Category: Ukraine

  • Nearly two dozen ambassadors from the European Union, Norway, Switzerland and the United States serving in Vietnam have called on Hanoi to support Ukraine, following the Southeast Asian Nation’s abstention in a vote on a United Nations resolution on Russian aggression against the Eastern European country.

    At an emergency session in New York on March 2, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the resolution demanding that Russia immediately end its invasion of Ukraine and unconditionally withdraw all its military forces by an overwhelming majority of 141 member states backing the measure, with only five against and 35 abstentions. A dozen member states did not vote.

    Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea, Russia and Syria were the nations among the 193-member world body that voted against the resolution.

    Vietnam and Laos were the two countries among the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN) that abstained on the resolution. Russia’s ally China also abstained.

    “Given the geographical distance, it is natural that Vietnam has its own interests and some different viewpoints to those of us in Europe,” said the op-ed signed by 22 ambassadors in Vietnam’s capital Hanoi. “But in this time of crisis we must all focus on the fundamental question of whether it is justified for Russia, a big country, to bully and invade its neighbor Ukraine, in order to try and redraw boundaries on the map against international rules?”

    “Is it in Vietnam’s interests for the world to be ruled by that logic rather than international law and peaceful settlement of disputes?” the piece asked.

    The diplomats acknowledged Vietnam’s important historical relationship with the former Soviet Union, which served as benefactor and ally to the smaller communist nation after the Vietnam War ended in 1975.

    When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, it focused on its own political and economic reordering and no longer subsidized poor developing countries like Vietnam, which had racked up billions of dollars in outstanding debt to Soviet Russia.

    The ambassadors made reference to Vietnam’s wartime experiences, saying that this is why the country knows that it important to fight for freedom and to uphold the sovereignty and territorial integrity.

    “Vietnam, like Europe, understands very well what the people of Ukraine are going through,” they wrote.

    “And it is precisely because of these bitter memories of war and because we all value real peace, that we should all stand together with the people of Ukraine and the overwhelming majority of the international community and call for an end to this unjust conflict,” the ambassadors said.

    The op-ed also mentioned that Russia’s invasion of its western neighbor is having an effect on the global economy, supply chain shortages and rising inflation.

    “Energy, transport, commodity and food prices have all spiked. None of this will benefit Vietnam,” they wrote.

    In conclusion, the diplomats implored Vietnam to share their view that de-escalation and withdrawal are the right actions for legal and humanitarian reasons as well as correct political choice for Russia for the international community for the sake of peace and stability.

    Though the U.N. vote surpassed the two-thirds majority required to be approved. Though General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, they carry political weight, in this case demonstrating strong international support for Ukraine and isolating Russia.

    There was no mention of the op-ed in Vietnam’s state media.

    Much of the Vietnamese media’s coverage of the military action in Ukraine has been pro-Moscow, though less pro-Russia bias than when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. Hundreds of Vietnamese have been evacuated from Ukraine in recent days.

    On Feb. 25, the day after Russia began what it calls a “military operation” in Ukraine, Le Thi Thu Hang, spokesperson of Vietnam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the country was deeply concerned with the armed conflict.

    “We call on all relevant parties to exercise restraint, observe the United Nations Charter and the fundamental principles of international law, avoid the use of force, protect the people, and keep up dialogue to seek a peaceful solution,” she said in a statement.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Roseanne Gerin.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Rep Madison Cawthorn speaks during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) held at the Hilton Anatole on July 9, 2021, in Dallas, Texas.

    A newly leaked video shows far right Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-North Carolina) calling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a “thug” and deriding the Ukrainian government as “evil” and “woke.”

    In a short video obtained by WRAL, Cawthorn says, “Remember that Zelenskyy is a thug. Remember that the Ukrainian government is incredibly corrupt and is incredibly evil and has been pushing woke ideologies, and really there’s a new woke ruling.” The video was likely taken at a town hall in Asheville, North Carolina, over the weekend.

    It’s unclear what Cawthorn is referring to when he says that the Ukrainian government is pushing “woke ideologies,” but the actual meaning is likely inconsequential, as the right often lies and bends the truth to propagandize.

    However, Cawthorn’s rhetoric seems to tie the invasion to the American political right’s battle against “woke” agendas, a concerning statement as conservatives openly embrace fascism while scapegoating “woke” progressives and Democrats – or essentially, anyone who opposes them – for any and all problems that the right claims are plaguing the country.

    About an hour after the video was leaked, Cawthorn appeared to double down on his comments on Twitter. He denounced Vladimir Putin, but said that Ukrainian “[p]ropaganda is being used to entice America into another war,” and that “leaders, including Zelensky, should NOT push misinformation on America.”

    Cawthorn linked an article about “Ukrainian misinformation” that is supposedly goading the U.S. into entering into war with Russia. The linked article relied on multiple stories about the Russian invasion that have since been debunked.

    The article was written by Pedro L. Gonzalez, who is listed as an editor at the Charlemagne Institute on LinkedIn. The mission of the Charlemagne Institute, which has ties to the Koch family network, is to “defend and advance Western civilization,” a white supremacist dogwhistle. Its logo bears a resemblance to that of far right nationalists.

    In response to the video, Republican state Sen. Chuck Edwards wrote on Twitter that the real “thug is Vladimir Putin” and that anything other than support for Zelenskyy and Ukraine is “counter to everything we stand for in America.” Former George W. Bush deputy chief of staff Karl Rove wrote in the Wall Street Journal, where Cawthorn’s speech was first reported, that Cawthorn’s words “[don’t] reflect Republican opinion.”

    It’s unclear why Cawthorn made these claims. It’s true that Zelenskyy has asked the U.S. for aid, specifically requesting that the U.S impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine, which would be an act of war with likely devastating consequences. There’s no evidence that Zelenskyy is pushing disinformation in his pleas as Cawthorn claims, however.

    While it has been popular amongst Republicans in recent weeks to denounce war with Russia, this stance is an odd flip for the party that typically jumps at the chance to enter war or otherwise lift up militarism. It’s possible that Republicans are hedging their bets that President Joe Biden will enter war with Russia, in which case they can claim that they were right all along, similarly to how they flipped on exiting Afghanistan when Biden did it instead of Donald Trump.

    In recent social media posts, Cawthorn appears to be saying that he thinks that Biden is somehow at fault for injuries in Ukraine. Meanwhile, supporters of QAnon, which Cawthorn has denounced but spouted conspiracy theories from, have begun repeating Russian conspiracy theories that the U.S. is developing bioweapons in Ukraine.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Rodrigo Duterte is willing to allow American forces to use Philippine bases and facilities if the crisis in Ukraine stemming from the Russian invasion spreads to Asia, the Filipino ambassador to Washington said Thursday.

    The Philippines would honor the decades-old Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT), which binds the two allies to aid each other in times if a foreign power attacks either country, and would allow the U.S. to use former American naval and air bases here, envoy Jose Manuel Romualdez said.

    If the U.S. asks for support, Duterte “was very clear that – if push comes to shove – the Philippines will be ready to be part of the effort, especially if this Ukrainian crisis spills over to the Asian region,” Romualdez told reporters in Manila during an online forum.

    “He offered that the Philippines will be ready to open its doors, especially to our ally the U.S. in using our facilities, any facilities they may need,” Romualdez said, speaking from Washington.

    Officials at Malacañang, the presidential palace in Manila, did not respond immediately on Thursday to an inquiry from BenarNews for further comment on what Duterte told the Philippine ambassador.

    Romualdez, who met recently with the president in Manila, said that Duterte indicated his approval to open former military bases in the event of an “emergency situation” and allow the U.S. forces to come back to the Subic Bay Naval Base and Clark Air Base if the Ukrainian conflict spills over in Asia.

    The two bases were among United States military’s largest overseas installations but were shut down after the Philippine Congress voted to end their lease in the early 1990s, at the end of the Cold War. Since U.S. forces vacated both sites, they have been transformed into free ports and investment zones.

    “I’m pretty sure that the president meant this to be in an emergency situation where – let’s pray it does not happen – but, if it spreads out in the Asian region for some reason or another, the President obviously sees that need for us to make a choice,” Romualdez said.

    “And our choice is … since we have an MDT with the United States, we have this special relationship and military alliance, he [Duterte] said he is allowing the use of facilities,” the ambassador said.

    Filipina activists protest against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, during an International Women’s Day march in Manila, Mar. 8, 2022. Credit: BenarNews
    Filipina activists protest against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, during an International Women’s Day march in Manila, Mar. 8, 2022. Credit: BenarNews
    Since Duterte came to power in mid-2016, he has tried however to forge closer economic and bilateral relations with America’s rivals, China and Russia.

    Still, the U.S. has not wavered in the military alliance and has helped the Duterte administration defeat pro-Islamic State militants when they took over the southern city of Marawi for five months in 2017.

    In February 2021, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin III reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to the 1999 Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty during his first official phone call with his Philippine counterpart, Delfin Lorenzana.

    The VFA, which came into force in 1999, provides legal cover for large-scale joint military exercises and allows U.S. troops to operate in the Philippines on a rotational basis. It has remained in effect since Manila deferred its termination.

    The comments by Romualdez to reporters came less than a week after Duterte said that the Philippine should remain “neutral” over the Ukraine crisis because it was too far from Russia geographically.

    The ambassador made the comments hours after remarks during a congressional hearing in Washington by Adam Smith, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who called on the United States to strengthen its defense ties in the Indo-Pacific region in light of the Ukrainian crisis and a potential similar one involving China and Taiwan.

    Russia started attacking Ukraine on Feb. 24, drawing international condemnations and strict economic sanctions, led by the U.S., in a bid to stop President Vladimir Putin’s punishing military offensive.

    On Mar. 2, the Philippines joined 140 other U.N. member-states to vote in favor of a General Assembly resolution that condemned Russia’s military strike on Ukraine.

    Romualdez said that while Duterte “values the friendship he made with President Putin and President Xi [Jinping of China], he knows that this thing happening right now in Ukraine is something that should not have happened because it was unprovoked.”

