our individual identities as Americans are not melded with the identities of US policymakers. They are strangers to us and we do not know them at heart.

    Russia has also released documents that allegedly prove that Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, has played a significant role in providing and seeking funding for a military biological program, particularly with the labs of Black & Veatch and Metabiota, in Ukraine. According to Russia’s Defense Minister Igor Kirillov, the Pentagon issued contracts with a number of labs, including Black & Veatch, Metabiota, and CH2M Hill, for this military biological program. Investors in the program have included Hunter Biden, his investment fund Seneca Rosemont, and George Soros and his Open Society Foundation. Documents have reportedly revealed Hunter Biden’s close connections with both the labs and with the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the part of the Department of Defense engaged in the biological weapons program.

    In the past, the Russian Defense Ministry has repeatedly drawn attention to the Pentagon’s military biological programs in former Soviet republics, including Ukraine. During its invasion, Russia found more than 30 biological laboratories in Ukraine, some of which may be for military purposes. In fact, Russia reports that it has found traces of a biological weapons program in the labs, which Ukraine reportedly was desperately trying to hide.4 Again, although US policymakers deny such an operation, they obviously would never admit it if it were true. And in the current climate, in which US policymakers automatically dismiss every single one of Russia’s fears as absurd, even the obviously valid ones, we cannot gauge the validity of Russia’s fears based upon US denials of their legitimacy.

    In fact, a reading of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (2000) by Project for a New American Century is enough to be jolted into awareness of the ardent enthusiasm the neoconservative writers feel for conquering several other nations, for enhancing and preserving US hegemony, and for developing weapons including pocket-sized robots to be let loose on enemy territory, skin-patch pharmaceuticals to negate fear in US troops, and biological weapons to target specific genotypes—a recipe, perhaps, for genocide.  5

    PNAC is defunct, but one of its co-founders, William Kristol, is an advisor to the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a neoconservative-liberal hawk mix of individuals that has the singular mission of thwarting, weakening, and basically destroying Putin.  PNAC’s other co-founder, Robert Kagan, is the husband of Biden’s Undersecretary of State, Victoria Nuland, infamous for the leaked tapes at the time of the 2014 Ukrainian coup. She is also the former CEO of the similarly-sounding Center for a New American Security. To deny that US policymakers have the intention to develop biological weapons seems unwise.

    In the column of our chart under Russian fears, we might also include the US-built Ukrainian naval base on the Black Sea, particularly because of the US ties. We could include Russian and German news reports of the presence in 2015 of US private military contractors connected with Academi in Ukraine training far right-wing Ukrainian extremists.  6 We also might investigate whether there were further results from meetings between Ukraine’s President Zelenskiy and Erik Prince, former head of the infamous Blackwater, regarding the development of a private military contract in Ukraine. 7

    Instead of dismissing these fears as “phony”—as US policymakers and media makers perpetually do—we’d recognize the validity of each of these fears. This is how kind, responsible people treat others with fears. They listen to the fears, whether rational or irrational, until they understand the other’s feelings. Then they help them address these fears. Had the tables been turned with all of these military alliances, bases, weapons, and military drills transpiring along US borders or in former US territories or states, US policymakers would have been quaking in their boots long before this. The Russians have shown remarkable restraint.

    The Russians also are not stupid and, unlike Uncle Sam, they’re not prone to war. They’re very unlikely to invade anywhere unless they’re feeling severely threatened by realistic, actual threats. They know full well from experience that any invasion attempt will be severely skewed by Western propaganda to make them look bad. With that in mind, it behooves us to seriously examine Russia’s and Putin’s fears, including the threats of chemical and biological weapons, for only something severely threatening must have drawn Russia out.

    If Russian fears seem rational, participants should try to create solutions to give Russians valid reasons to no longer fear. Americans can’t simply say, “Trust us.” They have to provide valid reasons not based merely upon trust. If Russian fears come across through discussion as more irrational, then participants should work together supportively to uncover the psychological reasons for these irrational fears.

    In dialogue, participants would discuss these fears and really try to step into Russia’s shoes to understand why these factors are mortally threatening. Participants would ideally reverse roles, or reverse the scenario and imagine a similar situation occurring to the US in reverse, such as if Alaska seceded, allied with Russia, and deployed missile launchers aimed at Washington, DC. The goal here is understanding and empathy—not control or intimidation of the other side, and certainly not dismissal of another’s fears as absurd.

    For all those foreign policymakers who believe understanding and empathizing with others’ fears—especially enemies’ fears—is not appropriate to foreign policy, I suggest you find another line of work.

    In light of these Russian fears, consider that statement made by Defense Secretary Austin, who expressed his belief that the US needs to “weaken” Russia “to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”8 Austin totally misses the point: Russia invaded because it felt militarily threatened and it felt Ukrainians’ lives in Donetsk and Lugansk were threatened. Russia invaded because it felt existentially threatened by expanding US and NATO domination in Eastern Europe and Ukraine and by threats to Ukrainian lives in Donetsk and Lugansk. Why make it feel even more threatened by insisting that Russia become militarily weaker? It doesn’t make sense.

    US policymakers persistently demonstrate zero capacity for understanding human dynamics. Their answer to those who resent US domination is always more US domination. Is it because US foreign policymakers want to dominate so completely that no significant signs of resistance are possible? But why? Is this some misguided attempt to seek pseudo-popularity by forcing itself upon those who don’t want it? Are policymakers mistaking domination for being liked and accepted? Is this craze for domination in part the result of clumsy social skills magnified by a billion? What on Earth is going on with these people in power?

    And why wasn’t Austin’s idea of weakening an improperly-behaving nation to prevent future misbehavior suggested after the US invasion of Iraq? Or Afghanistan? Or Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, and Korea? Or after the first weapon shipment to the contras in Nicaragua? After the very first US extrajudicial drone attack? After the very first CIA coup? As far as I can see, the answer is that US foreign policymakers do not support justice. They support themselves.

    To continue with our chart, we should include for Putin the fear of assassination, which he likely feels. After all, the CIA and its paid foreign agents are infamous for their assassinations which they inflict with impunity, as described in several books and articles, including William Blum’s Killing Hope.  9  The venomous anti-Putin US propaganda which falsely depicts him as both cruel and stupid, the economic sabotage against Russia by means of sanctions and shutting off Nord Stream 2, the cutting off of money to Russia, and even the collaboration with neo-Nazis are all reminiscent of the CIA’s propaganda and economic war against Chile’s President Salvador Allende. With its lies and economic tactics, the CIA helped foment riots and also funded the fascist Patria y Libertad thugs to help with the 9/11/1973 coup, in which Allende was killed. Patria y Libertad also helped ensure a gory aftermath for tens of thousands of civilians of Chile. A coup in Russia is obviously hoped for by American leaders. The blatantly propagandistic program by Infographics, “Russia’s Big Problem with Ukraine,” even portrays with its paper cut-out art a group of Russian troops leveling their weapons at a man intended to be Putin.10

    We should also include for Putin’s and Russia’s fears some of the ideas Putin set forth in his February 2007 Munich speech, including Putin’s disappointment that the US and NATO nations failed to ratify the newly adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty. The original treaty of 1987 between Russian President Gorbachev and US President Reagan was adapted in 1999 to reflect the expansion of NATO and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. However, only Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan signed the new treaty.

    It was an important treaty for Russia because NATO had expanded to include the nations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovenia, but these nations were not parties to the original treaty. After years of hoping the other nations would sign, Russia pulled out of the treaty in December 2007. If the Baltic nations on the border of Russia were not required to observe the treaty, it didn’t make sense for Russia to observe it either. Russia blamed the West for not signing. The US and NATO nations blamed Russia for not complying with certain terms. Either way, one would think that intelligent negotiators talented in integrative negotiation could have worked something out.11

    In the 2007 speech, Putin also expresses the dangers of weapon proliferation, nuclear arms, weapons in space, and the hyper-use of force by the US government. Putin offered Russia’s cooperation in disarmament, 12 but instead of reciprocation, his honorable speech was instead followed by a 15-year anti-Putin campaign 13 and by the continuation of US policies of proliferating weapons, revitalizing its nuclear arsenal, preparing for weapons in space, and favoring the hyper-use of force, by US troops and private military contractors.

    After really sinking into Russia’s shoes to feel these fears, we’d step out of those shoes and then step into the shoes of Americans who mortally fear Russia. Now I’ll admit right here that I don’t understand US fears, so in this essay I won’t be able to fairly represent those fears. However, in an actual cooperative dialogue, the idea is to ensure it includes people who can sincerely represent US fears, both as American civilians and as US policymakers from groups such as the Alliance for Securing Democracy. Just as we did with Russia and Putin, we’d all sink into these people’s shoes and feel their fears and sincerely try to see their logic as they do. As with Russian fears, there may not be agreement as to which fears are rational and which are irrational. However, participants will try to provide valid reasons for Americans not to mortally fear Russia, and they’d also work together to try to uncover psychological reasons for irrational fears, including decades of propaganda and social dynamics within US culture.

    So we’d ask, during the decade or two prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and also since the invasion, have any Americans felt their lives and safety were threatened by Russia? If so, how exactly? Did Americans or other NATO members feel the need for NATO expansion in order to feel safe and sleep peacefully at night? Was there disagreement amongst NATO members? Ukraine and Russia had improved their relations in 2010, when Ukraine officially abandoned the goal of joining NATO.14  Was the abandonment of this goal threatening to Americans? Which ones? Why?

    Did any Americans feel a sense of lethal danger and an urgent need to send weapons to the Ukrainian government to fight in its civil war? Do Americans feel their current fears are connected with the decades of anti-Soviet Cold War propaganda? Did they think of the USSR as malicious, belligerent, and untrustworthy then and do they think of Russia as malicious, belligerent, and untrustworthy now? What fatal scenario do some American civilians or policymakers fear could result from Russia’s actions?

    Whether fears are rational or irrational, we must spend time in dialogue learning about the nature and causes of these American fears. They won’t go away just by dismissing them as absurd. And, frankly, I also don’t think they’ll go away by merely continuing an arms race, sending weapons, and devising lethal strategies for use against Russia. While weapons are one component of security, they’re not even half of what it takes to feel emotionally and psychologically secure and to actually be secure. That type of security requires—not the transfer to nations far and wide of an American form of plutocratic pseudo-democracy pinned upon elections, capitalism, privatization, globalization, and US dominance—but rather egalitarian justice, mutual understanding, and genuine friendship.

    It’s not only foreigners who need these components to feel secure, it’s Americans. This is probably why US policymakers have been forever on this wild goose chase for security: they’re feeding an insatiable need for security that is insatiable precisely because they’re feeding it all the wrong food. They seek domination when what they need is friendship. They insist that others understand US goals and serve US interests, when what they really need is two-way mutual understanding and caring. They’re giving themselves junk food when what they really need are all the root vegetables of a big bowl of borsch.

    Within Ukraine, we should ask Ukrainians from a range of perspectives how they felt about billions of dollars of US and NATO weapon shipments arriving since the civil war began in 2014. Did these weapons help them feel safer? Did they protect them from harm? Or did they put Ukrainians in greater danger from other Ukrainians and from Russia? Would Ukrainians be suffering now if the weapons had never been sent? Do Ukrainians feel the weapons helped resolve the problems that caused the civil war or did they make the problems worse? Did Ukrainian government members all agree that they wanted to receive US and NATO weapons? Or not? Were the weapons placed in responsible hands? What effect did US and NATO weapon shipments have on the effectiveness and strength of any formal or grassroots non-violent conflict resolution initiatives that may have been unfolding, including the Minsk Agreements?

    We should also ask whether Russian weapons were sent to Donetsk and Lugansk, as the West claims. If so, how did these weapons make various Ukrainians feel with regard to their safety? Better or worse? The same set of questions we asked about US and NATO weapons should be asked about Russian weapons.

    In the next part, we’ll look at threats to life within Ukraine with regard to the violence of Ukrainian ultranationalists.

    Read Part 1 here

    1. Jack Detsch, “Putin’s Fixation with an Old-School US Missile Launcher,” Foreign Policy, January 12, 2022; Tass Russian News Agency, “Russia Slams US Aegis Ashore Missile Deployment in Europe as Direct Breach of INF Treaty,” November 26, 2016; and Ankit Panda, “A New US Missile Defense Test May Have Increased the Risk of Nuclear War,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, November 19, 2020.
    2. NATO, “NATO and Ukraine Navy Together in the Fight against Piracy,” October 30, 2013; and Reuters, “Ukraine Holds Military Drills with US Forces, NATO Allies,” September 20, 2021.
    3. Russia Today, “American Mercenaries Preparing ‘Chemical Weapon’ Incident in Eastern Ukraine, Russia Claims,” December 21, 2021; and Paul D. Shinkman, “Fears of False Flag Operation Grow as Russia Claims Ukraine Poised for Chemical Weapons Attack,” May 6, 2022.
    4. Al Mayadeen, “Russia Releases Documents in US-Funded Bio-Weapons, Hunter Biden Exposed,” March 31, 2022; and Al Mayadeen, “Russian Forces Find 30 Biological Labs in Ukraine, Possibly for Bioweapons,” March 7, 2022.
    5. Project for the New American Century (PNAC), “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt, Project Co-Chairmen; Thomas Donnelly, Principal Author, (Washington, DC, 2000).
    6. Tass, “Militia Claim Spotting up to 70 Mercenaries of US Military Company Academi in East Ukraine,” April 21, 2015.
    7. Simon Shuster, “Exclusive: Documents Reveal Erik Prince’s $10 Billion Plan to Make Weapons and Create a Private Army in Ukraine,” Time, July 7, 2021.
    8. Julian Boyer, “Pentagon Chief’s Russia Remarks Show Shift in US’s Declared Aims in Ukraine,” Guardian, April 26, 2022.
    9. William Blum, Killing Hope, (London: Zed, 2014).
    10. Infographic Show, “Russia’s Big Problem with Ukraine,” April 8, 2022.
    11. Daryl Kimball, contact, “The Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty and the Adapted CFE Treaty at a Glance,” Arms Control Association, last reviewed August 2017.
    12. Vladimir Putin, Munich Security Conference, February 11, 2007.
    13. Diana Johnstone, “For Washington, War Never Ends,” Consortium News, March 16, 2022.
    14. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, “Svoboda Party”.
    The post Paradigm for Peace Applied to Ukraine: Proposal for a Peaceful Pathway Forward (Part 2A) first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A new generation of US-trained extremists is fighting Russia. Are we prepared for the blowback?

    Today, the CIA, US Special Forces, and other branches of government are training regular units in Ukraine. With US support, far-right elements of those units go on to train and recruit for Nazi paramilitary units and gangs. White nationalist Americans are allowed to travel to Ukraine and train paramilitaries and/or receive training, depending on the individual or group. State-corporate media have confirmed the existence of a major CIA training program involving “irregular” (i.e., terrorist) warfare, but we do not yet know the name of the operation.

    As Alex Rubinstein reported for The Grayzone, corporate US media has promoted known US white nationalists fighting in Ukraine as heroes, while whitewashing their records of murder and political violence. And while the Department of Homeland Security expresses “concern” over potential blowback when these openly fascist combat veterans return to the US, the administration of Joseph Biden appears to be doing nothing to stop them from making their way to the battlefield.

    The US program in Ukraine bears such striking similarities to Operation Cyclone it could be dubbed “Cyclone 2.0”. The nature of the proxy war has all but been admitted by former US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and the endgame of regime change in nuclear-armed Russia has been acknowledged by President Joe Biden.

    The post A new generation of US-trained extremists is fighting Russia. Are we prepared for the blowback? appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Corporate Media Is Leaving Pro-Negotiation Voices Out of Ukraine-Russia Reports

    Russian missiles struck Ukraine’s capital of Kyiv for the first time in over a month on Sunday. This comes as Russian and Ukrainian forces continue to battle over control of the eastern city of Severodonetsk and Russian President Vladimir Putin is warning Western nations against supplying longer-range missile systems to Ukraine. “The longer this war goes on, the much more difficult it is to end it,” says Katrina vanden Heuvel, editorial director and publisher of The Nation magazine and columnist for The Washington Post. Vanden Heuvel says U.S. corporate media is responsible for what she calls a “one-sided debate” on Ukraine, which is greenlighting unprecedented spending on weapons over the importance of negotiations.

    TRANSCRIPT

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

    AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show in Ukraine, where Russian missiles struck the capital Kyiv for the first time in over a month Sunday. This came as Russian and Ukrainian forces continue to battle over control of the city of Severodonetsk in eastern Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says Russian forces now occupy roughly one-fifth of Ukraine. On Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned Western nations against supplying longer-range missiles to Ukraine.

    PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: [translated] If the longer-range missiles are going to be supplied, we’ll make certain conclusions and use our own means of destruction, which we have enough to strike at those targets which we have not yet been hitting.

    AMY GOODMAN: Putin’s comment comes after the United States announced it approved a $700 million security assistance package for Ukraine, including four High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems.

    Meanwhile, has said, quote, “We must not humiliate Russia so that the day when the fighting stops we can build an exit ramp through diplomatic means” — that said by French President Emmanuel Macron. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s foreign minister criticized Macron’s comments, saying, quote, “Calls to avoid humiliation of Russia can only humiliate France and every other country that would call for it.”

    For more, we’re joined by Katrina vanden Heuvel, publisher of The Nation magazine, columnist for The Washington Post. Her recent piece there is headlined “We need a real debate about the Ukraine war.”

    Welcome, Katrina. Lay out your argument.

    KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: Well, I think what we’ve seen, Amy, over these last years is that the corporate media has a one-sided debate. You don’t hear from informed, analytical scholars or writers who are not there to justify but to provide history and context about what we’re witnessing today in the proxy war, but the war between Ukraine and Russia. And there’s a marginalization of those voices and a preference for voices which are about how to escalate the war, how to cover the military, not cover the history. And I think the venerable journalist Walter Lippmann once said, “When all think alike, no one thinks very much.” And that seems to be the framework in what we’re witnessing. And I think it’s very important that there’s not an intellectual no-fly zone, even while understanding how barbaric, how illegal the Russian war against Ukraine is.

    But this war is going to end, and how it ends is a matter of discussion that isn’t being shown in any real way on our screens in corporate media. I will say there have been a few cracks. May 19th, The New York Times ran an important editorial raising questions about what U.S. strategy is. And there have been a few articles in these last days which begin to question concerned about an unlimited war. We’ve now put through about — the United States, Amy, you mentioned the $70 million. There are — $57 billion has been given to Ukraine in these last months and years. And the question of where that money is going and how that may escalate a protracted war between — with a nuclear power, I think, is critical to raise, to understand and provide context for.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, comment on Macron’s comments this weekend —

    KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: Yeah.

    AMY GOODMAN: — saying, “Do not humiliate Russia.” The significance of this, and also Putin saying, “If you send these advanced missile systems to Ukraine, we’re going to hit places we haven’t touched yet”?

    KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: So, we’re into more than a hundred days. It’s clear, as Zelensky said, that Russia now controls maybe 20% of Ukraine, but Russia seems to be settling into the eastern part, Severodonetsk, and this is the Donetsk region, Luhansk, Donetsk republics. And I think that that is a measure of where you see parameters for a peace agreement. And I just want to say something which I think is quasi-subversive. A negotiation is not appeasement. And I think what’s happening with the provision of weapons may well be, as some argue, that Ukraine needs more leverage to come to the negotiating table. That’s an argument. But there are — it’s time now to really push for high-level diplomatic initiatives, which have happened, Amy.

    Macron maybe saying we shouldn’t “humiliate” Putin might have been the wrong word, but, you know, what’s interesting to me is there’s all this talk of how unified the Western alliance has been, how NATO allies are so unified. But, in fact, what we’re witnessing here, it seems to me, is a division between what Donald Rumsfeld during the Iraq War called old and new Europe. New Europe — Baltics, Eastern European countries — fearful, having been occupied by the Soviet Union, of Russian aggression, witnessing Ukraine, but France, Germany — and it’s not just the gas and oil, but it’s a sense that they live on the same continent, that there needs to be agreement and not a kind of sundering or instability, because it’s lost here, but this war, again, is going to end, and what emerges will be — whether it’s mutual security or constant insecurity and instability, again, with nuclear-armed weapons, is, I think, a very fundamental issue, and Macron was right to raise this.

    AMY GOODMAN: Katrina, you have been studying Russia and in Russia for decades. What sense do you have of the Russian public and where they stand right now, the significance of high-level officials differing from — one even quitting over this — and any pressure that you think is effective from within that’s being placed on Putin?

    KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: So critical, Amy, to talk about pressure from within the Russian opposition. The Russian government has worked hard to chill, to repress the protest that first erupted after the Ukrainian war. Many Russians have relatives in Ukraine, family. And I think there was a shock in the first instance. There has been a rallying to the Russian government, partly because of the propagandistic state television portraying now that it’s a proxy war. It’s easier for Russians to fix on fighting NATO, the U.S. than Ukraine. I have a friend outside of Moscow who says she feels doubly shamed. She’s shamed by her government, but she’s also shamed by the United States, NATO stigmatizing and, it seems, demonizing of all Russians, not understanding there are those who oppose this war.

    There are also what we saw during the Afghan War when the Soviet Union was involved: mothers, those who are angry and horrified by the body bags that are coming back to Moscow and the fresh gravesites. So that’s a factor, and the Russians have been very careful to keep numbers low, even though they’re losing thousands a month. And Zelensky, by the way, noted, Amy, just a few days ago, that Ukraine is losing 50 to 80 men a day, which, you know, in comparative terms, is more than the United States lost at the highest point of Vietnam in 1968.

    I will note that my longtime friend, the editor of the independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta, who received — co-received the Nobel Peace Prize in December, has just auctioned his Nobel, or announced he will, and contribute the money, which he thinks might be $100 million, to Ukrainian refugees. The newspaper continues to operate in Riga, in the Baltics, as do a number of other newspapers, independent papers, critical of the Putin government.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, what do you make of who stands where in the U.S. Senate? I mean, you have the arch, well, libertarian, conservative, anti-civil rights leader, Rand Paul — right? — the Republican Kentucky senator, who is an enemy of the other Kentucky senator — right? — the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, holding up a vote of weapons sales, saying, “Where is the oversight? We need an ombudsman.” And that — and, you know, finally, he caved on that. But you have the Republicans who are pressing against these weapons sales, and the Democrats and much of the — outside Fox — media, CNN, MSNBC, all just pushing forward, and when weapons sales are not happening, asking, “Why not?” or just weapons give-overs.

    KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: Amy, our politics have been scrambled when it comes to U.S.-Russian relations for the last five, six years. You know, there is something that has emerged, which I think is a very important development in U.S. politics, foreign policy, which I would call the restraint caucus. This is the Quincy Institute, headed by Andrew Bacevich, Trita Parsi, Anatol Lieven, who was a guest on your program. These are members of the Quincy Institute who believe not in isolationism but that there is a different way for America to engage the world, with diplomacy, with restraint and with an understanding that America is stronger if it’s not a unipolar power, if it’s not policing the world and if it’s not triumphalist. Sadly, I think, on this issue particularly, on Russia, the progressive community is not at this moment offering, saying, you know, “Negotiations, let’s open a space for it,” but focusing more on Russia as a kind of demon and should be not in the civilized network of nations, and more weapons, more weapons. I think it’s important not to attribute this restraint caucus solely to the Rand Pauls or Josh Hawleys. It’s much broader and, I think, more representative of this country. And as you know, those in this country’s voices are not often heard inside Washington.

    One thing that has fundamentally changed, Amy, since we last spoke, in these last weeks is, of course, what is the strategic focus of the U.S. involvement in Ukraine? Is it to — from the original concept, to defend Ukraine as a free, sovereign, independent country, or is it, as General Austin said, to degrade, to weaken Russia, or, as President Biden said and had to roll it back, Putin shouldn’t — you know, he shouldn’t be in power? And that’s a very different framework. It’s sort of comparable to the old debate between George Kennan’s containment, which was later changed in focus to rollback idea, which has dominated this country’s foreign policy.

    And I think it’s important to understand that there are negotiations that have occurred in these last months. There was one in Istanbul between the Russians and Ukrainians. The FT, the Financial Times, reported in March that there was a 15-point plan that had been put on the table. You know, it’s easy to start a war than to end a war. And I do think surveys show that the longer this war goes on, the much more difficult it is to end it. And certainly, our weapons, which many may argue are critical to defend Ukraine from the barbarism of Russia, but they do lead to a more protracted war with all the ancillary nuclear problems, threats, perils and others. So, I think it’s pivotal inflection point, and I think people need to take steps.

    You mentioned the Senate. I mean, we are facing midterm elections in November. Inflation, jobs, these are what lead the list. And I think for many presidents, including Biden and Trump and Obama, there was an understanding years ago that Ukraine was not a national security interest of the United States. And Obama did not send lethal weapons. Of course, it was before the Russian aggression. But I think that’s worth thinking about. How vital is Ukraine’s security? Yes, but not a commitment of extraordinary proportions.

    I’ll end by saying I think Zelensky, who, you know, is an extraordinary figure, has talked about $5 billion to $7 billion a month needed to keep Ukraine aloft, alive and surviving. And that money — you know, the money is going to be needed for reconstruction of this ravaged country, for those displaced, for food and security, for all the issues we’ve talked about as extending from this war, which has had global impact.

    AMY GOODMAN: Finally, the idea — we’re talking about, if this is a proxy war, you know, major nuclear countries, the United States versus Russia. What about that?

    KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: Well, what’s interesting is, polls show that Americans now are thinking about the nuclear threat. Now, one thing that is of great concern, Amy, I’ve heard that there are no working groups, there are no groups talking at lower levels — U.S., Russian — about the nuclear issues, which are critical. We don’t have a nuclear arms infrastructure at the moment, Amy. It’s been shredded since 2002, the anti-ballistic missile system. START, very weak, extended ’til 2025, ’26, but all these other treaties are just torn apart. And the nuclear issue is terrifying. I mean, this is as dangerous, more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis, which many don’t remember, but it’s protracted. And the longer this goes on, the more an accidental incident, a miscalculation could occur, which is why, to some extent, by the way, these missiles being sent from the United States reach only 40 miles, because there is a terror that they might go into Russia and escalate, as Putin has threatened.