    “The president was very concerned about it, and his major concern was how it will affect our economy, which already is,” Romualdez said, adding it was the top priority in their discussion.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Jojo Riñoza for BenarNews.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The Russian military invasion of Ukraine has devastated civilian centers such as schools and hospitals. Over 2.2. million people have fled the country, resulting in a dangerous refugee crisis in Europe as Russia refuses to guarantee the “humanitarian corridors” promised for civilians to safely evacuate. “What we’re talking about is repeated attacks on civilian infrastructure, which is illegal under international law,” says Bel Trew, independent correspondent for The Independent, who has been reporting on civilians being targeted in other Ukrainian cities.

    TRANSCRIPT

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

    AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, Democracynow.org, the War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman in New York, joined by Democracy Now! co-host Nermeen Shaikh. Hi, Nermeen.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: Hi Amy, and welcome to our listeners and viewers across the country and around the world.

    AMY GOODMAN: The Russian invasion of Ukraine has entered its third week with Russia continuing to attack civilian areas. Earlier today the foreign ministers of Russia and Ukraine met in Turkey but failed to make progress towards a ceasefire. The talks came a day after Ukraine accused Russia of bombing a maternity hospital and a children’s hospital in the besieged city of Mariupol. Three people including a child reportedly died in the strike; 17 were injured. At the talks in Turkey, the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov admitted Russia had shelled the hospital but claimed the building was being used as a base for Ukrainian fighters. The Red Cross described the situation in Mariupol as apocalyptic with many residents cuts off from food, water, power or heat for over a week. The mayor there says 1,200 civilians have been killed over the past 10 days but that figure has not been verified. During the talks in Turkey, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba called on Russia to allow the evacuation of civilians from the besieged city of Mariupol through a humanitarian corridor.

    DMYTRO KULEBA: The most tragic situation is currently now in the city of Mariupol on the Sea of Azov. The city is being bombarded from the air. It’s being hit by artillery fire. And I came here with a humanitarian purpose, to walk out from the meeting with the decision to arrange a humanitarian corridor in and from Mariupol, from Mariupol, for civilians who want to flee this area of fear and struggle and humanitarian corridor to bring in Mariupol humanitarian aid. Unfortunately, Minister Lavrov was not in a position to commit himself to it, but he will correspond with respective authorities on this issue.

    AMY GOODMAN: That’s Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba. We begin today’s show with Bel Trew. She is an international correspondent for The Independent usually based in Beirut. She has been covering the war in Ukraine since the Russian invasion began two weeks ago. She is joining us now from Vinnytsia, Ukraine. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Bel. If you can start off by describing the situation where you are and then we’ll talk about Mariupol and what you understand is taking place there.

    BEL TREW: I’m at the moment in Vinnytsia, which is a central city. It’s key for humanitarian aid delivery, but also it’s on the refugee trail because it connects the south of Ukraine, the east of Ukraine, the north of Ukraine to the west. So it’s a very, very crucial city. At the same time however it’s also under bombardment. I’ve just come back from the town’s main airport, Vinnytsia International Airport, that was hit apparently by eight different missiles. It’s totally destroyed. There is also a military base nearby that was destroyed as well. So we’re getting air raid sirens here every hour, pretty much, as well as the fact that this key route for humanitarian aid and refugees.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: So far as you know, have civilian areas been targeted there and elsewhere where you have reported from? Can you talk about the attacks on civilian areas?

    BEL TREW: In Vinnytsia, as i said, the International Airport, which is a civilian airport, was pretty badly damaged, but no one was there because of course most people are taking shelter in their basements at the moment. I have been basically going along most of western Ukraine, so even though the frontline is perhaps quite far away, of course the skies are still a problem for people here, which is why every Ukrainian I have met has said, “Please tell the West, ‘close the skies, create a no-fly zone.’” I was just in a town called Zhytomyr which is just next to Kyiv. It’s the key city before the west of Ukraine. There, we went around a school that had been damaged, a hospital that had been damaged and at least 10 residential homes. So even though that is not on the frontline, Russian troops are about 50 miles down the road, it’s still being bombarded from the sky. This is the key point that Ukrainians keep telling me, is that they cannot win this war if they have to worry about air strikes, missile strikes, shelling, if they don’t have that support from the sky.

    AMY GOODMAN: Bel, I want to go to one of your video reports where you visited a school complex that had just been heavily damaged by a Russian missile.

    BEL TREW: This is the main school for Zhytomyr. It caters to all ages. The ground floor is preschool but it’s also a secondary school. As you can see it was utterly devastated in a missile strike just yesterday. It’s unclear exactly what the target was, but this is very much a school.

    AMY GOODMAN: That was our guest Bel Trew of The Independent. She also spoke to a 61-year-old caretaker of the school named Oleh.

    OLEH: [translated] I have been working at this school for almost 15 years as a laborer. We were renovating this with our own hands, every year making it better and better so that the children could focus on learning. Now as we come here i’m speechless. I can’t say anything.

    AMY GOODMAN: Bel Trew, take that larger and what he is describing.

    BEL TREW: What we are talking about is repeated attacks on civilian infrastructure which is illegal under international law. It’s not clear what the target was of that strike. This is very much a school. Thankfully there were no children in it because of the war. But in that same town, as I described, a maternity unit was also destroyed, and several residential homes. Everyone I spoke to said, “Why is this happening to us? This is a hospital. This is a school. These are homes.” At least four people were killed. And actually in the hospital that I went to, they had to evacuate the pregnant women and a newborn baby to the basement just seconds before the missile struck. One woman actually gave birth in the middle of that strike because of the stress that she was under. They’re now having to build hospitals underground in the basements fearing further assault from the sky. So the question that’s on everyone’s lips here is, “Why are they targeting civilian infrastructure? Why are they targeting humanitarian corridors?” We’ve seen the horrendous footage from Irpin just outside of Kiev. But also of course as we have been talking earlier, Mariupol, the people here, they feel like it’s vindictive and deliberate.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: Bel, from where you have been reporting, the areas you have traveled to, have you in addition of course to hearing about these aerial attacks, have you also, yourself, seen Russian troops or tanks on the streets?

    BEL TREW: For me I haven’t actually seen the Russian troops yet because if you are that close to them then you are pretty much in no man’s land on the frontline. But certainly in the outskirts of Kyiv and other places in the east of the country they are seeing Russian troops. And of course on the coast, in areas like Odesa, they have got a large buildup of Russian ships as well because they are fearing a massive attack from the sea. So in terms of where Russian troop movement is, it’s on the ground, it’s coming from the sky, and also coming from the sea.

    AMY GOODMAN: You have been trying to get into Mariupol. You haven’t been able to. You have been speaking with people like the Ukrainian Red Cross. Talk about what you understand is happening, and people right now—it was the focus of the talks in Turkey between the Ukrainian and Russian foreign ministers—Ukraine was hoping for some kind of ceasefire, safe passage for the people of Mariupol. Right before the broadcast it was bombed again.

    BEL TREW: Yeah. When I spoke to the director general of the Ukrainian Red Cross—his teams by the way are responsible for opening those humanitarian corridors. They are the convoys that are on the ground, that are going in to rescue people. He told me they tried four consecutive days in a row to get people out of Mariupol, and every single time their convoy was hit by shelling. He said to me they couldn’t get even a single truck of food into Mariupol. They couldn’t get medical supplies. That’s why the attack on the hospital is so devastating because medical supplies are so low already. He actually told me that he estimates that people there have probably only got between three and five days left of food. We are hearing reports about people melting snow for water, and they don’t have any heating. And I will tell you, it is minus temperatures here. It’s extremely cold. It’s snowing. I cannot even imagine what it’s like to be under heavy shelling, to not have food, to not have any water, to not have any medical supplies, to not be able to get out and to be dealing with this freezing temperature.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: Bel, as you know the U.S and the U.K. yesterday expressed concerns that Russia may now deploy unconventional and even chemical weapons. You reported from Syria, on Syria, for over a decade and people have drawn comparisons between Russian military strategy in Ukraine now and what it was in Syria. If you could respond to the concerns being expressed? Also your own experience reporting from Syria and now from Ukraine.

    BEL TREW: This is the biggest fear for people here in Ukraine, is we’ve seen what Russia is capable of in Syria. Certainly I’ve been reporting on that crisis, as you said, for over a decade. Specifically since Russia entered the conflict in 2015, human rights organizations have documented the widespread use of banned weapons. I’m talking about chemical weapons, incendiary weapons, cluster munitions, barrel bombs, either directly by Russian forces or Syrian regime forces supported by the Russians. They have literally thrown everything at Syrian civilians. There is no concept of international law in Syria. So the fear that I have is I have seen what they are capable of doing in Syria. Can that happen in Ukraine? While the situation here is desperate, obviously international law has been thrown out the window, and Geneva Conventions have been trampled upon, I don’t think the worst has happened yet. That is my really big fear, is if Russia feels it is been put into a corner, it has been isolated to the world, I have seen what they have done in Syria. I’m very concerned for civilians here in Ukraine.

    AMY GOODMAN: Do you have any sense of the casualties? Russian casualties, the Ukrainians are saying they have killed 12,000 Russian soldiers. Russia saying there is nothing like that number. I think they have thrown out a number of 500. We don’t know how many Ukrainian military deaths there are, even Ukrainian civilian deaths. Do you have a sense of this?

    BEL TREW: This is a big question, because of course we are seeing very many different narratives. As you aid, the Ukrainians are talking of over 10,000 Russian soldiers killed. The Russians are saying that’s not true at all. And frankly, we can’t verify it. We can’t get to those areas and count bodies. The United Nations I believe is saying over 1,300 casualties. That includes deaths and injuries they’ve documented. But they also have said to me, the officials have told me that’s a woefully low estimate. At the moment there’s whole areas we haven’t been able to access. The mayor of Mariupol has said that thousands of people within his own city have been killed in the last few days. No one can get there to even be able to verify that, and we have seen images coming out of that city of mass graves, of bodies just being put into trenches, basically. So I’m afraid that the death toll is actually much higher than we could ever have imagined, and we may not know that for weeks or even months to come.