    I will say June 12th, 1982, we’re marking the 40th anniversary this June 12 of a million people in Central Park to oppose the nuclear expansion at that time of Reagan and Gorbachev. And I think people — maybe this will focus people on the need for freeze, for build-down, for understanding the peril of nuclear weapons, while we live with so many other dangers. This is really horrifying that it has been raised as a possibility in this protracted — let us say, this proxy war, which is leading to a possible global war in its implications for the change of our political-military architecture.

    AMY GOODMAN: I know I said “finally,” but this is really finally. What do you think could break the establishment consensus, with the media very much a part of that, even pushing Biden to go further, to sell more weapons at this point, to allow in those other voices?

    KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: Well, I mean, that’s the question of our time, isn’t it? And I think that to listen to the people — I mean that, because I think people care about being a good force in the world, but are not up for this policing, this triumphalism. I think that it’s going to take those who understand the need to demilitarize.

    At the beginning of the pandemic, Amy, there was a sense of return to an idea in foreign policy called common security — this was Olof Palme, this was also Mikhail Gorbachev — but an understanding that there are human security needs, to fight the pandemic, to fight global inequality, to fight food shortages and, of course, the existential crisis of climate change, which, by the way, in the $50 billion that has been put through to Ukraine, that’s far more than we’ve been spending to tackle and hold climate crisis. But I do think there’s a way of framing our security needs that could open up minds.

    And I think this idea I talked about, about restraint, it needs to be more broadly understood, because I think it’s much more in the American tradition than what we see from the neocons or the neoliberal interventionists who have dominated inside Washington. And I do think Biden is under terrible pressure. And it’s a pressure, as I’ve said, I said in my Washington Post column, that begins in the center right and extends to the right right. So you need the pressure from these forces. And they’re there, but he hasn’t opened up his administration or let them in or listened to them. But if you had a more open media and a more open-minded administration, these people are young — Blinken, Jake Sullivan — but they’re recycling the oldest and worst ideas in our foreign policy.

    AMY GOODMAN: Katrina vanden Heuvel, we want to —

    KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: And we haven’t even talked about China. Sorry.

    AMY GOODMAN: Sorry. Go ahead.

    KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: We haven’t even talked about China, in the context that they were supposed to move on to China, but they’re doing so in a way to challenge and treat China as a terrible threat. These countries are not to be admired, in many ways, but they’re needed, not as friends, but as partners, in dealing with some of the grave issues of our time. And that is a realism, one hopes, a realistic approach, because there are a lot of people putting her head in the sand and thinking we’re going to have double wars, Russia and China. This is not a way to build a world.

    AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you for being with us, Katrina vanden Heuvel, publisher of The Nation magazine. We’ll link to your piece in The Washington Post, “We need a real debate about the Ukraine war.”

    Next up, the House committee investigating the deadly January 6th insurrection holds its first hearing on Thursday. Democracy Now! will be live-streaming it at 8:00 Eastern [Daylight] Time. Stay with us. We’re speaking with Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Will Bunch.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Putin Threatens to Escalate War If Ukraine Receives Long-Range Missiles

    Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday threatened to further escalate the war in Ukraine in light of Western countries’ continued military assistance to the former Soviet state, warning the U.S. and other countries against providing long-range rocket systems capable of hitting targets in Russia.

    A shipment of such weapons would prompt Russian forces to target “objects that we haven’t yet struck,” said Putin in a televised interview.

    The Russian president made the comments as at least five airstrikes hit Kyiv early Sunday morning, following weeks of relative calm in the capital, and fighting continued in the eastern Donbas region.

    Ukraine denied claims by Russia that it had destroyed tanks sent by Western countries, with the country’s railroad chief saying the Russians had attacked grain wagons — further threatening food supplies for the rest of the world.

    Last week, the U.S. announced it had approved s $700 million security assistance package for Ukraine, including four High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems capable of striking Russian targets that are 50 miles away.

    As Common Dreams reported on Tuesday, peace groups including CodePink, which has consistently advocated for the U.S. to lead efforts to negotiate a peaceful settlement between Russia and Ukraine, warned that the decision to arm the Ukrainians with a more advanced missile system added “fuel to the fire deliberately.”

    Putin on Sunday asserted the delivery of increasingly advanced Western weapons “has only one goal: To drag out the armed conflict as much as possible.”

    Analysts and peace advocates say the conflict, now past its 100th day, has already effectively devolved into a proxy war between NATO and Moscow with no end in sight.

    The Biden administration said last week that it had provided the High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems to Ukraine after getting assurances that the country would not use the weapons to attack inside Russia, but Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CodePink, said the shipment represented “the slippery slope leading to a direct U.S. confrontation with Russia.”

    Meanwhile, Energoatom, Ukraine’s state-run agency that operates its four nuclear power stations, warned that a Russian cruise missile “flew critically low” over the Pivdennoukrainsk nuclear plant near the city of Yuzhnoukrainsk on Sunday morning.

    Russian forces “still do not understand that even the smallest fragment of a missile that can hit a working power unit can cause a nuclear catastrophe and radiation leak,” the agency said.

    CNN reported Saturday that the U.S. and other Western allies have met regularly in recent weeks to discuss ending the war through a negotiated settlement, with officials discussing one proposal for Ukraine to commit to staying out of NATO in exchange for security guarantees and to hold negotiations with Russia regarding the future of the Donbas region and Crimea.

    Ukraine is focused on winning a decisive victory in the eastern and southern regions and is unlikely to support any deal “that cedes territory,” one official told CNN.

    NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that while “almost all wars end at some stage at the negotiating table,” officials “have to be prepared for the long haul… because what we see is that this war has now become a war of attrition.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Ukraine Beyond Day 100

    Two of the facts he mentions were new to me.

    The Ukrainian army has moved seven brigades of its Territorial Defense Forces from the west into the area east of the Dnieper. If these were fully maned each will have had some 3,000 soldiers. That are a lot of troops but they are pure infantry without heavy weapons and with extremely little training. Col. Reisner also showed a collection of 15 videos in which members of such and other units describe hopeless situations, declare a retreat or call out their commanders for neglect.

    Morale is so bad because those troops do not fare well.

    The post Ukraine Beyond Day 100 appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • GOP Wants to Blame Biden for Inflation. What About COVID and Capitalism?

    Two years ago, I was afraid of going to the grocery store, lest I encounter COVID-19 lurking by the bananas or swirling around some unmasked dunderhead coughing purposefully beneath a MAGA hat. That fear remains ever-present, alas, but has recently been joined by an aisle-by-aisle sticker shock: This costs how much, now? As the Cambridge band Morphine once warned us, it’s murder out there, murder out there, sharks patrol these waters.

    The Republicans, on cue, have fanned out to all points on the compass. Their sole purpose: to blame the Biden administration for the inflation crisis that popped after the COVID stimulus packages saved the country from flying apart at the economic seams, back in the bleak times too many refuse to remember. For the Republicans, this economic crisis has arrived tied in a bright bow, just in time for the downhill run to the midterm elections in November.

    I remember: Millions of people were out of work, or couldn’t work, and thanks to the magic of capitalism, most of those millions had been living paycheck to paycheck with no savings to speak of. Without the stimulus bills, and the child credit the GOP let die last summer, well … we think we live in a dystopia now. While it definitely sucks, this right here is a long, luxurious back rub compared to where we’d be without that rescue money. The post-stimulus inflation burst feels like a dirty trick, true, but it’s certainly better than the Scroogy alternative.

    This is not to say the Biden administration is entirely free of culpability. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen recently appeared with Wolf Blitzer on CNN to talk about the roiled state of the economy, and she dutifully fell upon her sword. “I think I was wrong then about the path that inflation would take,” she said. “There have been unanticipated and large shocks that have boosted energy and food prices, and supply bottlenecks that have affected our economy badly that I … at the time, didn’t fully understand.”

    Fair enough. It is a deeply weird economy we’re dealing with right now. “Employers are adding hundreds of thousands of jobs a month,” reports The New York Times, “and would hire even more people if they could find them. Consumers are spending, businesses are investing, and wages are rising at their fastest pace in decades.” Yet because of inflation and the more-than-occasional dearth in necessary items (like baby formula, hey thanks, Abbott Labs), a lot of people think the economy is eating itself. Who knows, maybe it is. The old metrics no longer seem to apply.

    Russia’s putrid war in Ukraine owns a substantial slice of blame for this mess, to be sure. With one fell swoop, Vladimir Putin’s invasion and the subsequent sanctions against his country kicked the struts out from under the global food and global petroleum networks. Prices for everything from grain to gasoline are spiking, causing hunger and want to increase both here and abroad.

    For the lucky ones, there is the existential economic angst of paying five bucks a gallon at the gas station, only to drive to a grocery store selling ground beef for ten bucks a pound. Interesting fact: A quasi-subterranean reason why everything is so damned pricey is because diesel fuel is more expensive than gas by a notable margin. That means running the trucks that carry the food everywhere now brings a back-breaking expense to the transport companies, which they pass along to those who pass it along to those who pass it along to us.

    Speaking of passing it along, no discussion of the current inflation crisis would be complete without a bright light shining on corporate price-gouging. CBS News reports:

    Over the past year, despite the extreme economic upheaval of the pandemic, after-tax corporate profits have soared to record levels as a share of economic output, according to the U.S. Commerce Department…

    Some corporate leaders have been blunt about their plans to pass companies’ higher supply-chain prices to consumers. For example, consumer goods giants Colgate-Palmolive, Procter & Gamble and Unilever have been able to raise prices without losing sales. Nearly two-thirds of publicly traded companies report fatter profit margins than before the pandemic, according to the Wall Street Journal.

    Russia-gas-food, Russia-gas-food… flip on the news networks and you’ll hear about this unholy trinity until your flatscreen cracks, but there has been a hole in the reporting wider than Jupiter, one that the Biden administration has also comprehensively failed to mention enough: COVID.

    COVID! Come on, you can say it, the monster is still under the bed, no sense pretending otherwise. COVID fouled global supply lines way back in 2020 and they have not recovered, so that’s nothing new. When we reached that first lull in infections, and then when we reached another one after the spike that inevitably comes when we let down our guard, people went wild with their spending. Steak at a restaurant! Whiskey at a bar! Music at a concert! Stuff! Things! PUT THAT SHIT IN MY FACE, and it felt like life again, because around here, it was.

    Increased demand + lowered supply (due to COVID-caused shipping ills) is How To Have Inflation 101, basic stuff. People ran out and giddily cleared the shelves, and not nearly enough ships came in to restock them. Compounding this, COVID has all but shuttered China, which is the manufacturing hub of the world whether we like it or not. Empty factories don’t feed empty ships, which leads to empty stores on the other side of the ocean and people faced with spending way more than they’re used to for basic needs.

    This doesn’t look like it will change anytime soon. “After months of rolling lockdowns in scores of Chinese cities that have forced hundreds of millions of people to remain in their homes, it is clear that President Xi Jinping is prepared to pursue his policy of zero-Covid at the expense of all other concerns,” reports The Financial Times. “That includes the widespread damage the policy is wreaking on the world’s second-biggest economy and most important manufacturing engine, and the political risks it is creating by further limiting the freedom of 1.4bn people.”

    When I step back, I can’t help but be amazed at how much effort is going into keeping COVID out of the inflation conversation, even as it shuts down massive nations like China and still fouls the global supply lines. The Financial Times covers it because they really kind of have to, but the others? It’s all Russia’s fault, no it’s all Biden’s fault, no it was the free money you guys!

    It was, is, and will remain COVID, which turned the whole damned planet on its ear, killed a million people here, and is not nearly finished with us. Capitalism, of course, helps not at all. There may very well be a way out of this without confronting an economic cataclysm, but when all is said and done, complaints about the price of gasoline and ground chuck could be remembered as the good old days. We need to be honest with ourselves about why.

    Sharks patrol these waters. Don’t forget it.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • War Crimes, From Nuremberg to Ukraine

    As a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, this year, journalists have taken up the subject of war crimes with enthusiasm. Even my local paper published an editorial demanding that a war crimes tribunal be organized to hang Putin, as the Nuremberg war criminals were hanged. Karim Khan, chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC), is on site conducting investigations. Vladimir Putin is accused of waging aggressive war.

    At the Nuremberg tribunals, four charges were brought against defendants: premeditated conspiracy to commit the crimes against the peace, the crime of initiating aggressive war, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The judges asserted that waging aggressive war was the gravest crime of all: it was “essentially an evil thing” and “not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”.

    To my knowledge, since then, no one has been charged with the first two charges: conspiracy to instigate a war, and the initiation of a war of aggression. However, many influential voices are now accusing Russian President Putin of committing these crimes.

    The post War Crimes, From Nuremberg to Ukraine appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Ukraine: Casualty Numbers, Territorial Defense Forces

    Over the last month I had come to the conclusion that the Ukraine is losing about 500 men per day due to intense Russian artillery fire. That number may have been too low.

    I had mentioned high Ukrainian casualty rates due to Russian artillery fire on April 25:

    The nearly 1,000 artillery missions in the last 24 hours and on the days before speak of intense preparations for upcoming attacks by Russian mechanized forces. Over all artillery will do the most damage to the Ukrainian troops.

    In World War II and other modern mechanized wars some 65% of all casualties were caused by artillery strikes. The recent rate on the Ukrainian side will likely be higher.