    AMY GOODMAN: We want to go to another of your reports for The Independent, this near the Ukrainian border with Poland.

    BEL TREW: I’m about 40 to 50 kilometers away from the border, and this is the start of the line of cars to the border with Poland where people are beginning to flee. As you can see behind me, people have left their cars and are literally doing it on foot, 40 to 50 kilometers they have got to walk. It’s a 7- to 10-hour walk. People are doing this with their luggage, they’re doing it with their children, and they’re doing it with their pets.

    PERSON: It’s too far for me, because the 40 kilometers, we have to go in by walk.

    BEL TREW: Fifty.

    PERSON: Yeah, 50 kilometers.

    BEL TREW: And you’re going to have to walk 50 kilometers?

    PERSON: Yeah.

    PERSON: Like I said before, I feel shame. Exhausted, because it’s a long travel, and it’s not over, because for us, 14 buses.

    PERSON: Fourteen buses, yeah.

    AMY GOODMAN: That’s a report of Bel Trew. Bel, if you can describe finally the Ukraine side of the border. We’re going to talk to the Norwegian Refugee Council on the Polish side of the border. Also, how are you personally staying safe? Journalist after journalist has been wounded, has been shot.

    BEL TREW: Absolutely. Just to talk about the refugees on the Ukrainian side of the border, the scenes have been utterly devastating. I’ve seen families split up because they’ve got family members that are in areas that are under siege or now even occupied by Russian forces. I’ve seen mothers with their children but without their husbands or the fathers, because they’ve had to stay behind because of general mobilization, they’re of fighting age. I’ve seen children traveling alone. I met a 17-year-old boy whose mother and sister are now in occupied Kherson, his father is stuck in Odesa, because he has been signed up, and he himself is traveling on his own. On top of that, as I said in the report before, people were walking 10, 12 hours in the freezing temperatures to get to the border, and sometimes they were being turned back. We had people desperate to get on trains, people driving for days in cars across the country. It has been utterly extraordinary. This is an extraordinary refugee crisis as well.

    To answer your second question talking about keeping safe, we have seen horrendous footage, for example of the British Sky News team who came under ambush. We’ve also heard about journalists down south near the coast who have come under fire as well. And as you’ve seen, humanitarian corridors are being hit by mortars which journalists have been present as they’ve been covering it. So really it feels like the international rulebook has been thrown out the window and anything is possible. So as a journalist, you’ve just got to take every security precaution you can, even though it’s a pretty difficult situation.

    AMY GOODMAN: Are you wearing a bulletproof vest right now?

    BEL TREW: Yes, I am, and the reason I’m actually wearing this is not necessarily because Vinnytsia, the city behind me, is dangerous, but it’s just because I have been at an airport which has been hit by multiple incoming fire, rockets or missiles, and there was an air raid siren at the time. So we just scrambled to put on our vests just in case, because that airport has been hit at least eight times, and standing there, I didn’t want to be hit again. But certainly Vinnytsia behind me is among the more safer places. It’s just that I literally just came from the airport that had been bombed relatively recently.

    AMY GOODMAN: Bel Trew, we want to thank you for being with us, international correspondent for The Independent, usually based in Beirut, has been covering the war in Ukraine since the Russian invasion began last month, joining us from Vinnytsia, Ukraine. Please stay safe.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • U.S. determination to be the world’s hegemon created the crisis in Ukraine. The impacts are felt by working people in this country, who must look outside for solidarity and leadership as they struggle in a political system that offers them no representation.

    The post Musings from the Margins appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Russia's President Vladimir Putin and China's President Xi Jinping pose during a meeting at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing, China, on February 4, 2022.

    Just as the relentless grinding of the earth’s tectonic plates produces earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, so the endless superpower struggle for dominance over Eurasia is fraught with tensions and armed conflict. Beneath the visible outbreak of war in Ukraine and the U.S.-Chinese naval standoff in the South China Sea, there is now an underlying shift in geopolitical power in process across the vast Eurasian landmass — the epicenter of global power on a fast-changing, overheating planet. Take a moment to step back with me to try to understand what’s now happening on this increasingly embattled globe of ours.

    If geology explains the earth’s eruptions, geopolitics is the tool we need to grasp the deeper meaning of the devastating war in Ukraine and the events that led to this crisis. As I explain in my recent book, To Govern the Globe: World Orders and Catastrophic Change, geopolitics is essentially a method for the management of empire through the use of geography (air, land, and sea) to maximize military and economic advantage. Unlike conventional nations, whose peoples can be readily mobilized for self-defense, empires are, by dint of their extraterritorial reach and the perils inherent in any foreign military deployment, a surprisingly fragile form of government. To give an empire a fighting chance of survival against formidable odds requires a resilient geopolitical architecture.

    For nearly 100 years, the geopolitical theories of an obscure Victorian geographer, Sir Halford Mackinder, have had a profound influence on a succession of leaders who sought to build or break empires in Eurasia — including Adolf Hitler, U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, and, most recently, Vladimir Putin. In an academic essay published in 1904, when the Trans-Siberian Railway was completing its 5,700-mile crawl from Moscow to Vladivostok, Mackinder argued that future rails would knit Eurasia into a unitary landmass that, along with Africa, he dubbed the tri-continental “world island.” When that day came, Russia, in alliance with another land power like Germany — and, in our time, we might add China — could expand across Eurasia’s endless central “heartland,” allowing, he predicted, “the use of vast continental resources for fleet-building, and the empire of the world would be in sight.”

    As the Versailles Peace Conference opened in 1919 at the end of World War I, Mackinder turned that seminal essay into a memorable maxim about the relationship between East European regions like Ukraine, the Central Asian heartland, and global power. “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland,” he wrote. “Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island. Who rules the World-Island commands the World.”

    At the core of recent conflicts at both ends of Eurasia is an entente between China and Russia that the world hasn’t seen since the Sino-Soviet alliance at the start of the Cold War. To grasp the import of this development, let’s freeze frame two key moments in world history — Communist Chinese leader Mao Zedong’s Moscow meeting with the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin in December 1949 and Vladimir Putin’s summit in Beijing with Xi Jinping just last month.

    To avoid facile comparisons, the historical context for each of those meetings must be kept in mind. When Mao came to Moscow just weeks after proclaiming the People’s Republic in October 1949, China had been ravaged by a nine-year war against Japan that killed 20 million people and a five-year civil war that left seven million more dead.

    In contrast, having defeated Hitler, seized an empire in eastern Europe, rebuilt his socialist economy, and tested an atomic bomb, making the Soviet Union a superpower, Stalin was at the peak of his strength. In contrast to China’s army of ill-equipped infantry, the Soviet Union had a modern military with the world’s best tanks, jet fighters, and missiles. As the globe’s top communist, Stalin was “the boss” and Mao came to Moscow as essentially a supplicant.

    When Mao Met Stalin

    During his two-month trip to Moscow starting in December 1949, Mao sought desperately needed economic aid to rebuild his ravaged land and military support for the liberation of the island of Taiwan. In a seemingly euphoric telegram sent to his comrades in Beijing, Mao wrote:

    “Arrived in Moscow on the 16th and met with Stalin for two hours at 10 p.m. His attitude was really sincere. The questions involved included the possibility of peace, the treaty, loan, Taiwan, and the publication of my selected works.”

    But Stalin surprised Mao by refusing to give up the territorial concessions in northern China that Moscow had won at the 1945 Yalta conference, saying the issue couldn’t even be discussed until their subsequent meeting. For the next 17 days, Mao literally cooled his heels waiting during a freezing Moscow winter inside a drafty dacha where, as he later recalled, “I got so angry that I once pounded the table.”

    Finally, on January 2, 1950, Mao cabled the communist leadership in Beijing:

    “Our work here has achieved an important breakthrough in the past two days. Comrade Stalin has finally agreed to… sign a new Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship.”

    With Russia giving up its territorial claims in exchange for assurances about demilitarizing the long border between the two countries, their leaders signed a Treaty of Friendship and Alliance in February 1950. It, in turn, sparked a sudden flow of Soviet aid to China whose new constitution hailed its “indestructible friendship” with the Soviet Union.

    But Stalin had already planted the seeds for the Sino-Soviet split to come, embittering Mao, who later said Russians “have never had faith in the Chinese people and Stalin was among the worst.”

    At first, the China alliance proved a major Cold War asset for Moscow. After all, it now had a useful Asian surrogate capable of dragging the U.S. into a costly conflict in Korea without the Soviets suffering any casualties at all. In October 1950, Chinese troops crossed the Yalu River into a Korean maelstrom that would drag on for three years and cost China 208,000 dead troops as well as 40% of its budget.

    Following Stalin’s death in May 1953 and the Korean armistice two months later, the new Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev tried to repair relations by presiding over a massive, yet distinctly inequitable program of economic aid to China. However, he also refused to help that country build an atomic bomb. It would be a “huge waste,” he said, since China was safe under the Soviet nuclear umbrella. At the same time, he demanded the joint development of uranium mines Soviet scientists had discovered in southwest China.

    Over the next four years, those initial nuclear tensions grew into an open Sino-Soviet split. In September 1959, Khrushchev visited Beijing for a disastrous seven-hour meeting with Mao. In 1962, Mao finally ended diplomatic relations entirely, blaming Moscow for failing to launch a nuclear strike on the U.S. during that year’s Cuban missile crisis.

    In October 1964, China’s successful test of a 22-kiloton nuclear bomb marked its arrival as a major player on the world stage. That bomb not only made it an independent world power but transformed the Sino-Soviet split from a war of words into a massive military confrontation. By 1968, the Soviet Union had 16 divisions, 1,200 jet aircraft, and 120 medium-range missiles arrayed along the Sino-Soviet border. Meanwhile, China was planning for a Soviet attack by building a nuclear-hardened “underground city” that spread for 30 square miles beneath Beijing.