    I revisited that on May 5:

    The Russian military forces are grinding down Ukrainian ground forces by extensive use of heavy artillery.

    The post Ukraine: Casualty Numbers, Territorial Defense Forces appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The US Empire Will Be Defeated By The US Empire: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

    Listen to a reading of this article:

    ❖

    Empire managers: Putin invaded Ukraine!

    Public: Oh no! What should we do about it?

    Empire managers: Greatly increase military spending, work to weaken Russia, and censor dissenting opinions.

    Public: Wait, aren’t those things you’ve always wanted to do anyway?

    Empire managers: Hush.

    ❖

    Russian propaganda poses a much smaller threat to the western world than the various government agendas that are being rolled out under the justification of fighting Russian propaganda.

    ❖

    Fuel prices are soaring in part because of an economic war the US empire willfully initiated in response to a proxy war the US empire deliberately provoked and westerners are being trained to look at their shrinking bank accounts and yell “Damn you, Putin!”

    Only by massive amounts of propaganda would people consent to unprecedented acts of economic warfare which directly hurt them and benefit them in no way shape or form.

    ❖

    As the world slides closer to nuclear war it would be cool if Americans could take a break from a debate about gun laws that will with absolute certainty lead nowhere and seriously discuss whether they want their government waging a rapidly escalating proxy war against Russia.

    ❖

    The spectrum of acceptable debate on US foreign policy ranges from (A) war hawks who insist the US has never done anything wrong to (B) “progressives” who say the US is basically a good faith actor who just makes well-intentioned oopsie poopsie mistakes but should still definitely keep arming Ukraine. Position (B) is the furthest you’re allowed to go away from “the US never does anything wrong” in mainstream discourse. It includes Bernie Sanders’ foreign policy advisor, who smears and dismisses leftists who say the US is acting in a malignant way in Ukraine.

    No voice at all is ever given to the (in my opinion correct) position that the US is a tyrannical regime whose immense body count is explained not by accidents but by the desire to dominate the world at any cost. The elimination of this position from the debate is by design.

    ❖

    Sure noble wars can be fought in theory and have been fought in practice. It’s just that you’ve got swamp water for brains if you believe that’s what the US is doing.

    ❖

    ❖

    Never attribute to conspiracy what can be adequately explained by the inevitable corruption and tyranny of status quo capitalism.

    ❖

    Whatever ends up collapsing the US empire is far less likely to come from Russia or China than from the US empire itself.

    ❖

    A big part of the western nervousness about China revolves around the fact that we’re about to be surpassed by an ancient civilization of non-white people who are indigenous to their land and have never been truly conquered and colonized by Europeans.

    ❖

    If you don’t respect the way China has been able to pull so many of its people out of extreme poverty, and don’t get why such actions would cause such unified support for their government, it’s simply because you lack an adequate understanding of the anguish of extreme poverty.

    ❖

    I’ve met some cute kids in my time but nobody’s as adorable as westerners who talk about Chinese people being propagandized.

    ❖

    The Chinese government exerts a lot of power over its population, but it also takes responsibility for the way it uses that power. The USA’s rulers exert a comparable amount of power over its population, but they never take any responsibility for what they do with it.

    ❖

    ❖

    Can’t believe Mohammed bin Salman is sullying Saudi Arabia’s name by meeting with the president of the United States.

    ❖

    Putin should try staging a few mass beheadings and dismembering a Washington Post reporter with a bone saw to get on America’s good side.

    ❖

    Many empire apologists aren’t actually defending the empire, they’re just defending against the suggestion that everything they believe about their nation, their media, their government and their world, is a lie.

    ❖

    The most impressive feat of engineering this century has been of the ‘social’ variety: funneling mainstream political attention into agendas which don’t inconvenience the powerful in the information age where the ravages of capitalism and imperialism are right there to be seen in plain sight. 

    The social engineering necessary to keep politically inclined people fixated on agendas that either won’t lead anywhere or which trouble the powerful in no way, even as we entered an unprecedented age of information access, is one of the most awe-inspiring human achievements in history.

    ________________

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

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • Fertilizer Shortage Will Drive Global Food Prices Higher as Ukraine War Drags On

    Across the country, people are struggling to purchase nutritious food as global inflation takes root. Low-income people already spend a disproportionate proportion of their income on groceries.

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that between April 2021 and April 2022, food prices increased by an average of 9.4 percent. But that includes restaurants prices, which increased at a slightly lower clip than grocery prices. Grocery and supermarket prices, by contrast, in April were fully 10.8 percent higher than in the previous year. The department’s Economic Research Services estimates that these prices will increase a further 8 percent this year.

    This isn’t just an American problem. Globally, the disruptions to supply chains triggered by the pandemic, the rolling environmental catastrophe of climate change, and the war in Ukraine — which has bottled up millions of tons of vital supplies of wheat in blockaded Ukrainian ports and also led to a massive shortage of fertilizer — have combined to wreak havoc on food markets. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization has, in recent months, recorded record-high prices around the world for cereals, dairy products, meat, sugar, and vegetable oils, among other food products. Since Russia and Ukraine between them account for nearly a quarter of the world’s wheat exports, economic embargoes against Russia, combined with Russia’s blockade of Ukraine, risk a global food calamity on a scale not seen in decades.

    Indeed, the UN estimates that the war alone could push up global food prices by a jaw-dropping 22 percent. It also estimates that many countries, including a large number in Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia, receive up to 30 percent of their fertilizer supplies from Russia. The food security of these countries now is at risk of becoming collateral damage of the international efforts to isolate Russia from the global economy as a punishment for its actions in Ukraine. Shortages of fertilizer have led to soaring prices; some forms of fertilizer are now selling on the global market at far higher rates even than in 2008, when international markets across the board experienced massive price swings as the financial system began the swoon that would lead it to near-collapse. And as fertilizer prices rise, domestic agricultural production in many countries will take a huge hit. That hit will, of course, come just as the import market for food staples is also under unprecedented stress.

    In countries such as Egypt, which import roughly half of their wheat from Ukraine and Russia, the prospect of hunger and even bread riots is now all too real. Last month, Egypt negotiated a deal to secure Ukrainian wheat exports via rail shipments into Poland, and, from there, via ship to Egypt, but it’s by no means clear that the movement of grain by rail will be of a scale necessary to plug the gaps caused by Russia’s blockade of Ukrainian sea ports.

    In a normal year, Lebanon imports most of its wheat from Ukraine, according to the UN. More than 90 percent of Somalia’s wheat imports come from Ukraine and Russia. Almost all of Eritrea’s wheat imports come from these two countries, along with more than 85 percent of Turkey’s wheat imports. And the list goes on. The scarcity caused by the war, combined with the soaring prices, will, inevitably, push many of the world’s poorest, most vulnerable people further into insecurity and hunger.

    Last year, the Global Report on Food Crises found that 193 million people spread across more than fifty countries were “acutely food insecure.” That was a staggering 40 million more than in 2020, which in turn was higher than the pre-pandemic numbers. The 2022 report warns that the world’s food situation is likely to further deteriorate due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    This won’t immediately translate into mass hunger or food shortages in the U.S. The food distribution system in this country — combined with the massive, life-saving presence of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and a well-oiled food bank and food pantry distribution system — is too robust to see mass food shortages anytime soon.

    But that doesn’t mean that millions of Americans aren’t suffering tremendous economic dislocation as their weekly grocery bills continue to rise. Meat prices in particular have been spiking over the past couple years: The USDA estimates beef prices could rise by an eye-popping 16 percent this year alone. Poultry prices will likely rise by more than 12 percent. But many other food staples are soaring in price as well: the price of eggs will, the USDA estimates, increase by 11 percent, and fresh fruit by more than 10 percent.

    For middle class people, these price increases are an annoyance, but a manageable one. After all, most Americans, accustomed to endless supplies of cheap things to eat, spend less than 10 percent of their total income on food. But people in the bottom quintile of earnings in the country spend far more — close to 40 percent of their pre-tax income — on buying groceries. This is closer to what an average American at the start of the twentieth century was spending on food than to what an average American in the third decade of the twenty-first century spends on groceries.

    Historically, soaring food prices have often served as triggers, or predictors, for political upheaval. It was, for example, inflation in the bread markets that helped create the conditions for the French Revolution in the years leading up to 1789. The United States is already in turmoil politically. Massive spikes in food prices this year will only increase the political volatility. That could, of course, push more Americans in a progressive direction, building support for income subsidies, progressive tax policies and the like.

    However, discontent could also drain into the pool of right-wing populism, the politics of resentment and of scapegoating out of which former President Trump emerged, a mantle that an increasing number of hard-right politicians are now claiming as their own. Low-income families are already experiencing soaring fuel and housing costs while facing real and immediate economic pain because of rising food prices. Daily life is, for them, already an economic high-wire act, with every unanticipated expense a potential crisis forcing them into a fall. High food prices exacerbate this sense of economic insecurity.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Biden’s Visit To Saudi Arabia Exposes The Ukraine Narrative For The Sham It Is

    Listen to a reading of this article:

    ❖

    In a major walkback from his campaign pledge to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah” for human rights abuses like the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, President Biden will reportedly visit Riyadh with the goal of persuading Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to help the US alliance win its economic war against Russia.

    The Guardian tells us the trip “suggests Biden has prioritized his need to bring oil prices down and thereby punish Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, over his stand on human rights.”

    So in order to punish Vladimir Putin for his war crimes and his assault on freedom and democracy, Biden will be courting a tyrannical war criminal whose country has no freedom or democracy.

    Washington will be ending its brief diplomatic dry spell with a government that has been waging a horrific war against Yemen while suppressing any semblance of human rights at home in order to more effectively punish Putin for waging a horrific war against Ukraine which we’re told threatens freedom and democracy throughout the western world.

    I am not the first to note the risible irony of this development.

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

    The EU literally just banned oil from Russia (mimicking the United States' actions) because they don't want to give money to a "dictator". So Biden is travelling soon to Saudi Arabia to try and bring energy prices down– which is a vibrant democracy, as you all know.

    — Richard Medhurst (@richimedhurst) June 2, 2022

    “The Biden Administration is openly planning to pay homage to one [of] its closest allies — one of the most despotic and murderous tyrants on the planet, the Saudi Crown Prince — at the same time it convinces Americans its motive for fighting wars is to defend freedom and democracy,” tweeted Glenn Greenwald.

    “The EU literally just banned oil from Russia (mimicking the United States’ actions) because they don’t want to give money to a ‘dictator’. So Biden is travelling soon to Saudi Arabia to try and bring energy prices down– which is a vibrant democracy, as you all know,” tweeted Richard Medhurst.

    “As part of mobilizing support for the great war for ‘freedom’ in Ukraine, Biden will be visiting the great beacon of ‘democracy,’ Saudi Arabia this month. What’s a little murder and dismemberment between friends?” tweeted Joseph Kishore.

    Indeed, one wonders if perhaps Putin could settle this whole conflict by staging a few mass beheadings and dismembering a Washington Post reporter with a bone saw to get on America’s good side.

    A lot of people talk about the “hypocrisy” of the US empire, as though being hypocritical is the issue. But the complete lack of moral consistency in US imperial behavior is noteworthy not merely because of hypocrisy: it’s noteworthy because it shows the US empire has no morality.

    Despite the astonishing deluge of propaganda and brazen government disinformation we’re being blasted in the face with painting the war in Ukraine as a fight between good versus evil, freedom versus tyranny, democracy versus autocracy, the truth is much less flattering to the imperial ego. In reality, the US is waging a proxy war in Ukraine for the exact same reason it remains close with Saudi Arabia: because it advances its own interests to do so.

    That’s it. That’s the whole entire story. The US doesn’t care about Ukrainian freedom or Ukrainian lives, it cares about strengthening its Eurasian geostrategic hegemony, and it would cheerfully incinerate every Ukrainian alive in order to accomplish that goal.

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

    Grave mistake to go to Riyadh for this meeting. Not likely to get lasting gains while incurring risks and undermining values.https://t.co/dy5zZvlbjp

    — Dalia Dassa Kaye (@dassakaye) June 2, 2022

    A lot of commentators like to say the US government’s intimacy with Saudi Arabia undermines American values, but that’s not true at all. The US isn’t undermining its values by cozying up with Saudi Arabia, it is perfectly honoring and representing its values.

    One only believes the US is undermining its values by partnering with Saudi Arabia if one assumes that US values include freedom, democracy, justice and peace. This is not an acceptable thing for a grown adult to believe in 2022. US values in the real world are domination and global power. That’s it.

    Really if you think about it Saudi Arabia is just a more honest version of the United States. Its tyranny is right out in the open instead of being sneakily disguised under inverted totalitarianism. Its oligarchs and its official government are all the same people. It never tries to pretend its wars are “humanitarian” in nature. And when it wants to murder an inconvenient journalist it simply does so instead of dishonestly framing it as an espionage case.

    In truth, when you look at its overall behavior on the world stage, the US is far more murderous and tyrannical than either Russia or Saudi Arabia . Pretending that Biden is lowering the United States beneath its values by visiting Saudi Arabia is highly flattering to the US. If anything, it’s the other way around.

    ______________

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

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

  • Op-Ed: War and Food Supply Chain Disruptions Reveal Global Food System Vulnerability

    5 Mins Read

    By: Irina Gerry

    We need to rethink our food system and secure a better future. Here’s why.

    The first shock came just a couple of months ago with disruption of sunflower oil supply. The world’s largest supplier, Ukraine, was cut off due to armed conflict. Suddenly, food companies worldwide were faced with a supply crunch in a widely-used ingredient and being forced to find supplies of alternate oil and re-work their formulations. Packaged food brands bemoan ingredient swaps because they are costly and extremely hard to implement on such short notice. Formula and packaging changes normally take months to flow through the production system, potentially contributing to inventory shortages and business risk.

    Sanctions on Russian oil and gas sent energy prices soaring, resulting in higher fuel costs and food prices across every single category in the US, compounding existing inflationary pressures. In developed markets, consumers got hit by price increases, while in developing world the threat of famine is looming large, as food security experts predict that the world has about 10 weeks of wheat supplies left.

    As the conflict in Ukraine has shown, our food system is highly dependent on globally integrated supply chains, which can lead to a domino effect of interruption. Shortages of Ukraine-supplied staples are amplified by sanctions that also disrupt sources of wheat, barley, other food commodities and fertilizer from Russia. A conflict in one area of the globe, rapidly rips through the food ecosystem, resulting in shortages, price hikes and supply disconnects beyond its point of origin.

    Protectionism and Food Security Concerns on the Rise

    Reacting to looming food commodity shortages, several nations instituted restrictions or bans on key exports, looking to shore up domestic supply. Indonesia announced a ban on palm oil exports. India halted wheat, and Malaysia banned poultry exports. Continued shocks are sending commodity prices skyward, creating a looming crisis not only over this year’s crops, but also threatening the following season.

    Given the high concentration of supply of key food commodities among a few sources – e.g. Indonesia supplies 60% of global palm-oil – even the smallest interruption sends global food supply chain into chaos, as most players have structured supply chains in a way that keeps suppliers concentrated, inventories low, and continuous operations dependent on timely deliveries via global routes that go through precarious bottlenecks, which are subject to geopolitical risks.

    Disease, Contamination and Pandemic Risk Threaten Tightly Knit Systems

    Supply chain challenges seem to be rising at once everywhere. Costco, well-known for their epiphanous rotisserie chicken, battled a major shortage due to the sudden onslaught of rapidly spreading avian bird flu this April. The disease quickly wiped out 15 million chickens.

    In a recent Forbes article reporting on the bird flu outbreak, “The way Costco and other factory farms raise chickens—in overcrowded and stressed-out environments—makes it easier for bird flu to spread.” 

    The United Nations reports that four of seven risk factors for pandemic outbreaks are directly linked to the meat industry and rising meat consumption. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, three out of four emerging diseases are animal-born and could transfer to people.

    Pandemic related turmoil that unfolded in meat packing plants last year was exasperated by over-crowded working conditions and subjected employees to undue viral exposure. Inevitable plant shutdowns ensued. The pandemic has also wreaked havoc on trucking, ocean shipping and other infrastructure that moves food from abroad to domestic manufacturers and retailers.

    The most recent formula shortage crisis in the US, showed just how concentrated and vulnerable our most critical food supply is, when a single plant going offline due to bacterial contamination snowballed into a 40% drop in baby formula supply, leaving babies hungry and parents scrambling to buy the last few cans from price-gougers online. 

    The Outsized Threat of Climate Risk

    Perhaps the largest potential disruptor of all is climate change. Already droughts and storms are lowering crop yields, reducing some cattle herds and setting up entire regions to battle the depletion of fertile soils. 

    The growing absence of biodiversity demonstrates how vulnerable the entire food system has become to climate impact. Smithsonian Magazine reports more than 75% of the world’s entire food supply draws on just 12 “mono crops” and five animal species.

    California’s almond industry, which provides 80% of the world’s almonds, is in peril due to a 1,200-year mega drought. Continued water shortages in Western US are likely to force the conversation around agricultural water use, especially around the most water-intensive commodities such as meat and dairy, mandating that choices be made to ration the now scarce fresh water supply. 

    The UN confirms that food commodity risks are accelerating from climate change. This helps set in motion future conditions that presage famine, malnutrition and intensified disparity between north and south regions of the earth – a situation that could spur further global conflict (climate wars), mass migration and economic instability. 

    Rethinking Where Food Comes From

    The new climate and geopolitical reality, coupled with increasing demand from the growing global population, mandate a rethinking of our global food system. 

    We must decentralize, decouple and diversify our food commodities. We must rethink our agricultural practices, focusing on regenerative models. We must consider environmental impacts of our farming methods and dominant commodity choices. We must move down the food chain in our eating habits, which means more whole fruits, veggies and legumes and fewer animal products. We must also incorporate new food technologies from vertical farming to cellular agriculture, which promise to deliver nutrition at a fraction of the environmental footprint.

    Precision fermentation technology is an iconic example of what the next generation of food may look like: nutritious, protein-rich foods, crafted without dependence resource intensive animal agriculture.

    Imagine our beloved dairy foods like cheese that are no longer connected to raising, feeding and managing cows for consumption. Precision fermentation replaces the macro-sized cow with micro-sized microbes, programmed to produce dairy proteins. The dairy farm of the future could look a lot like a brewery, where fermentation tanks replace thousands of cows, taking up significantly less land, water and feedstock to produce ingredients like dairy proteins. 

    Because these production facilities can be constructed anywhere, a more regionalized food supply could open up new economic opportunities in areas where increased animal agriculture is not tenable due to shortages of land or water and offer food independence for nations globally.

    New food technologies may help usher in a new food future less dependent on a handful of suppliers and commodities and less vulnerable to uncontrollable conditions such as disease, war, extreme weather and other disruptions that are all but certain to continue.

    Irina Gerry is the Chief Marketing Officer at Change Foods, a US-Australian food tech company creating animal-free dairy foods by leveraging precision fermentation technology.

    Lead image courtesy of Shutterstock.

    The post Op-Ed: War and Food Supply Chain Disruptions Reveal Global Food System Vulnerability appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Operation Inventory Reduction: The West’s Thin Spin Over Ukraine

    Watching a buffoon commit suicide is never a pleasant thing.

    — Scott Ritter on a Richard Medhurst podcast, May 19, 2022

    “Putin is mad and losing his marbles all over Ukraine” goes a certain conventional AmericaNATOstani talking point bombastically broadcast over all mainstream media outlets in the Collective West these days. The idea that the Collective West’s own madness has been projected upon the figure of Vladimir Putin is considered anathema, a heresy promoted by none other than “Mad Vlad” himself, whose propaganda services, we are led to believe, have unusually penetrated our own sacrosanct Disinformation Systems.

    How can this be?  Put it another way:  How is it that fervor for Ukraine, or “Ukraine War Fever!”, can so instantly inundate our psyches and senses, especially after our 2-year long struggle with Covid Disorder, or whatever the “Experts” are calling that Thing now?

    Several reasons “Arab Spring” to mind, so to speak, but we need to be more specific in this space.  Putin’s “crazy” move into Ukraine was not unanticipated; after all, Western Intel agencies were screaming it from every Major Media platform rooftop, giving us all pause — including myself — not to believe it.  How now — “Mad Cow!”–could Putin actually invade sacred Ukraine?

    The answer is startlingly easy and obvious to any geopolitical observer worth a grain.  Simply stated, the thesis is this:  the Collective West has lost its Collective Damned Mind.  Mr Putin in Russia knows this, frets over this, yet decided to authorize finally an “operation” that could result in the ultimate calamity, a thermo-nuclear war, if the TransAtlanticans do not come to their “common senses” in time.  Putin’s quite coy here, and Lavrov, too, because: Who knows?  Russia is both small and large on the world stage, meaning population and resources, and a little “regime change” in Russia could change the equation for certain stakeholders whose stakes have been a bit shaky of late.

    The transition from Covid hysteria to Russia invades Ukraine hysteria is perhaps nowhere better described than Fabio Vighi’s March 14 article @Philosphical Salon:  “From Covid-19 to Putin-22,” where Mr Vighi elucidates the terms and arrangements of the baton pass, as it were, from one World Crisis to the next.  In Vighi’s own words he states:  “Putin’s war is the ideal continuation of the ‘war on Covid.’  The overarching aim is to obfuscate the real issue at stake, which consists of pulling mountains of cheap money into the debt-addicted economy.”  Catch-22?

    The economic boomerang of “sanctions” against Russia is already being felt — Everywhere!  This was a completely stupid idea, and severely questions the sanity of any Western leader so-called. U$A president Joe “Bidenopolous” is the first such leader, manifestly, to lead the roll call of Western “leaders” to be called to account, especially considering his weird dealings in Ukrainian corruption schemes.  We’ll leave his compromised son Hunter out of this report, as others with more knowledge of Hunter’s Burisma position are certainly pointing out.  Joe Biden’s racist old ass is without question hanging out to dry over Ukraine — and is there a Victoria Nuland or Geoffrey Pyatt in the house?  Maybe some Neo-Nazis?

    Which brings us all to Azovstal, the Azovstal Steel Works, where so many Ukrainian fighters have suddenly surrendered.  Mariupol was the home to the “Azov Battalion,” which prides itself on Nazi iconography, and assumed that the Collective West would have their “back,” in any case.  Mr Putin almost made a funny joke a few weeks back, when the defenders of Azov’s home base, reduced to hiding out in the vast steel factory there, said that his forces would seal that area so tightly that not even a fly could go in or out.  Harking back to the beginning of the “Special Military Operation,” many Western folks were clamoring for a “No Fly Zone” over Ukraine, presumably to deny Russian aerial operations there  Ironically, Mr Putin issued an actual “No Fly Zone” over Azovstal, declaring that not even a fly would be allowed entry or exit.  Some still claim that Zelensky’s Ukraine is at least winning the “Media War!,” as if that is a Thing.  The reality is that the Ukrainian General Staff wants nothing to do with this war, which is really NATO’s war, but they are stuck with their oaths of duty, and duty they must.

    I am not a militarist.  However, honestly, anyone reading this note, please understand how horrible it truly is for Ukrainian commanders in the Donbass right now, because they have no choice.  The reality is that the Russians killing them really don’t want to be killing them, but they are “under orders,” too.  In other words, if you put it up to the Ukrainian General Staff, they would send Zelensky to Miami forever, and work it out with the Russians, who are actually quite close to them, strangely enough.  This is not exactly the piece I expected to write, but this is where it stands.

    Personally, I hope that the Ukrainians lay down their arms before their arms are literally blown off by Russian munitions.  Seriously, DC politicos have been referring to this conflict as a “proxy war,” meaning a proxy war against Russia, with absolutely no explanation why we, the United States of America, should be waging a proxy war against Russia.  Just to be perfectly clear:  Almighty Russia is in no way waging a “proxy war” against U$.

    So, in provisional conclusion, just to be clear, let’s say that it is the Collective West, the TransAtlanticans, the AmericaNATOstanis — not to mention the Nazis! — and not Mr Putin, who’s lost its damned mind!

    The post Operation Inventory Reduction: The West’s Thin Spin Over Ukraine first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Chomsky: We Must Insist That Nuclear Warfare Is an Unthinkable Policy

    The war in Ukraine is now in its fourth month, but there is no sign of a ceasefire or resolution anywhere in sight. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has ruled out a ceasefire or concessions, yet he maintains that only diplomacy can end the war. In the meantime, Russian forces are trying to capture eastern Ukraine, while the policy of the United States is to provide military support to Zelenskyy’s government for as long as it might take to weaken Russia in hope that regime change will come to Moscow.

    These developments do not bode well either for Ukraine or for the world at large, argues Noam Chomsky, a public intellectual regarded by millions of people as a national and international treasure. In this new and exclusive interview for Truthout, Chomsky urges the forces capable of ending the war to devote their energy to finding constructive ways to put a halt to the unfolding tragedies. In addition, he analyzes the new and highly dangerous global order that is taking shape. Perhaps to the surprise of many, especially considering the ongoing war in Ukraine, he does not describe the U.S.-Russia confrontation as the central element of the new global order in the making. Chomsky is institute professor and professor of linguistics at MIT and currently laureate professor at the University of Arizona, and has published some 150 books in linguistics, political and social thought, political economy, media studies, U.S. foreign policy and international affairs.

    C.J. Polychroniou: After months of fighting, there is still very little hope of peace in Ukraine. Russia is now refocusing its efforts on taking control of the east and south of the country with the likely intent of incorporating them into the Russian Federation, while the West has signaled that it will step up military support for Ukraine. In the light of these developments, Ukrainian officials have ruled out a ceasefire or concessions to Moscow, although President Volodymyr Zelenskyy also went on record saying that only diplomacy can end the war. Don’t these two positions cancel each other out? Doesn’t a mutually acceptable agreement for a war to end always contain concessions? Indeed, back in March, the Ukrainian government had signaled its intention that it was willing to make big concessions for the war to end. So, what’s going on? Could it be that neither side is fully invested in peace?

    Noam Chomsky: I’ll come back to the questions, but we should carefully consider the stakes. They are very high. They go far beyond Ukraine, desperate and tragic as the situation is there. Anyone with a moral bone in their body will want to think through the issues carefully, without heroic posturing.

    Let’s consider what is at stake.