    Washington’s Cold War Strategy

    More than any other event since World War II, the short-lived Sino-Soviet alliance changed the course of world history, transforming the Cold War from a regional power struggle over Eastern Europe into a volatile global conflict. Not only was China the world’s largest nation with 550 million people, or 20% of all humanity, but its new communist government was determined to reverse a half-century of imperialist exploitation and internal chaos that had crippled its international influence.

    The rise of China and the conflict in Korea forced Washington to radically revise its strategy for fighting the Cold War. Instead of focusing on NATO and Europe to contain the Soviet Union behind the Iron Curtain, Washington now forged mutual defense pacts from Japan to Australia to secure the offshore Pacific littoral. For the past 70 years, that fortified island rim has been the fulcrum of Washington’s global power, allowing it to defend one continent (North America) while dominating another (Eurasia).

    To tie those two axial ends of Eurasia into a strategic perimeter, Cold War Washington ringed the Eurasian continent’s southern rim with chains of steel -– including three navy fleets, hundreds of combat aircraft, and a string of mutual-defense pacts stretching from NATO in Europe to ANZUS in the South Pacific. It took a decade, but once Washington accepted that the Sino-Soviet split was the real thing, it belatedly began to cultivate an entente with Beijing that would leave the Soviet Union ever more geopolitically isolated, contributing to its ultimate implosion and the end of the Cold War in 1991.

    That left the U.S. as the world’s dominant power. Nonetheless, even without a near-peer rival on the planet, Washington refused to cash in its “peace dividend.” Instead, it maintained its chains of steel ringing Eurasia — including those three naval fleets and hundreds of military bases, while making multiple military forays into the Middle East (some disastrous) and even recently forming a new Quadrilateral alliance with Australia, India, and Japan in the Indian Ocean. For 15 years following Beijing’s admission to the World Trade Organization in 2001, a de facto economic alliance with China also allowed the U.S. sustained economic growth.

    When Putin Met Xi

    Last month, when Vladimir Putin met Xi Jinping in Beijing at the start of the Winter Olympics, it proved a stunning reversal of the Stalin-Mao moment 70 years earlier. While Russia’s post-Soviet economy remains smaller than Canada’s and overly dependent on petroleum exports, China has become the planet’s industrial powerhouse with the world’s largest economy (as measured in purchasing power) and 10 times the population of Russia. Moscow’s heavy-metal military still relies on Soviet-style tanks and its nuclear arsenal. China, on the other hand, has built the world’s largest navy, its most secure global satellite system, and its most agile missile armada, capped by cutting-edge hypersonic missiles whose 4,000 miles-per-hour speed can defeat any defense.

    This time, therefore, it was the Russian leader who came to China’s capital as the supplicant. With Russian troops massing at Ukraine’s borders and U.S. economic sanctions looming, Putin desperately needed Beijing’s diplomatic backing. After years of cultivating China by offering shared petroleum and natural-gas pipelines and joint military maneuvers in the Pacific, Putin was now cashing in his political chips.

    At their February 4th meeting, Putin and Xi drew on 37 prior encounters to proclaim nothing less than an ad-hoc alliance meant to shake the world. As the foundation for their new “global governance system,” they promised to “enhance transport infrastructure connectivity to keep logistics on the Eurasian continent smooth and… make steady progress on major oil and gas cooperation projects.” These words gained weight with the announcement that Russia would spend another $118 billion on new oil and gas pipelines to China. (Four-hundred billion dollars had already been invested in 2014 when Russia faced European sanctions over its seizure of Crimea from Ukraine.) The result: an integrated Sino-Russian oil-and-gas infrastructure is being built from the North Sea to the South China Sea.

    In a landmark 5,300-word statement, Xi and Putin proclaimed the “world is going through momentous changes,” creating a “redistribution of power” and “a growing demand for… leadership” (which Beijing and Moscow clearly intended to provide). After denouncing Washington’s ill-concealed “attempts at hegemony,” the two sides agreed to “oppose the… interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states under the pretext of protecting democracy and human rights.”

    To build an alternative system for global economic growth in Eurasia, the leaders planned to merge Putin’s projected “Eurasian Economic Union” with Xi’s already ongoing trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative to promote “greater interconnectedness between the Asia Pacific and Eurasian regions.” Proclaiming their relations “superior to political and military alliances of the Cold War era,” an oblique reference to the tense Mao-Stalin relationship, the two leaders asserted that their entente has “no limits… no ‘forbidden’ areas of cooperation.” On strategic issues, the two parties were adamantly opposed to the expansion of NATO, any move toward independence for Taiwan, and “color revolutions” such as the one that had ousted Moscow’s Ukrainian client in 2014.

    Given the Ukraine invasion just three weeks later, Putin got what he so desperately needed. In exchange for feeding China’s voracious appetite for energy (on a planet already in a climate crisis of the first order), Putin got a condemnation of U.S. interference in “his” sphere. In addition, he won Beijing’s diplomatic support — however hesitant China’s leadership might actually be about events in Ukraine — once the invasion started. Although China has been Ukraine’s main trading partner since 2019, Beijing set aside those ties and its own advocacy of inviolable sovereignty to avoid calling Putin’s intervention an “invasion.”

    A Planet Mackinder Would Hardly Recognize

    In fact, even before the invasion of Ukraine, Russia and China were pursuing a strategy of ratcheting up slow, relentless pressure at both ends of Eurasia, hoping the U.S. chains of steel ringing that vast continent would sooner or later snap. Think of it as a strategy of push-push-punch.

    For the past 15 years, Putin has been responding to NATO in just that manner. First, through surveillance and economic leverage, Moscow has tried to keep client states in its orbit, something Putin learned from his four years as a KGB agent working with East Germany’s Stasi secret police in the late 1980s. Next, if a favored autocrat is challenged by pro-democracy demonstrators or a regional rival, a few thousand Russian special forces are sent in to stabilize the situation. Should a client state try to escape Moscow’s orbit, however, Putin promptly moves to massive military intervention and the expropriation of buffer enclaves, as he did first in Georgia and now in Ukraine. Through this strategy, he may be well on his way to reclaiming significant parts of the old Soviet sphere of influence in East Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East.

    Due south of Moscow in the ever-volatile Caucasus Mountains, Putin crushed NATO’s brief flirtation with Georgia in 2008, thanks to a massive invasion and the expropriation of the provinces of North Ossetia and Abkhazia. After decades of fighting between the former Soviet republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan, Russia recently sent in thousands of “peace-keeping” forces to resolve the conflict in favor of the loyal, pro-Moscow regime in Azerbaijan. Further east, when democratic protesters challenged Moscow’s local ally in Kazakhstan in January, thousands of Russian troops — under the rubric of Moscow’s version of NATO — flew into the former capital, Almaty, where they helped crush the protests, killing dozens and wounding hundreds.

    In the Middle East where Washington backed the ill-fated Arab spring rebels who tried to topple Syria’s ruler, Bashar al-Assad, Moscow operates a massive air base at Latakia in that country’s northwest from which it has bombed rebel cities like Aleppo to rubble, while serving as a strategic counterweight to U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf.

    But Moscow’s main push has been in Eastern Europe. There, Putin backed Belarus’s strongman, Alexander Lukashenko, in crushing the democratic opposition after he had rigged the 2020 elections, and so making Minsk a virtual client state. Meanwhile, he’s been pressing relentlessly against Ukraine since his loyal client there was ousted in the 2014 Maidan “color revolution.” First, he seized Crimea in 2014 and then he armed separatist rebels in that country’s eastern region adjacent to Russia. Last month, after proclaiming that “modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia,” Putin recognized the “independence” of those two separatist enclaves, much as he had done years before in Georgia.

    On February 24th, the Russian president sent nearly 200,000 troops across the Ukraine’s borders to seize much of the country and its capital, Kyiv, as well as replace its feisty president with a pliable puppet. As international sanctions mounted and Europe considered providing Ukraine with jet fighters, Putin ominously put his nuclear forces on high alert to make it clear he would brook no interference with his invasion.

    Meanwhile, at the eastern end of Eurasia, China has pursued a somewhat similar, if more subtle push-push strategy, with the punch yet to come. Starting in 2014, Beijing began dredging a half-dozen military bases from atolls in the South China Sea, slowly ramping up their role from fishing ports to full-fledged military bases that now challenge any passing U.S. naval patrol. Then came swarming fighter squadrons over the Taiwan Strait and East China Sea, followed, last October, by a joint Chinese-Russian fleet of 10 ships that steamed provocatively around Japan in what had previously been considered unchallenged U.S. waters.

    If Xi follows Putin’s playbook, then all that push/push could indeed lead to a punch — possibly an invasion of Taiwan to reclaim lands Beijing sees as an integral part of China, much as Putin sees Ukraine as a former Russian imperial province that should never have been given away.

    Should Beijing attack Taiwan, Washington might find itself hamstrung to do anything militarily except express admiration for the island’s heroic yet futile resistance. Should Washington send its aircraft carriers into the Taiwan Straits, they would be sunk within hours by China’s formidable DF-21D “carrier-killer” missiles or its unstoppable hypersonic ones. And once Taiwan was gone, Washington’s position on the Pacific littoral could be effectively broken and a retreat to the mid-Pacific preordained.

    All of this looks possible on paper. However, in the grim reality of actual invasions and military clashes, amid the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, and on a planet that’s seen better days, the very nature of geopolitics is likely to be up for grabs. Yes, it’s possible that, if Washington is whipsawed between the eastern and western edges of Eurasia with periodic eruptions of armed combat from the Xi-Putin entente, its chains of steel could strain and finally snap, effectively evicting it from that strategic land mass.

    As it happens, though, given a Sino-Russian alliance so heavily based on the trade in fossil fuels, even if Vladimir Putin doesn’t himself go down thanks to his potentially disastrous invasion of Ukraine, both Beijing and Moscow may find themselves whipsawed in the years to come by a troubled energy transition and climate change. The ghost of Sir Halford Mackinder might then point out to us not just that U.S. power will fade with the loss of Eurasia, but that so much other power may fade as well on an ever hotter, ever more endangered planet he couldn’t in his lifetime have truly imagined.

  • Nobody is talking about the blame that must be shouldered by the German government for the crisis and humanitarian disaster in Ukraine. Sure Russia is guilty of a huge war crime in invading Ukraine,  Surely too, the US must  be blamed for creating the situation which led Russia and its autocratic leader Vladimir Putin to decide it had to invade to prevent Ukraine from being pulled into the US orbit. But Germany, the largest country in NATO after the US, is almost as guilty for this current war in Europe as is the United States.

    The post Germany Deserves A Big Share Of The Blame For The Disaster In Ukraine appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

  • This allegedly happened on March 9 at about 17:30 local time (15:30 UTC) in Mariupol, Ukraine: Russian forces bombed a maternity and children’s hospital in southern Ukraine, authorities there said Wednesday, an attack described by the country’s President Volodymyr Zelensky as an “atrocity.” Pictures show that all windows have been destroyed by a huge pressure wave. If there had been people in the building many would be dead and all would likely have cuts from glass and other debris flying around. How come that there were allegedly only 17 people injured?

    The post Disarming Ukraine Day 15: A Curious Hospital Bombing And ‘No-Fly Zone’ Pressure appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Mass media in the United States and throughout the countries of Western Europe are exhaustively and intensely depicting the suffering of the Ukrainian people as Ukraine confronts the Russian army.

    It is the U.S. and its NATO proxy who have now broadened the war being fought in Ukraine.

    What the media is not covering is the impact of this war on the working and poor people inside Russia.

    The post U.S. Sanctions: An Act Of War Against Workers appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Self-anointed “fact-checkers” in the U.S. corporate press have spent two weeks mocking as disinformation and a false conspiracy theory the claim that Ukraine has biological weapons labs, either alone or with U.S. support. The neocon official long in charge of U.S. policy in Ukraine testified on Monday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and strongly suggested that such claims are, at least in part, true.

    The post Victoria Nuland: Ukraine Has “Biological Research Facilities,” Worried Russia May Seize Them appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Sen. Lindsey Graham speaks during a news conference with Senate Republicans about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, at the U.S. Capitol on March 2, 2022, in Washington, D.C.

    As the Russian onslaught against Ukraine intensified last week, 42 senators asked the Biden administration to extend Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to the tens of thousands of Ukrainians currently living in the U.S. on temporary visas.

    TPS, which was created by Congress in 1990, has, over the decades since then, been used to offer temporary residency and work permits to people already in the U.S. from a country deemed too dangerous or chaotic to return to safely. In recent years, it has mainly been utilized by people fleeing political and gang violence in Central America.

    The request to extend TPS to Ukrainians was marketed as “bipartisan,” but in reality all but two of the senators who supported it were Democrats. Yet, even though few Republicans signed the letter requesting an extension of TPS, support for Ukrainians fleeing the Russian attack does seem to be genuinely widespread throughout both major political parties. Only a handful of Republican legislators have pushed back against expressions of support for Ukrainian people in the face of military attacks from Russia.

    Three days after the letter was sent, on March 3, the Biden administration announced that it would, indeed, extend the TPS program, which the senators estimated would cover roughly 30,000 Ukrainians who were in the country as of March 1. Since TPS was not designed as a formal part of the refugee resettlement program, however, it wouldn’t cover arrivals after March 1, meaning the huge numbers of Ukrainians now fleeing by train, bus, car and on foot into refugee camps in eastern Europe will likely have to go through a much longer resettlement process if they want to eventually end up in the United States. They will, however, in the coming years almost certainly face an easier pathway into the country than did the waves of refugees from the Syrian civil war during the Trump presidency.

    The growing consensus in the U.S. and in Europe — that Western countries have a moral obligation to help Ukrainian refugees fleeing the artillery, missile and tank bombardment — is a welcome one.

    But it is a travesty that the U.S. has not extended the same welcome to Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis, Yemenis, Central Americans, and others fleeing mass violence — either state-sponsored or at the hands of cartels — desperate poverty and societal collapse.

    As several commentators have already noted, many Republicans who are currently calling for the U.S. to welcome in Ukrainians supported Trump’s zero-admissions policies against Syrians, Iraqis and Yemenis, and also supported Trump’s efforts to uproot TPS protections for Hondurans, El Salvadorans and Haitians.

    Last week, Maribel Hastings and David Torres of the pro-immigration reform organization America’s Voice, wrote a scathing op-ed in Spanish about the hypocrisy of GOP legislators who waged war on TPS throughout the Trump years and yet are now loudly advocating its use during this crisis. “In the recent past,” the authors wrote, “they have done everything in their power to ensure that immigrants from communities of color are not welcomed but rather, the contrary. They want sufficient obstacles to be put in place to dissuade them from coming to the United States, despite the fact that decades of violence in their countries is the most latent threat to their lives and the lives of their families.”

    The U-turn regarding refugees from Ukraine also stands in stunning contrast to the ways in which much of Europe, in recent years, battened down its hatches against Syrian and Afghan migrants — the former suffering unspeakable atrocities at the hands of President Bashar al-Assad and the Russian army on the one side, and Islamic fundamentalist groups such as ISIS on the other; and the latter caught between the violence of a U.S.-led occupation and the cruelty of a Taliban insurgency. Europe also went out of its way to clamp down on asylum seekers fleeing violence from elsewhere in the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

    As recently as November, Poland sent heavily armed border guards to stop Afghan refugees from crossing into its territory. From 2015 on, as the Syrian refugee crisis escalated, Hungary tear-gassed, imprisoned and otherwise brutalized refugee men, women and children. Denmark made life so inhospitable to refugees that last year, barely 1,500 people applied to stay in the country under that designation. In the U.K., Boris Johnson’s xenophobic government has spent the past several years designing ever-harsher legislation intended to criminalize and to punish asylum seekers.

    Now, suddenly, these same countries are absorbing lighter-skinned Ukrainian refugees without activating the same policing regimes they generally deploy against refugees of color. At the same time, however, Africans and Asians who had been living within Ukraine, and often studying at universities there, are reporting racist treatment and barriers both within Ukraine and in some of the countries they are fleeing to. The disparity in how the welcome mat is rolled out, depending on the color of one’s skin and the country of one’s origin, continues even under bombardment.

    Already, close to 2 million Ukrainians have crossed into neighboring countries. Many remain in those borderlands: in Poland — where over 1 million arrivals are being processed — in Romania, Moldova, Hungary and Slovakia. Others are continuing their journey westward. Germany, in particular, has, as it did at the start of the Syrian refugee crisis, once again opened its doors to those fleeing conflict. In France, even the fascist, anti-immigrant National Front leader Marine Le Pen, who previously was a die-hard fan of Vladimir Putin’s, has advocated taking in refugees from the war.

    Could these shifts signal a flicker of more universally humanistic empathy from politicians in the U.S. and Europe? If so, it is as of yet only a flicker. In the U.S., deportations under the guise of public health continue under Title 42, despite the March 4 court ruling that narrows its use. In Denmark, the country continues in its efforts to deport Syrian refugees. In Australia, the anti-immigrant government continues to hold asylum seekers in a network of detention centers, albeit in lower numbers than was the case a few years ago. And across much of Europe, governments continue to crack down on aid organizations that provide assistance to those seeking asylum.

    It remains to be seen whether many of these countries will, over the coming years, prove willing to alter entrenched racist practices to extend a similar empathy to more racially marginalized refugees who have lost everything at the hands of the powerful.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The Troika Kollective stands in solidarity with the people of Donetsk and Luhansk. We stand firmly against all wars of plunder, against NATO’s repeated military interventions, and against U.S. intervention. We recognize that the working-class of these two republics want peace and self-determination. We are in solidarity with the anti-war faction in Ukraine. The U.S. ruling class is only interested in maintaining post-2014 Ukraine as an economic and geopolitical pawn in it’s outdated attempt to hang on to a unipolar world (U.S. hegemony). Russia is one of many nations of the world today who, through their refusal to bend to U.S. imperialism, represent the deterioration of U.S. hegemony.

    The post The Troika Kollective Statement On Ukraine: ‘We Stand With The People’ appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Civilian volunteers from the new group of Territorial Defense Units set up by veterans of the Azov Regiment train in a secret location in Dnipro, Ukraine, on March 6, 2022.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed that he ordered the invasion of Ukraine to “denazify” its government, while Western officials, such as former U.S. ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul, have called this pure propaganda, insisting, “There are no Nazis in Ukraine.”

    In the context of the Russian invasion, the post-2014 Ukrainian government’s problematic relations with extreme right-wing groups and neo-Nazi parties has become an incendiary element on both sides of the propaganda war, with Russia exaggerating it as a pretext for war and the West trying to sweep it under the carpet.

    The reality behind the propaganda is that the West and its Ukrainian allies have opportunistically exploited and empowered the extreme right in Ukraine, first to pull off the 2014 coup and then by redirecting it to fight separatists in eastern Ukraine. And far from “denazifying” Ukraine, the Russian invasion is likely to further empower Ukrainian and international neo-Nazis, as it attracts fighters from around the world and provides them with weapons, military training and the combat experience that many of them are hungry for.

    Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Svoboda Party and its founders, Oleh Tyahnybok and Andriy Parubiy, played leading roles in the U.S-backed coup in February 2014. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt mentioned Tyahnybok as one of the leaders they were working with in their infamous leaked phone call before the coup, even as they tried to exclude him from an official position in the post-coup government.

    As formerly peaceful protests in Kyiv gave way to pitched battles with police and violent, armed marches to try to break through police barricades and reach the Parliament building, Svoboda members and the newly-formed Right Sector militia, led by Dmytro Yarosh, battled police, spearheaded marches and raided a police armory for weapons. By mid-February 2014, these men with guns were the de facto leaders of the Maidan movement.

    We will never know what kind of political transition peaceful protests alone might have produced in Ukraine, or how different the new government would have been if a peaceful political process had been allowed to take its course without interference by the U.S. or violent right-wing extremists.