    First, of course, is Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, a crime (to repeat once again) that can be compared to the U.S. invasion of Iraq or the Hitler-Stalin invasion of Poland, the kind of crimes against peace for which Nazi war criminals were hanged — though only the defeated are subject to punishment in what we call “civilization.” In Ukraine itself, there will be a terrible toll as long as the war persists.

    There are broader consequences, which are truly colossal. That’s no exaggeration.

    One is that tens of millions of people in Asia, Africa and the Middle East are literally facing starvation as the war proceeds, cutting off desperately needed agricultural supplies from the Black Sea region, the primary supplier for many countries, including some already facing utter disaster, like Yemen. Will return to how that is being handled.

    A second is the growing threat of terminal nuclear war. It is all too easy to construct plausible scenarios that lead to a rapid climb up the escalation ladder. To take one, right now the U.S. is sending advanced anti-ship missiles to Ukraine. The flagship of the Russian fleet has already been sunk. Suppose more of the fleet is attacked. How does Russia then react? And what follows?

    To mention another scenario, so far Russia has refrained from attacking the supply lines used to ship heavy armaments to Ukraine. Suppose it does so, placing it in direct confrontation with NATO — meaning the U.S. We can leave the rest to the imagination.

    Other proposals are circulating that would very likely lead to nuclear war — which means the end, for all of us, facts that do not seem to be properly understood. One is the widely voiced call for a no-fly zone, which means attacking anti-aircraft installations inside Russia. The extreme danger of such proposals is understood by some, notably the Pentagon, which so far has been able to veto the most dangerous proposals. For how long in the prevailing mood?

    These are horrendous prospects. Prospects: what might happen. When we look at what actually is happening, it gets worse. The Ukraine invasion has reversed the much-too-limited efforts to address global warming — which will soon become global frying. Prior to the invasion, some steps were being taken to avert catastrophe. Now that has all been thrown into reverse. If that continues, we’re done.

    One day the IPCC issues another severe warning that if we are to survive, we must start right now to reduce use of fossil fuels. Right now, no delay. The next day President Biden announces vast new expansion of fossil fuel production.

    Biden’s call to increase fossil fuel production is sheer political theater. It has nothing to do with today’s fuel prices and inflation, as claimed. It will be years before the poisons reach the market — years that could be spent on moving the world rapidly to renewable energy. That’s perfectly feasible, but barely discussed in the mainstream. There’s no need to comment here. The topic has recently been expertly analyzed by economist Robert Pollin in another of his essential contributions to understanding this critical issue of survival and acting on that understanding.

    It is crystal clear that settling the Ukraine crisis is of extraordinary significance, not just for Ukraine itself but because of the calamitous consequences beyond if the war persists.

    What then can we do to facilitate ending the tragedy? Let’s begin with virtual truism. The war can end in one of two ways: Either there will be a diplomatic settlement, or one side will capitulate. The horror will go on unless it ends with a diplomatic settlement or capitulation.

    That at least should be beyond discussion.

    A diplomatic settlement differs from capitulation in one crucial respect: Each side accepts it as tolerable. That’s true by definition, so it is beyond discussion.

    Proceeding, a diplomatic settlement must offer Putin some kind of escape hatch — what is now disdainfully called an “off-ramp” or “appeasement” by those who prefer to prolong the war.

    That much is understood even by the most dedicated Russia-haters, at least those who can entertain some thought in their minds beyond punishing the reviled enemy. One prominent example is the distinguished foreign policy scholar Graham Allison of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, who also has long direct experience in military affairs. Five years ago, he instructed us that it was then clear that Russia as a whole is a “demonic” society and “deserves to be strangled.” Today he adds that few can doubt that Putin is a “demon,” radically unlike any U.S. leader, who at worst only make mistakes, in his view.

    Yet even Allison argues that we must contain our righteous anger and bring the war to a quick end by diplomatic means. The reason is that if the mad demon “is forced to choose between losing and escalating the level of violence and destruction, then, if he’s a rational actor, he’s going to choose the latter” — and we may all be dead, not just Ukrainians.

    Putin is a rational actor, Allison argues. And if he is not, all discussion is useless because he can destroy Ukraine and maybe even blow up the world at any moment — an eventuality we cannot prevent by any means that won’t destroy us all.

    Proceeding with truism, to oppose or even act to delay a diplomatic settlement is to call for prolonging the war with its grim consequences for Ukraine and beyond. This stand constitutes a ghastly experiment: Let’s see whether Putin will slink away quietly in total defeat, or whether he will prolong the war with all its horrors, or even use the weapons that he indisputably has to devastate Ukraine and to set the stage for terminal war.

    All of this seems obvious enough. Or it should, but not in the current climate of hysteria, where such near truisms elicit a great flood of utterly irrational reactions: The monster Putin won’t agree, it’s appeasement, what about Munich, we have to establish our own red lines and keep to them whatever the monster says, etc.

    There is no need to dignify such outpourings with a response. They all amount to saying: Let’s not try, and instead undertake the ghastly experiment.

    The ghastly experiment is operative U.S. policy, and is supported by a wide range of opinion, always with noble rhetoric about how we must stand up for principle and not permit crime to go unpunished. When we hear this from strong supporters of U.S. crimes, as we commonly do, we can dismiss it as sheer cynicism, the Western counterpart to the most vulgar apparatchiks of the Soviet years, eager to eloquently denounce Western crimes, fully supportive of their own. We also hear it from opponents of U.S. crimes, from people who surely do not want to carry out the ghastly experiment that they are advocating. Here other issues arise: the rising tide of irrationality that is undermining any hope for serious discourse — a necessity if Ukraine is to be spared indescribable tragedy, and even if the human experiment is to persist much longer.

    If we can escape cynicism and irrationality, the humane choice for the U.S. and the West is straightforward: seek to facilitate a diplomatic settlement, or at least don’t undermine the option.

    On this matter, official Western opinion is split. France, Germany and Italy have been calling for negotiations to establish a ceasefire and move toward a diplomatic settlement. The U.S. and Britain, the West’s two warrior states, object. Their position is that the war must proceed: the ghastly experiment.

    The longstanding U.S. policy of undermining diplomacy, which we have reviewed in detail in earlier discussions, was presented in sharper form a few weeks ago at a meeting of NATO powers and others organized by Washington at the U.S. airbase in Ramstein, Germany. The U.S. issued the marching orders: The war must be continued so as to harm Russia. That is the widely advocated “Afghan model” that we have discussed: In the words of the definitive scholarly study of the topic, it is the policy of “fighting Russia to the last Afghan” while seeking to delay Russian withdrawal and to undermine the UN diplomatic efforts that finally brought the tragedy to an end.

    Explaining U.S.-NATO goals at Ramstein, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said that “we want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”

    Let’s think about it. How do we ensure that Russia can never again invade another country? We put aside here the unthinkable question of whether reshaping U.S. policy might contribute to this end, for example, examining Washington’s openly declared refusal to consider any Russian security concerns and many other actions that we have discussed.

    To achieve the announced goal, it seems that we must at least reenact something like the Versailles Treaty, which sought to ensure that Germany would not be able to go to war again.

    But Versailles did not go far enough, as was soon made clear. It follows that the new version being planned must “strangle the demon” in ways that go beyond the Versailles effort to control the Huns. Perhaps something like the Morgenthau Plan.

    That is the logic of the pronouncements. Even if we don’t take the words seriously and give them a limited interpretation, the policy entails prolonging the war, whatever the consequences are for Ukrainians and the “collateral damage” beyond: mass starvation, possible terminal war, continued destruction of the environment that sustains life.

    Narrower questions of a similar sort arise with regard to the blockade, with its lethal effects in the Global South. Right now, Ukrainian ports are blockaded by the Russian Navy, preventing desperately needed exports. What can be done about it?

    As always, there are two directions to explore: military or diplomatic. “War/War or Jaw/Jaw” in the phrase attributed to Churchill, who assigned priority to the latter.

    War/War is official U.S. policy: Send advanced anti-ship missiles to force Russia to stop blockade of ports. Beyond the Russian flagship, more can be sunk. Will the Russians observe quietly? Maybe. How would the U.S. react in similar circumstances? We can put that aside.

    Another possibility, proposed by the Wall Street Journal editors, is “to use warships to escort merchant ships out of the Black Sea.” The editors assure us that it would conform to international law, and that Russians will stop at nothing. So, if they react, we can proclaim proudly that we upheld international law as all goes up in flames.

    The editors observe that there are precedents: “The U.S. has marshalled allies for such a mission twice in recent decades. In the late 1980s the U.S. reflagged and protected Kuwaiti oil tankers as they sailed out of the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq tanker war.”

    That is correct, though there is a small oversight. The U.S. did indeed intervene directly to provide crucial support for Reagan’s good friend Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran. That was after supporting Saddam’s chemical warfare that killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians, and even charging Iran for Saddam’s massacre of Kurds with chemical warfare. Iran was the demon of the day. A fine precedent.

    Those are options for ending the blockade, keeping to convention by restricting attention to force rather than possible peaceful steps.

    Are there any? One cannot know without thinking about them, looking at what is transpiring, and trying. It may be of relevance that Russia did propose something of the sort, though in our increasingly totalitarian culture, it can be reported only at the extreme margins. Quoting from a libertarian website:

    Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko … [argued] his country is not solely responsible for the burgeoning food emergency while pointing to Western sanctions blocking the export of grain and fertilizers.

    “You have to not only appeal to the Russian Federation but also look deeply at the whole complex of reasons that caused the current food crisis. [Sanctions] interfere with normal free trade, encompassing food products including wheat, fertilizers and others,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko said.

    Is it worth considering? Not in our culture, which automatically reaches for the revolver.

    The reflexive preference for violence, and its grim consequences, have not been overlooked abroad. That’s common in the Global South, which has ample experience with Western practice, but even among allies. The editor of the Australian international affairs journal Arena deplores the rigid censorship and intolerance of even mild dissent in U.S. media, concluding that “This means it is almost impossible within mainstream opinion to simultaneously acknowledge Putin’s insupportable actions and forge a path out of the war that does not involve escalation, and the further destruction of Ukraine.”

    Quite correct. And unless we can escape this self-imposed trap, we are likely to march on to annihilation. It is all reminiscent of the early days of World War I when the Great Powers enthusiastically undertook a self-destructive war, but this time with incomparably more severe consequences lurking not far in the distance.

    I’ve said nothing about what Ukrainians should do, for the simple and sufficient reason that it’s not our business. If they opt for the ghastly experiment, that’s their right. It’s also their right to request weapons to defend themselves from murderous aggression.

    Here we return to what is our business: ourselves. How should we respond to these requests? I’ll repeat in a moment my personal belief, but here too a little honesty wouldn’t hurt. There are many ringing declarations upholding the sacred principle that victims of criminal assault must be supported in their just demand for weapons to defend themselves. It is easy to show that those who issue them don’t believe a word of what they are saying, and in fact, almost always, strongly support providing weapons and crucial diplomatic support to the aggressor. To take just the most obvious case, where are the calls to provide Palestinians with weapons to defend themselves from half a century of brutal criminal occupation in violation of Security Council orders and international law — or even to withdraw the decisive U.S. support for these crimes?

    One can, of course, read the reports of U.S.-backed settler-IDF atrocities in the Israeli press, in the daily columns of the great journalist Gideon Levy. And we can read the withering reports by another honorable Israeli journalist, Amira Hass, reviewing the bitter condemnations of the ecological damage caused by the “demonic” Russians in Ukraine, which somehow miss the Israeli attack on Gaza last May, when “Israeli shells ignited hundreds of tons of pesticides, seeds, fertilizers, other chemicals, nylon and plastic sheeting, and plastic piping in a warehouse in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahia.” The shelling ignited 50 tons of hazardous substances, with lethal effects on the shattered population, which is living in conditions of bare survival, international agencies report, after decades of U.S.-backed Israeli sadism. It is “chemical warfare by indirect means,” the highly reputable Palestinian legal research and activism agency al-Haq reports, after extensive investigation.

    None of this, and vastly more, inspires any word in the mainstream about ending huge U.S. support for the murderous occupier, or of course for any means of defense.

    But enough of such outrageous “whataboutism,” otherwise known as elementary honesty, and a common theme outside of our tightly controlled doctrinal system. How should the principle apply in the unique case of Ukraine, where the U.S. for once opposes aggression? My own view, to repeat, is that the Ukrainian request for weapons should be honored, with caution to bar shipments that will escalate the criminal assault, punishing Ukrainians even more, with potential cataclysmic effects beyond.

    If the war in Ukraine can be ended through diplomacy, a peace deal could take many forms. The diplomatic solution advanced by many experts is the one based on a Ukrainian treaty of neutrality while Russia drops its objections to Ukraine’s membership in the EU, although the road to membership will inevitably be very long. However, there is one scenario which is rarely discussed, yet this is where things could be headed. This is Graham Allison’s “Korean scenario,” where Ukraine is divided into two parts without a formal treaty. Do you regard this as a likely or possible scenario?

    It is one of a number of possible very ugly outcomes. Speculation seems to me rather idle. Better, I think, to devote our energy to thinking of constructive ways to overcome the developing tragedies — which, again, go far beyond Ukraine.

    We might even envision a broader framework, something like the “common European home” with no military alliances proposed by Mikhail Gorbachev as an appropriate framework of world order after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Or we might pick up some of the early wording of the Partnership for Peace, initiated by Washington in the same years, as when President Clinton in 1994 assured Boris Yeltsin that “the broader, higher goal [is] European security, unity and integration – a goal I know you share.”

    These promising prospects for peaceful integration were soon undercut, however, by Clinton’s plans for NATO expansion, over strong Russian objections, long preceding Putin.

    Such hopes can be revived, to the great benefit of Europe, Russia and world peace generally. They might have been revived by Putin had he pursued Macron’s tentative initiatives towards accommodation instead of foolishly choosing criminal aggression. But they are not necessarily dead.

    It’s useful to recall some history. For centuries, Europe was the most vicious place on earth. For French and Germans, the highest goal in life was to slaughter one another. As recently as my childhood, it seemed unimaginable that it could ever end. A few years later, it did end, and they have since been close allies, pursuing common goals in a radical reversal of a long history of brutal conflict. Diplomatic successes need not be impossible to achieve.

    It is now a commonplace that the world has entered a new Cold War. In fact, even the once-unthinkable scenario of using nuclear weapons in warfare is no longer taboo talk. Have we entered an era of confrontation between Russia and the West, a geostrategic and political rivalry reminiscent of the Cold War?

    Nuclear warfare had better become taboo talk, and unthinkable policy. We should be working hard to restore the arms control regime that was virtually dismantled by Bush II and Trump, who didn’t have quite enough time to complete the job but came close. Biden was able to rescue the last major relic, New Start, just days before its expiration.

    The arms control regime should then be extended, looking forward to the day when the nuclear powers will join the UN Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, now in force.

    Other measures can be taken to alleviate the threat, among them implementing Nuclear Weapons-Free Zones (NWFZ). They exist in much the world, but are blocked by U.S. insistence on maintaining nuclear weapons facilities within them. The most important would be a NWFZ in the Middle East. That would end the alleged Iranian nuclear threat and eliminate any thin pretext for the criminal U.S.-Israeli bombings, assassinations and sabotage in Iran. That crucial advance in world peace is, however, blocked by the U.S. alone.

    The reason is not obscure: It would interfere with Washington’s protection of Israel’s huge nuclear arsenal. That has to be kept in the dark. If exposed, U.S. law would come into play, threatening Washington’s extraordinary support for Israel’s illegal occupation and constant crimes — another topic that is unmentionable in polite society.

    All steps should be taken to remove the scourge of nuclear weapons from the earth, before they destroy all of us.

    In the world system that is taking shape, the confrontation with Russia is something of a sideshow. Putin has handed Washington a marvelous gift by turning Europe into a virtual U.S. vassal, cutting off the prospects that Europe might become an independent “third force” in international affairs. A consequence is that the fading Russian kleptocracy, with its huge stock of natural resources, is being incorporated into the Chinese-dominated zone. This growing system of development and loans stretches over Central Asia and reaches to the Middle East through the UAE and Maritime Silk Road, with tentacles stretching to Africa and even to Washington’s “little region over here,” as FDR’s Secretary of War Henry Stimson described Latin America while calling for dismantling of all regional associations except for our own.

    It is the “China threat” that is the centerpiece of U.S. strategy. The threat is enhanced if resource-rich Russia is incorporated as a junior partner.

    The U.S. is now vigorously reacting to what it calls “Chinese aggression,” such as devoting state resources to developing advanced technology and internal repression. The reaction, initiated by Trump, has been carried forward by Biden’s policy of “encirclement” based on a ring of “sentinel states” off the coast of China. These are armed with advanced weapons, recently upgraded to high-precision weapons, aimed at China. The “defense” is backed by a fleet of invulnerable nuclear submarines that can destroy not just China but the world many times over. Since that is not good enough, they are now being replaced as part of the enormous Trump-Biden military expansion.

    The stern U.S. reaction is understandable. “China, unlike Russia, is the only country powerful enough to challenge U.S. dominance on the world stage,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced in describing this intolerable threat to world order (aka U.S. dominance).

    While we talk of “isolating Russia,” if not “strangling” this “demonic” society, most of the world is keeping its ties open to Russia and to the China-dominated global system. It is also watching, bemused, as the U.S. destroys itself from within.

    Meanwhile the U.S. is developing new alliances, which will presumably strengthen in November if the GOP takes over Congress and manages to gain long-term control of the political system through its quite open efforts to undermine political democracy.

    One such alliance is being firmed up right now with the racist self-declared “illiberal democracy” of Hungary, which has crushed free speech and independent cultural and political institutions and is worshipped by leading figures of the GOP from Trump to media star Tucker Carlson. Steps toward that goal were taken a few days ago at the conference of far right elements in Europe that met in Budapest, where the star attraction was the Conservative Political Action Conference, a core element of the Republican Party.

    The alliance between the U.S. and the European extreme right has a natural ally in the Abraham alliance forged by Trump and Jared Kushner. This widely hailed alliance formalized the tacit relations between Israel and the most reactionary states of the MENA (Middle East-North Africa) region. Israel and Hungary already have close relations, based on shared racist values and a sense of grievance for being shunned by more liberal elements in Europe. Another natural partner is today’s India, where Prime Minister Modi is shattering Indian secular democracy and establishing a Hindu ethnocracy, bitterly repressing the Muslim population, and extending India’s domains with his brutal occupation of Kashmir.

    The U.S. is already virtually alone in recognizing the two existing illegal MENA occupations in violation of Security Council orders: Israel’s annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights and of vastly expanded Greater Jerusalem, and Morocco’s annexation of Western Sahara to extend its near monopoly of irreplaceable phosphate reserves. With the GOP in power, the U.S. might complete the picture by recognizing Hindu India’s violent takeover of Kashmir.

    A new global order is taking shape, but the U.S.-Russia confrontation is not its central element.

    Speaking of a new Cold War, I must say I am in utter disbelief by the delirious reaction on the part of so many in the U.S. to analyses seeking to provide background to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the same is true in connection with voices calling for diplomacy to end the war. They conflate explanation and justification and willfully ignore historical facts, such as the decision of the U.S. to expand NATO eastward without consideration to Russia’s security concerns. And it isn’t as if this decision was greeted at the time with approval by leading diplomats and foreign affairs experts. Former U.S. envoy to the Soviet Union Jack F. Matlock Jr. and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger warned against NATO expansion and Ukraine’s inclusion. George Kennan’s reaction to the Senate’s 1998 ratification of NATO eastward expansion up to the borders of Russia was even more blunt: “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war…. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely…. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever…. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the Nato expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are – but this is just wrong.”

    Were these top U.S. diplomats Russian pawns, as is often said today of anyone offering background information why Russia has invaded Ukraine? I like to have your thoughts on this matter.

    You can add others who delivered stern warnings to Washington that it was reckless and needlessly provocative to ignore Russia’s announced security concerns, including current CIA Director William Burns and his predecessor Stansfield Turner, even hawks like Paul Nitze, in fact almost the whole of the diplomatic corps who had any deep knowledge of Russia. Those warnings were particularly strong with regard to Russia’s concerns, well before Putin and including every Russian leader, over incorporation into NATO of Georgia and Ukraine. These are Russia’s geostrategic heartland as is evident by a look at a topographic map and recent history, Operation Barbarossa.

    Are they all Russian pawns? I suppose that can be claimed in today’s climate of frenzied irrationality, a danger to ourselves and the world.

    It’s useful to have a look at chapters of history that are far enough back so that we can consider them with some degree of detachment. An obvious choice, as mentioned earlier, is the First World War. It is now recognized that it was a terrible war of futility and stupidity in which none of the agents had a tenable stand.

    That’s now. Not at the time. As the great powers of the day stumbled into war, the educated classes in each proclaimed the nobility of the cause of their own state. A famous manifesto of prominent German intellectuals appealed to the West to support the land of Kant, Goethe, Beethoven, and other leading figures of civilization. Their counterparts in France and Britain did the same, as did the most distinguished American intellectuals when Woodrow Wilson joined the war shortly after having won the 1916 election on a platform of Peace without Victory.

    Not everyone took part in the celebration of the grandeur of their own state. In England, Bertrand Russell dared to question the party line; in Germany, he was joined by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht; in the U.S., by Eugene Debs. All were imprisoned. Some, like Randolph Bourne in the U.S., escaped that fate. Bourne was only barred from all liberal journals.

    This pattern is not a departure from the historical norm. It pretty much is the norm, regrettably.

    The World War I experience did provide important lessons. That was recognized very quickly. Two highly influential examples are Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays. Lippmann went on to become a most prominent U.S. 20th century public intellectual. Bernays became one of the founders and intellectual leaders of the huge public relations industry, the world’s major propaganda agency, devoted to undermining markets by creating uninformed consumers who will make irrational choices and to fostering the unbridled consumerism that ranks alongside the fossil fuel industries as a threat to survival.

    Lippmann and Bernays were Wilson-Roosevelt-Kennedy liberals. They were also members of the propaganda agency established by President Wilson to convert a pacifist population to raging anti-German fanatics, the Creel Committee on Public Information, a properly Orwellian title. Both were highly impressed by its success in “manufacture of consent” (Lippmann), “engineering of consent” (Bernays). They recognized this to be a “new art in the practice of democracy,” a means to ensure that the “bewildered herd” — the general population — can be “put in their place” as mere “spectators,” and will not intrude into domains where they do not belong: policy decisions. These must be reserved for the “intelligent minority,” “the technocratic and policy-oriented intellectuals” in the Camelot version.

    That is pretty much reigning liberal democratic theory, which Lippmann and Bernays helped forge. The conceptions are by no means new. They trace back to the early democratic revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries in England and then its U.S. colony. They were invigorated by the World War I experience.

    But while the masses may be controlled with “necessary illusions” and “emotionally potent oversimplifications” (in the words of Reinhold Niebuhr, venerated as the “theologian of the liberal establishment”), there is another problem: the “value-oriented intellectuals” who dare to raise questions about U.S. policy that go beyond tactical decisions. They can no longer be jailed, as during World War I, so those in power now seek to expel them from the public domain in other ways.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Corporate Media Fail to Cover War in Yemen Due to US Support for Saudi Arabia

    News outlets in the United States give prime coverage to the war in Ukraine but mostly ignore the devastating war that the U.S. has supported since March 2015 between a Saudi-led coalition that includes the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the Houthis in Yemen. As a result, most of the U.S. public is unaware of the war’s catastrophic impact on the Yemeni population: according to the United Nations, around 400,000 people have died and 16.2 million are at the brink of starvation.

    The causes of this devastation include a Saudi-led bombing campaign that targets infrastructure, food sources and health services, as well as coercive measures, including a blockade, directed at destroying Yemen’s economy. The UN has called the situation in Yemen the largest humanitarian crisis in the world.

    Recently, the Houthis have retaliated against the Saudi-led coalition by launching transborder attacks into Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Most of those attacks have been deflected with the help of U.S. weapons. The Saudi/UAE airstrikes, missile attacks and strangling blockades regularly overwhelm the relatively ineffective weapons and military power of the Houthis. Yet, the U.S. media confer a disproportionate amount of media coverage and sympathy to Saudi/UAE aggression.

    What’s important to realize — and what the news media fail to discuss — is that the U.S. is complicit in causing this crisis. The U.S. is the main supplier of weapons to Saudi Arabia. According to the Brookings Institute, 73 percent of Saudi arms imports come from the U.S. In fact, 24 percent of U.S. weapons exports go to Saudi Arabia.

    Former President Donald Trump was eager to brag about the high sales of U.S. arms to the Saudis. Although President Joe Biden indicated that he would sell only defensive weapons to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. continues to provide the Saudis with missiles, parts, maintenance, logistical support and intelligence. Without U.S. support, the Saudi war effort would be greatly hampered.

    In view of the devastation to Yemen, it’s no surprise that several efforts were made by Congress to end U.S. support for the war. In 2019, Congress passed a War Powers Resolution calling for an end to U.S. support for the Saudis, partly in response to the brutal assassination of journalist and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi. However, President Trump at the time vetoed the resolution. Likewise, the House of Representatives passed several versions of the National Defense Authorization Act that included language calling for a complete halt to U.S. support for the war. But during final negotiations, those provisions were dropped.

    Recently, lawmakers in Congress, including Representatives Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) and Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon), indicated that they will introduce a Yemen War Powers Resolution to end all U.S. support for the war. We call on our federal lawmakers — especially our own Rep. Adam Smith (D-Washington), who chairs the House Armed Services Committee — to cosponsor the resolution.

    Still, some policy makers want the U.S. to continue support for the Saudi war on Yemen. Their motivations include a desire for continued oil supplies, as well as strategic issues related to China — Saudi Arabia has supposedly considered accepting yuan as payment for oil — and Iran. Another factor is the money earned from arms sales.

    But others point to the high costs of the U.S.-Saudi relationship, including security concerns. In April of this year, 30 members of Congress wrote a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken calling for a recalibration of the U.S.-Saudi partnership. The letter mentions the brutal war on Yemen, Saudi oppression at home, and Saudi Arabia’s flirtations with China.