    But it was Yarosh who took to the stage in the Maidan and rejected the Feb. 21, 2014 agreement negotiated by the French, German and Polish foreign ministers, under which President Viktor Yanukovych and opposition political leaders agreed to hold new elections later that year. Instead, Yarosh and Right Sector refused to disarm and led the climactic march on Parliament that overthrew the government.

    Since 1991, Ukrainian elections had swung back and forth between leaders like Yanukovych, who was from Donetsk and had close ties with Russia, and Western-backed leaders like President Viktor Yushchenko, who was elected in 2005 after the “Orange Revolution” that followed a disputed election. Ukraine’s endemic corruption tainted every government, and rapid public disillusionment with whichever leader and party won power led to a seesaw between Western- and Russian-aligned factions.

    In 2014, Nuland and the State Department got their favorite, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, installed as prime minister of the post-coup government. He lasted two years until he, too, lost his job due to endless corruption scandals. Petro Poroshenko, the post-coup president, lasted a bit longer, until 2019, even after his personal tax evasion schemes were exposed in the 2016 Panama Papers and 2017 Paradise Papers.

    When Yatsenyuk became prime minister, he rewarded Svoboda’s role in the coup with three cabinet positions, including Oleksander Sych as deputy prime minister, and governorships of three of Ukraine’s 25 provinces. Svoboda’s Andriy Parubiy was appointed chairman (or speaker) of Parliament, a post he held for the next five years. Tyahnybok ran for president in 2014, but only got 1.2% of the votes, and was not re-elected to Parliament.

    Ukrainian voters turned their backs on the extreme right in the 2014 post-coup elections, reducing Svoboda’s 10.4% share of the national vote in 2012 to 4.7%. Svoboda lost support in areas where it held control of local governments but had failed to live up to its promises, and its support was split now that it was no longer the only party running on explicitly anti-Russian slogans and rhetoric.

    After the coup, Right Sector helped to consolidate the new order by attacking and breaking up anti-coup protests, in what their leader Yarosh described to Newsweek as a “war” to “cleanse the country” of pro-Russian protesters. This campaign climaxed on May 2 with the massacre of 42 anti-coup protesters in a fiery inferno, after they took shelter from Right Sector attackers in the Trades Unions House in Odessa.

    After anti-coup protests evolved into declarations of independence in Donetsk and Luhansk, the extreme right in Ukraine shifted gear to full-scale armed combat. The Ukrainian military had little enthusiasm for fighting its own people, so the government formed new National Guard units to do so.

    Right Sector formed a battalion, and neo-Nazis also dominated the Azov Battalion, which was founded by Andriy Biletsky, an avowed white supremacist who claimed that Ukraine’s national purpose was to rid the country of Jews and other inferior races. It was the Azov battalion that led the post-coup government’s assault on the self-declared republics and retook the city of Mariupol from separatist forces.

    The Minsk II agreement in 2015 ended the worst fighting and set up a buffer zone around the breakaway republics, but a low-intensity civil war continued. An estimated 14,000 people have been killed since 2014. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and other progressive members of Congress tried for several years to end U.S. military aid to the Azov Battalion. They finally did so in the fiscal 2018 Defense Appropriation Bill, but Azov reportedly continued to receive U.S. arms and training despite the ban.

    In 2019, the Soufan Center, which tracks terrorist and extremist groups around the world, warned: “The Azov Battalion is emerging as a critical node in the transnational right-wing violent extremist network. … [Its] aggressive approach to networking serves one of the Azov Battalion’s overarching objectives, to transform areas under its control in Ukraine into the primary hub for transnational white supremacy.”

    The Soufan Center described how the Azov Battalion’s “aggressive networking” reaches around the world to recruit fighters and spread its white supremacist ideology. Foreign fighters who train and fight with the Azov Battalion then return to their own countries to apply what they have learned and recruit others.

    Violent foreign extremists with links to Azov have included Brenton Tarrant, who massacred 51 worshippers at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2019, and several members of the U.S. Rise Above Movement who were prosecuted for attacking counter-protesters at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville in August 2017. Other Azov veterans have returned to Australia, Brazil, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden, the U.K. and other countries.

    Despite Svoboda’s declining success in national elections, neo-Nazi and extreme nationalist groups, increasingly linked to the Azov Battalion, have maintained power on the street in Ukraine, and in local politics in the Ukrainian nationalist heartland around Lviv in western Ukraine.

    After President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s election in 2019, the extreme right threatened him with removal from office, or even death, if he negotiated with separatist leaders from Donbas and followed through on the Minsk Protocol. Zelenskyy had run for election as a “peace candidate,” but under threat from the right, he refused to even talk to Donbas leaders, whom he dismissed as terrorists.

    During Trump’s presidency, the U.S. reversed Obama’s ban on weapons sales to Ukraine, and Zelenskyy’s aggressive rhetoric raised new fears in Donbas and Russia that he was building up Ukraine’s forces for a new offensive to retake Donetsk and Luhansk by force.

    The civil war has combined with the government’s neoliberal economic policies to create fertile ground for the extreme right. The post-coup government imposed more of the same “shock therapy” that was imposed throughout Eastern Europe in the 1990s. Ukraine received a $40 billion International Monetary Fund bailout and, as part of the deal, privatized 342 state-owned enterprises; reduced public sector employment by 20%, along with salary and pension cuts; privatized health care and disinvested in public education, closing 60% of its universities.

    Coupled with Ukraine’s endemic corruption, these policies led to the looting of state assets by the corrupt ruling class, and to falling living standards and austerity measures for everybody else. The post-coup government upheld Poland as its model, but the reality was closer to Boris Yeltsin’s Russia of the 1990s. After a nearly 25% fall in GDP between 2012 and 2016, Ukraine is still the poorest country in Europe.

    As elsewhere, the failures of neoliberalism have fueled the rise of right-wing extremism and racism, and now the war with Russia promises to provide thousands of alienated young men from around the world with military training and combat experience, which they can then take home to terrorize their own countries.

    The Soufan Center has compared the Azov Battalion’s international networking strategy to that of al-Qaida and ISIS. U.S. and NATO support for the Azov Battalion poses similar risks as their support for al-Qaida-linked groups in Syria 10 years ago. Those chickens quickly came home to roost when they spawned ISIS and turned decisively against their Western backers.

    Right now, Ukrainians are united in their resistance to Russia’s invasion, but we should not be surprised when the U.S. alliance with neo-Nazi proxy forces in Ukraine, including the infusion of billions of dollars in sophisticated weapons, results in similarly violent and destructive blowback.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On the 7th March Maria Varenikova in The New York Times wrote that billboards were being put up along roadsides in Ukraine with “gigantic block letters” telling ordinary Russian residents of Ukraine  in “profanity-laced language” to get out. 

    This is part of an increasingly vitriolic campaign targeting the resident Russian population of Ukraine, the largest single Russian community outside of Russia in the world. In the 2001 Ukrainian census, 8,334,100 identified as ethnic Russians, 17.3% of the population. (Wikipedia)

    Driving it is the apparently widespread belief among Ukrainians that the Russian population is at best, lukewarm opponents of Putin’s invasion and at worst, enthusiastic supporters of it.  

    The post Plenty Of Fuel For Manufacturing Hate appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.


  • This content originally appeared on VICE News and was authored by VICE News.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • “War is a racket”. The words of major general Smedley Butler, a highly decorated United States Marine Corps officer and whistleblower. His 1935 book was an explanation of how, for industrialists, war was just another money-making opportunity. The war in Ukraine is just such an opportunity.

    With that in mind, a UK-based academic has examined which firms have been making money out of the war in its first weeks. Peter Bloom, professor of management at Essex university, wrote his assessment in the Conversation. And it’s the usual suspects cashing in on the horror.

    Shares surge

    Bloom details how the firms supplying, for example, anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles have seen profits soar in the first weeks of the war. He describes the EU’s decision to help arm Ukraine as “a major boon for the world’s largest defence contractors”.

    To give just a couple of examples, Raytheon makes the Stinger missiles, and jointly with Lockheed Martin makes the Javelin anti-tank missiles being supplied by the likes of the US and Estonia.

    Predictably, the rush to buy arms and ship them into Ukraine saw the firm’s shares spike:

    Both US groups, Lockheed and Raytheon shares are up by around 16% and 3% respectively since the invasion, against a 1% drop in the S&P 500, as you can see in the chart below.

    But the biggest spike of all was for BAE:

    BAE Systems, the largest player in the UK and Europe, is up 26%.

    Boom time

    Meanwhile, according to Bloom, arms firms were briefing their investors, as early as January 2022, that instability – including in Europe – would likely benefit them financially. As the chief executive of Raytheon had it:

    We just have to look to last week where we saw the drone attack in the UAE … And of course, the tensions in eastern Europe, the tensions in the South China Sea, all of those things are putting pressure on some of the defence spending over there. So I fully expect we’re going to see some benefit from it.

    As Bloom explains, even before the Russian invasion, firms were predicting a global rise in arms trade profits of 7%. And it would seem as if they were even counting on such an invasion. Because the biggest ‘risk’, one consultancy warned, was that Russia would not take action:

    The biggest risk to investors, as explained by Richard Aboulafia, managing director of US defence consultancy AeroDynamic Advisory, is that ‘the whole thing is revealed to be a Russian house of cards and the threat dissipates’.

    This seems to suggest that arms investors and consultants were hoping the war would start, because it would boost shares prices.

    Massive sums

    Despite the horror, the Ukraine war means huge benefits for a few. Anatol Lieven, a professor of war studies at King’s College London, warned last week:

    I think this crisis is a paradise for NATO, for Western staff officers and military bureaucrats everywhere. It’s back to the Cold War: You move troops around on paper; you talk constantly about defense; you spend huge sums on exercises and papers and papers and papers and more papers, but you never have to fight!

    Far-right militias

    And it gets worse. Far-right elements within the Ukrainian military have possibly got their hands on British missiles.

    As Declassified UK reported 10 March, Belarussian opposition media tweeted images of the Azov Battalion with newly delivered Next Generation Light Anti Tank Weapons (NLAWS).

    The Azov battalion is part of the Ukrainian military and is openly fascist. Members wear fascist symbols and it’s founder Andriy Biletsky said Ukraine should:

    lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen [subhumans].

    Declassified reported that:

    It is highly likely the NLAWs pictured with Azov members were supplied by the UK. The only other donor of the equipment to Ukraine is believed to be Luxembourg, which recently sent 100.

    War is a racket

    War time is boom time for arms firms. This is as true in Ukraine as in any other war. What makes it worse is that among those profiting materially are some of the worst elements of Ukrainian politics. In this case, fascists.

    And as we look for a way to deescalate the war, we need to consider the huge profits that are made as this brutality continues.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/The US Army, cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under CC-BY 2.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • A person in silhouette runs through a torn fence

    “I think we can reframe and re-understand the immigrant rights movement, not just as one of many movements, but something that is fundamentally connected to how we remake the world,” says Harsha Walia. In this episode of “Movement Memos,” Kelly Hayes and Border & Rule author Harsha Walia talk about the plight of Black students fleeing Ukraine, borders, the climate crisis and taking action in these times.

    Music credit: Son Monarcas and Pulsed

    TRANSCRIPT

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

    Kelly Hayes: Welcome to “Movement Memos,” a Truthout podcast about things you should know if you want to change the world. I’m your host, writer and organizer Kelly Hayes. We talk a lot on this show about movement building and what solidarity demands of us. Today, we are talking about borders and who gets left behind in times of disaster, and we will be hearing from Harsha Walia, author of Border and Rule: Global Migration, Capitalism, and the Rise of Racist Nationalism. Right now, many of us are thinking about borders in the context of war — and more specifically, the war Russia is waging against Ukraine. More than 2 million people have fled Ukraine since Russia invaded. We have heard many harrowing stories of people attempting to escape a nation under siege — and those stories have sadly included the struggles of Black people who were beaten, forced off buses or trains, and turned away as they attempted to cross the border to flee Ukraine. There are also reports of Black students being terrorized by Nazi elements within Poland after crossing the border, including reports of students being killed. As Shamira Ibrahim wrote in her recent piece Africans In Ukraine: Stories Of War, Anti-Blackness & White Supremacy, “No matter how many iterations of ‘racial reckonings’ we contend with, Blackness is continuously assessed on a subhuman level, denied the basic dignities afforded to the ruling class.” In that piece Ibrahim elaborates on the experiences of Black students who have been attempting to flee Ukraine and the online efforts that have sprung up to assist them. I hope everyone will read it and do what they can to help.

    In this episode, Harsha and I are going to zoom out, and talk about the broader anti-Black context Ibrahim was referring to, because the experiences of Black people fleeing Russia’s attacks on Ukraine are consistent with larger patterns of anti-Black border violence in Europe. What’s anomalous about this crisis, from an immigration standpoint, is that EU nations actually seem poised to absorb millions of refugees as the war continues. In late January, Poland began constructing a 115-mile wall, equipped with motion detectors and thermal cameras, with the goal of preventing asylum seekers from entering the country. Since Putin announced that Russia would invade Ukraine, almost 800,000 refugees have crossed into Poland from Ukraine.

    This is not a problem specific to Ukraine or Poland. The BBC, which is a public service broadcaster in the UK, recently aired an interview with a former deputy prosecutor general of Ukraine, who stated, “It’s very emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blond hair … being killed every day.” The BBC host conducting the interview replied, “I understand and respect the emotion.” Similar sentiments echoed across news commentary in Spain and France. The issue we are facing here is not one specific to the situation in Ukraine, but rather, how western racism dictates who is deemed worthy of survival, and who should be left to endure the unsurvivable.

    We have seen similar shows of racism from U.S. media outlets, and a similar willingness on the part of U.S. leaders to welcome Ukrainian refugees. The Biden administration’s treatment of Haitian refugees who had just endured a major earthquake, political chaos, and rampant street violence, in the wake of a presidential assassination, is now infamous — as we previously discussed on this show. Thousands of migrants have died along the U.S. southern border, trying to cross into the United States, since 2001, when tightened border security in Texas and California started funneling migrants into the desert. Migrants are forced into that deadly path regardless of what horrors they are fleeing, and the fact that many of them will die is not a bug, but a feature. As Harsha wrote in Border & Rule, “The doctrine of deterrence requires mass border deaths to instill fear and prevent migration.”

    We live in an era when millions of people are fleeing climate catastrophes, identity-based persecution and unrelenting violence. In the assistance that is being readily extended to white Ukrainians, we see that there are circumstances under which western nations are willing to reconfigure what’s possible, in order to accommodate the survival of those in need. But such systemic reimaginings do not extend to Black or brown people. I asked Harsha Walia for her thoughts on how the experiences of Black students and migrants fleeing Ukraine reflect the larger realities of what she calls “Fortress Europe” — an “intricate web of imperial control” that is built on the “genealogies of empire, settler colonialism, transatlantic slavery, and indentured labor.”

    Harsha Walia: I think what the past week has really brought into kind of stark light is very much the realities of Fortress Europe, and really just the fundamentally exclusionary anti-Black nature of borders around the world. And in thinking about what’s happening for refugees at the Ukrainian and Polish border, but also multiplying on other borders as well, Hungary and elsewhere, is I think one thing that becomes very obvious if it wasn’t already is how porous the border actually is, which is that the border is not actually intended to exclude all people. The border has always been a project that is intimately and intricately tied to colonization and through which race is reproduced. So we see in this moment the idea of there being two lines at the border where people who are believed to be Ukrainian read through race, because of course there are Ukrainians who are not internationals, who are Afro Ukrainian, for example, or even those who are Roma, who are racialized in very particular ways in Europe are literally put into different lines regardless and irrespective of their citizenship, who are read so clearly through these global hierarchies of race.

    So that is one thing that if it wasn’t already obvious about the function of the border, and really its porousness and its flexibility as a regime, that should be very stark to people now. The other thing is that I think it really highlights is how Fortress Europe has really expanded its borders in recent years. I don’t know how much people know about the relationship between Ukraine and the EU in the context of immigration. Of course there’s a lot of talk right now about Ukraine’s attempts to join the EU, as they have for many years in the context right now of the illegal and horrific invasion by Russia. But also one of the things that Ukraine has been pushing, as have other countries like Moldova and Croatia, is that in order to secure their membership into the EU, they have been forced to join the Eastern Partnership and EU border assistance missions as kind of a condition of even being considered for welcoming to the EU.

    So what has been happening at the EU for the past week is also not an anomaly, because for especially the past year, it has been a border crisis. Last year in particular, refugees from Afghanistan, and Syria, and Iraq and Yemen were stranded at the border of Belarus and Poland last year, and Polish border guards had barbed wire fencing that blocked them from entering the EU. Many people died. And even the week that, just earlier in the week, when what was happening at the Ukrainian Polish border started to come to light. Earlier that week, a man from Yemen actually died at that very same border. So I think the other thing that’s important to know is how this is situated within the border practices and policies of the EU, which is the world’s deadliest border.

    The European border is the world’s deadliest border. And it’s not a singular border, it’s constantly expanding. So that’s also a necessary piece of this, because Europe is nothing, if not a mass history of colonization and plunder of enslavement. That is the origin of a lot of the contemporary continuities of violence. Even for the Europe to establish itself as so-called Europe very much is an anti-Black and anti-Muslim myth that dates back centuries, and that has been really the birthplace of immense violence. And so I think we have to hold all of those continuities together in this current moment, alongside many other continuities as well, of course, but in the context of the border crisis, if you will.

    KH: As the climate crisis intensifies, half of all plant and animal species on Earth are migrating. We, as humans, are part of that mass scramble, but in our case, nation states are placing heavy constraints on the movements of many people who are attempting to survive. The global south has been looted, pillaged and exploited by the U.S. and other imperial powers since what historian Gerald Horne calls the dawning of the apocalypse in the 16th century. Now, as the climate crisis and other consequences of capitalism and colonialism make more and more land unlivable, many people are in desperate need of a path to survival. But in 2022, the same forces that initiated the era of catastrophe we are experiencing are dictating whose lives have value and whose do not. White supremacy, capitalism and settler colonialism brought apocalyptic events to Africa, Asia and the Americas hundreds of years ago. Now, the capitalist cycle of conquest, extraction, annihilation and exploitation has reached a stage of mass destruction that is much more visible, imminent and widely experienced than the previously compartmentalized creation of death worlds and sacrifice zones.

    HW: I feel like the climate catastrophe is an outgrowth of colonization and capitalism, a symptom of it really. It’s not a standalone issue that can be analyzed outside of the context of the political economy that we live in is really going to bring the issue of migration and borders to the fore even more than it already is. Right now, estimates show that climate disasters displace about 25.3 million people annually. And I know when we start getting into big numbers, it can be hard to understand the scope and scale. So to put that in context, that’s one person about every one to two second. And just in the past five years, approximately since 2016, 2017, the last five years, new displacements caused by climate disasters have outnumbered new displacements as a result of political persecution, which is the kind of very traditional idea of displacement in the kind of World War II, post-World War II context.

    So new displacements caused by climate disasters have outnumbered new displacements as a result of persecution by a ratio of three to one. So it really is one of the fastest growing forms of displacement. Of course, hard to separate and tease out different forms of displacement from each other because they’re so constituted through each other. But if we can just to make the point of how severe and serious this is. And it’s not a coincidence that those who are most vulnerable to any form of displacement, including climate displacement, reveals these very same fault lines that we were talking about, the fault lines between rich and poor, between the so-called Global North and South, between whiteness and its Black, Indigenous and racialized others. So we have these asymmetries of power that create migration, including climate migration, but then constrict mobility through the use of borders, displaced people who are the least responsible for global warming now face militarized borders.