    Furthermore, the Saudis have been unwilling to raise oil production to aid the international coalition that is confronting Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. Others have published on the ways in which the Saudi-U.S. relationship is damaging to U.S. interests, including dispelling the myth of U.S. dependency on Saudi oil and threats to our national security.

    A discouraging development is that on May 17, Saudi Deputy Defense Minister Khaled bin Salman met with U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl, and the U.S confirmed its commitment to the U.S.-Saudi military collaboration.

    Moreover, recent reports indicate that President Biden is planning to meet with Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman early next month. This planned meeting is distressing to many antiwar activists because President Biden had earlier promised to make bin Salman a “pariah” for his role in the killing of Khashoggi and the war in Yemen.

    On April 2, a truce between the warring parties went into effect, the first in six years. The agreed upon truce included an end to attacks and provisions for better movement of goods and people into Yemen. The truce will expire on June 2, 2022, and it is unclear if it will be renewed. It is crucial that we prevent a lapse in the truce and the resumption of fighting.

    The threat of the U.S. ending its support for the Saudi-led coalition, especially the War Powers Resolution, has made the April 2 truce possible. Although the truce is fragile, and although not all the conditions were met, it is a first step to ending the devastating war and bringing peace to Yemen. The UN is discussing an extension to the truce, which the Houthi are considering.

    Without U.S. support, the Saudis would struggle to continue the war. So, it is crucial now that Congress supports the War Powers Resolution to send a signal to both the Biden administration and to Saudi Arabia that it will no longer support their war. It is time for Congress to exercise its constitutional right to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led War in Yemen.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Paradigm for Peace Applied to Ukraine: Proposal for a Peaceful Pathway Forward

    US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin stated that Western nations will continue “moving Heaven and Earth” to send weapons to Ukraine in its war against Russia. 1 While they may be moving Earth, it’s doubtful they’re moving Heaven, which could very well be enraged at US policymakers’ habit of seizing for itself divine powers to inflict massive amounts of death whenever conflict looms on the horizon. For good reason, so much power was never intended to be in the hands of mere mortals.

    US policymakers are responding to the current crisis in Ukraine with weapon shipments. They responded to the outbreak of Ukraine’s civil war in 2014 with weapon shipments. In fact, the very factors that provoked Russia to invade Ukraine in the first place pertain precisely to Western weapons: the West’s obsessive clinging to militarism in the form of NATO expansion, missile launchers at bases in Eastern Europe, NATO joint military training with nations along Russia’s borders, and shipments of billions in dollars of weapons to help Ukraine attack Donetsk and Lugansk. There have also been reports of US private military contractors training far right-wing extremists in Ukraine during the civil war.2 In addition, Russia accuses the US of developing biological weapons in Ukraine.3 and Russia accuses forces loyal to Kiev of preparing to launch a chemical attack in Ukraine. 4

    If Western weapons provoked Russia, why, then, would more Western weapons be the solution?

    For those who can’t think outside the box of 245 years of US foreign policy grounded in weaponry, war, and greed, weapons are the answer. It’s like a home on a hot summer day that has only one thing in the fridge: weapons.

    For 245 years, the US government has been like an ostrich with its head in the sand, refusing to see the immense damage inflicted upon society and the planet by its unwarranted, magical faith in weapons. Refusing to see, it’s unable to learn and therefore persists in its habit of responding to foreign threats, not with efforts to reduce tension and increase harmony between opposing sides, but with weapons, threats, and the escalation of tension.

    When foreign nations are immersed in civil wars, US policymakers never impartially seek reconciliation between all sides. Instead, they perpetually take sides to further their own ulterior motives, hence the need to send weapons to help one side kill off and dominate the other, as if one side is so good and the other side so evil that one deserves to kill and the other deserves to be killed. US policymakers then cut off communication with the enemy, thus further preventing the ability to understand the enemy’s point of view—and making all the more possible a blackout of truth within the US that in turn bolsters the perception of the enemy as malicious and deserving of death.

    Yet every one of these steps is a backward step away from peace and away from truth and understanding. Why should we apply on the international level forms of human relations that we would never condone at the level of personal, local, or national relations? Why should we allow violence to determine who will acquire which resources and markets, when violence would never be accepted as a tool to allow one US corporation to take over the market of another?

    Our goal should be reconciliation between both sides, not conquest of one side over the other. And the power we need isn’t technological power but a power that has been Missing in Action amongst US foreign policymakers for 245 years: the power of hearts, minds, and spirits to foster across lines of conflict qualities of love, truth, peace, understanding, and joy. The power and will needed to adhere to such qualities and pursue non-violent solutions of conflict resolution and reconciliation can be compared to that of a hero clinging to the side of a cliff, struggling to reach a branch just overhead, and determined not to fall but to keep trying, no matter what. But instead of that hero, we have President Joe Biden, who recently decided that Americans have to fork over an additional $33 billion in military aid to help Ukraine wage war for US policymakers against Russia.5

    Rather than applying backward, dysfunctional forms of human relations to international conflict, let’s place our consciousness in our hearts, turn on our brain power, and impartially, logically, cooperatively, and peacefully address the roots of violence on all sides of conflict.

    While there are many approaches to non-violent conflict resolution, I’ll provide a condensed analysis here using my own model in the hope that it may help with the current crisis, if anyone is listening at all. This essay was hard to keep down to size because more and more issues, examples, and perspectives can always be found. However, I trust that this abbreviated analysis, as imperfect as it may be, can enable us to take several leaps forward in a helpful direction across the stepping stones of the river, and I hope that Readers can add to this their own knowledge and insights to further this analysis and develop the national and international resolve to seek cooperative, non-violent conflict resolution.

    The autumn of 9/11, I created a model called Paradigm for Peace which has four parts: the Defensive and Aggressive Roots of Violence; the Mental, Legal, and Physical Escalators of Violence, Three Facets of Solutions, and a Cooperative “Quest” Attitude of Thought and Dialogue. I spent the next twenty years writing a multi-volume work on foreign policy and peace in which I applied the model primarily to the Mid-East/US conflicts, but also to other conflicts, including the Cold War, Nazi Germany, and the US Civil War.

    This fourth element, the cooperative quest attitude, is the model’s underlying and ever-present dynamic. Participants in dialogue and conflict resolution strive to uphold attitudes of bold amiability, curiosity for the truth, and a determination to figure out how to make the pieces of the puzzle of peace fit together. Participants express themselves clearly and solidly, yet, with just as much strength, they endeavor to genuinely understand opposing perspectives and get in their shoes. They can even practice temporarily switching roles and arguing sincerely on behalf of those on the other side of conflict. Unlike a debate in which each side views victory in terms of beating the other and making knock-out verbal jabs, in cooperative quest dialogue, winning is cooperative and victory is the growth of truth, understanding, and harmony for all.

    Using this open-minded, cooperative attitude of thought and dialogue, the key to promote impartiality is to cast aside the belief that conflict is always a case of one’s own good guys fighting defensively against aggressive bad guys. Instead, we look at both the defensive and aggressive motivations experienced by all the different sides both in the larger external conflict, which involves Russia, the US, and NATO, as well as by those in the internal conflict within Ukraine, including those Ukrainians who support Russia, those who support the US and NATO, those who support violence in this conflict, and those who don’t.

    It’s important to non-violently address both fronts of conflict, the external international and internal national conflicts, because they feed off each other. Throughout the Cold War, US conflicts perpetually fed off the internal conflicts of other nations. US policymakers, perhaps deceiving themselves that they were fighting evil, would take advantage of other nations’ internal tensions, fuel them with weapon shipments and military aid, and use the conflict to try to indirectly fight the USSR, even if the USSR’s involvement was just a figment of US policymakers’ imaginations, as in Greece following WWII.6 Sometimes US policymakers would bait the USSR into conflict, as they did in Afghanistan in 1979.7

    We should also address the multiple fronts of conflict and friction that likely exist within each side, and we should be sure to break down the analysis to separate the views of policymakers from civilians. After all, policymakers cannot speak for civilians, even though they try to all the time. Biden and Ukraine’s President Zelenskiy are stating or implying that Ukrainian civilians want weapons. But do they really? Or do they favor non-violent conflict resolution? There are more fronts of conflict amongst policymakers themselves—within Ukraine, Russia, and the US. Hopefully, cooperative dialogue can be developed into a habit used by policymakers to learn to treat their differences of opinion in a functional and caring manner rather than in a threatened manner that leads to the silencing, intimidation, or firing of those who disagree.

    It’s crucial to never deliberately exclude any group from this thoughtful, caring analysis—no matter what—but to take the time to impartially consider and understand how all of these actors feel threatened. Although it’s important to analyze the roots of conflict comprehensively, a rough comprehensive understanding can be acquired quite quickly, even within a single hour of discussion. Non-violent conflict resolution actually saves time because the process doesn’t psychologically, socially, physically, and financially retard the road to peace the way war and sanctions do. The obstacle to non-violent conflict resolution isn’t time. The obstacle is US policymakers’ lack of commitment to choose cooperative non-violence.

    When you analyze various conflicts and make the effort to lay out the Roots and Escalators of Violence, you come to a stunning conclusion: there’s barely a single Root or Escalator of Violence that can be remedied or even alleviated by weapons, violence, war, threats, and sanctions. Perhaps this is why US foreign policymakers refuse to examine the roots of conflict. They know the truth will put war and weapon corporations out of business, and they know they’ll no longer be able to use war and “fighting for freedom” and “rescuing humanity” as a pretext to gobble up foreign resources and markets.

    On the other hand, perhaps some really do believe they’re fighting for freedom. Judging by the bizarre and illogical reactions of US “experts” who felt offended and threatened by President Putin’s 2007 speech in Munich and his July 2021 essay, a speech and an essay that actually delivered admirable and honorable ideas, it could be that US foreign policymakers honestly see the world as much more threatening than it really is because they lack skills in relating to, cooperating with, and even understanding the words and intentions of other people and nations.

    In the following parts of this essay, we’ll run the current Ukraine crisis through the Paradigm for Peace model in order to gain insight into the roots and escalators of violence and a cooperative, intelligent approach towards peace and justice.

    1. Jacob Knutson, “Austin: West Will ‘Keep Moving’ Heaven and Earth’ to Arm Ukraine,” April 27, 2022.
    2. Tass, “Militia Claim Spotting up to 70 Mercenaries of US Military Company Academi in East Ukraine,” April 21, 2015.
    3. Al Mayadeen, “Russia Releases Documents in US-Funded Bio-Weapons, Hunter Biden Exposed,” March 31, 2022; Al Mayadeen, “Russian Forces Find 30 Biological Labs in Ukraine, Possibly for Bioweapons,” March 7, 2022.
    4. Russia Today, “American Mercenaries Preparing ‘Chemical Weapon’ Incident in Eastern Ukraine, Russia Claims,” December 21, 2021; Paul D. Shinkman, “Fears of False Flag Operation Grow as Russia Claims Ukraine Poised for Chemical Weapons Attack,” May 6, 2022.
    5. Peter Baker and Michael Levenson, “Biden Digs in on Ukraine Strategy, Sending $33 Billion in Aid,” New York Times, April  28, 2022.
    6. Thomas G. Paterson, J. Garry Clifford, and Kenneth J. Hagan, American Foreign Policy: A History Since 1900 (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1991), 450-51; Ed Vulliamy and Helena Smith, “Athens 1944:  Britain’s dirty secret,” Guardian, November 30, 2014.
    7. Bill Van Auken, “Zbigniew Brzezinski, Architect of the Catastrophe in Afghanistan, Dead at 89,” World Socialist Web Site, May 29, 2017; Nick Turse, The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan (New York: Verso, 2010), Chalmers Johnson. “Abolish the CIA!” 31-32; David N. Gibbs, “The Brzezinski Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur (1998),” Translated by William Blum and David N. Gibbs.
    The post Paradigm for Peace Applied to Ukraine: Proposal for a Peaceful Pathway Forward first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Scott Ritter & Ray On Ukraine, Russia, China

    Scott and I focused initially on President Biden’s just-completed Excellent Adventure in the Far East and the U.S. effort to woo countries away from China or, at least, pre-empt closer bilateral ties. Why must China’s “win-win” approach be dismissed out of hand — especially when it was so mutually beneficial 50 years ago in reducing tension and keeping the peace? Recent developments, including talks with Chinese officials, have fortified Scott’s view that China remains extremely reluctant to go to war over Taiwan. Nevertheless, China will do so “in a heartbeat” if Taiwan declares independence and develops a more substantial military relationship with the U.S.

    The post Scott Ritter & Ray On Ukraine, Russia, China appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

  • DHS ‘Concerned’ Over Nazis Returning To US After Fighting In Ukraine

    As the United States undergoes a national mourning process over a spate of mass shootings, American white nationalists with documented histories of violence are attaining combat experience with advanced US-made weapons in a foreign proxy war.

    That’s according to the Department of Homeland Security, which has been gathering intelligence on Americans who have joined the ranks of the more than 20,000 foreign volunteers in Ukraine.

    The FBI has indicted several American white nationalists associated with the Rise Above Movement after they trained with the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion and its civilian wing, the National Corps, in Kiev. But that was almost four years ago. Today, federal law enforcement has no idea how many US neo-Nazis are participating in the war in Ukraine, or what they are doing there.

    The post DHS ‘Concerned’ Over Nazis Returning To US After Fighting In Ukraine appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.