    And in the last decade in particular, the kind of main rationale that’s being given for militarizing borders is in fact climate change. So this new discourse of climate security that doesn’t deny climate change. So we’ve gone from an era of outright climate denial that is rapidly shifted to climate security. And climate security becomes a way to present climate migration and to have it dovetail, basically into national security discourse. And it’s become the kind of latest excuse for wealthy states around the world to fortify their borders. So in Australia, for example, Australian defense forces announced that military patrols around Australia’s waters would be instituted and implemented to intercept climate refugees. And the U.S. commissioned a report on the security implications of climate change, the Pentagon did. And if I can quote from it, it’s really telling.

    So in this report commissioned by the Pentagon they wrote, “borders will be strengthened around the country to hold back unwanted, starving immigrants from the Caribbean islands, an especially severe problem, Mexico and South America.” And as we know, since then we’ve seen a number of examples of how the U.S. has weaponized climate displacement in order to buttress its border. Operation Vigilant Sentry off the Florida coast. There’s a whole new Homeland Security task force, which is called the [Homeland Security Task Force Southeast], which is to enforce Marine deportations in the aftermath of any disasters in the Caribbean. And in Europe, really far right wingers, like Marine La Pen, have actually said things like, “borders will be the environment’s greatest ally. It is through them we will save the planet.”

    And again, it’s not a coincidence that this kind of climate security discourse is of course connected so deeply to ecofascism. The kind of outright right-wing screeds that we see that now claim to care about the environment through these kind of Malthusian theories and Darwinian theories of fortifying the borders, protecting us versus them, climate refugees as the latest quote unquote invasion. So it’s really, it’s deeply concerning. And I think we need to be thinking about climate change through an internationalist lens; it requires us to actively fight against eco fascist tendencies of which borders are a key instrument.

    So if we really want to think about not being NIMBYs who are only concerned about fossil fuel production in our backyards, but really about the scope of climate change internationally, it means both being attentive to the ways in which those who are most impacted by climate change are Black, and brown and Indigenous communities in the so-called Global North, and of course Pacific islander, and island communities and communities impacted by drought and famine around the world. And also the ways in which they’re not only denied their lands, and lives and livelihood, but are also then denied the ability to seek any kind of safety. For me, it is just so necessary that for us to be internationalists and for us to think about climate change in an expansive way that will actually get to the source, that we think about how to end both climate displacement, and also how to ensure safe climate migration.

    KH: When I hear stories about Black and brown people being turned away at borders in the wake of disaster, I am also reminded of people fleeing in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina who had bullets fired over their heads by police, when they tried to cross the bridge into Gretna. Residents in the white enclave of Algiers Point formed armed vigilante patrols that hunted displaced Black people and shot down “anyone who didn’t belong.” We see these dynamics at work, both within and outside the United States because race animates political life under capitalism.

    HW: I think absolutely Hurricane Katrina really laid bare the workings of specifically anti-Black warfare through mass displacement, and also carceral immobility. Undoubtedly it revealed mass displacement and the idea of whose lives are worthy or not. And so first we had Black homes that were most vulnerable to the storm. We had, as you noted, Black people who were criminalized during the storm and shot at, and all that kind of criminalization we saw for people trying to survive.

    And also that Black neighborhoods were completely abandoned by recovery efforts after the storm, as you pointed out. I know that so many studies that have been done even recently show that over 75 percent of the almost 1 million displaced people, that scale was immense, conservative estimates are anywhere from 800,000 people were dislocated to up to a million people, that three quarters of them were Black residents. And then of course, after that we saw not only were they permanently displaced and dislocated, but the mass kind of privatization, and the policing and the austerity measures that were brought into neighborhoods within New Orleans. So we see the interplay between not only displacement, and permanent displacement and immobility, but how that’s then used to actually just further the same kinds of policies that even create certain forms of displacement through privatization, gentrification and more.

    And so, I think absolutely this concept of displacement isn’t just about borders. Fred Moten, who was drawing on the work of Cedric Robinson, he talked about the position of Black people in the United States as one of a quote, eternal, internal alien. So we know that citizenship is already hollow and unevenly distributed, irrespective of one’s actual legal status. And displacement is at the core of so much of how capitalism and colonization work. Indigenous peoples being displaced from their lands predates the kind of entrenchment of modern nation states’ borders. And the entire process of empire and colonization was one of mass displacement and dispossession, because that is really the function of both capitalism and colonization, is to remove people from the land, to capture land, to turn it into a commodity, make it into private property, and then to use citizenship as one of many racial weapons.

    And so, I think of bordering practices as distinct from the border. The border is just one place where we see this operating, but bordering practices are many. When Angela Davis and Gina Dent wrote that the prison is a border, that resonates because it is bordering regime, of creating the land of really entrenching the idea of who is free and who is unfree. The creation of reserves and reservations are bordering practices. To say that Indigenous people now have to be forced into little parcels of land, and the rest of the land becomes a massive project of colonization and becomes parceled into private property, becomes crown or public land, that is also a bordering practice by forcing people into small parcels of land and saying this is all that you can live on.

    There are many practices of bordering that fundamentally rely on mass displacement. So it’s not new, and what we need to pay attention to is those in historical continuities, the ways in which bordering is not just operating at the border, which means that, as you noted, that this becomes not just about the national border. It’s not just, for example, the U.S.-Mexico border. It also becomes a struggle between jurisdictions already within a border. So whether that’s between states, whether that’s between cities, that gets exacerbated. And absolutely with the kinds of resource wars that we’re seeing, this is going to get amplified. I’m in so-called British Columbia where there’s been many ongoing struggles against pipelines, including the Wetʼsuwetʼen struggle against pipelines, the Coastal GasLink pipeline, which is a fracked gas pipeline.

    And they have been blocking this pipeline for over 10 years. And as a result of direct action, of kicking the pipeline line out of their territory, and of [having] faced down paramilitary and the police state, there’ve been multiple raids on their territory. And now in light of what’s happening globally, and in light of specifically what’s happened in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and this scramble, and the delight that the fossil fuel industry has, because it’s giving them an excuse to ramp up domestic fossil fuel infrastructure. So we’re suddenly seeing the kind of the ramping up of energy security discourse also happening parallel to this horrific invasion. It’s the capitalists who are warmongering, as they always do.

    And this is a direct threat now to communities like the Wetʼsuwetʼen, who are facing down already this pipeline infrastructure, and now are going to see this ramped up, war mongering, domestic capitalist kind of vultures who are going to be trying to come into their territory even more. And so this is also the global effects of what’s happening that we need to pay attention to. Because when we say that the war abroad boomerangs back home, it’s not just the ways in which foreign policy, if you will, or the arena of foreign policy starts at home, but also that the war boomerangs back home onto Indigenous, and Black and racialized communities in very particular ways.

    KH: Something I am really concerned about right now is that, amid so many events that feel so large, and so far beyond our control, is that people are going to get stuck in this mode of watching and worrying, and forget their own power. Because some of the things we are up against are so enormous that our minds can barely make meaning of them, and I think that leads a lot of people to forget just how much hinges on our complicity — or our willingness to act. So I asked Harsha if she had any advice for our listeners, in terms of how to approach this moment, and what we should be doing with ourselves right now.

    HW: For me, a politics of organizing is so necessary, otherwise we get stuck in the kind of demobilizing fatalism of things will never change because it’s too immense. Or of course, the kind of utopic romanticism, which is like, it’s not that bad. It is really, it’s really fucking bad. The world is a deathscape for the majority of the world’s people. I don’t think we all sit with the immensity of that, and of course escalated in the pandemic. Just everything, everything around us is showing us how disposable so many people are across so many different social locations, so many race, class, sexuality, gender, disability, so many, multiplied depending on where you live in the world determines literally how long you will live. The fact that there are places in the world that have half the life expectancy of other places in the world is a literal deathscape. And the fact that the world’s majority still don’t have access to boosters is a literal deathscape in a global pandemic.

    We don’t sit with the immensity of it for whatever reason. I can’t analyze that. Some of its complicity, some of it’s our own, we shut down parts of our brain because impending and already existing apocalypse is hard. And that’s the reality also for a lot of people who talk about how you survive war, is you try to quote unquote, have a normal life. Even though we know going back to normal is not an option, but you kind of hold those contradictions. But I think what we do have is knowing that these systems, as powerful as they are, are interconnected. And for me, I actually find some… solace is not the word. But when I think of this big, immense web, knowing that it’s big and interconnected in some ways is less daunting, because no matter what part you’re working on, you can know you’re working on all of it.

    If you’re working to fight against gentrification in your neighborhood, if you are running mutual aid networks in your neighborhood, if you were stopping police and or military recruitment in your neighborhood, if you are providing sanctuary to undocumented migrants in your neighborhood, that is all intricately connected. So when we all play a role in unraveling this massive web, it will actually be undone. There’s a saying in Oaxaca, which is that we are many hands in one heart in the struggle. And I think that is very true. There is no way that we are going to break down this immense system by tackling it at one point, because that will inevitably lead to playing whack-a-mole. What we do need is many hands in the struggle, and all trying to do our part and seeing that it’s connected. We may not be able to act on everything, but we do have to be able to see how it’s all connected so that we are strategically contributing to dismantling the same thing, so that we’re not pulling in different directions.

    So for me, that’s the kind of analytic freeing that gives me hope, and also the necessity of organizing. There’s no way to describe how the only way to overcome that individual powerlessness is through collective struggle. Because also one of the things that the system does is to make us isolated, and through that isolation, not only do we feel isolated, and alone and atomized, we also feel powerless. And so I don’t actually believe any individual can regain power. I know there’s this nonprofit trend of the individual change maker, and the trender and the influencer, whatever. It’s just not possible. That’s another neoliberal gimmick. What we need is each other. We need each other literally to survive and we need each other in the struggle, because it is only through the actual proximity of seeing each other’s humanity, of struggling together, of being co-strugglers that we actually feel empowered.

    “Empower” has become a hokey word because it’s been disassociated from collective struggle. It’s the idea of individual empowerment. No, we need to feel empowered through collective struggle. And so I think those are some of the ways in which we can overcome our complicity and or our sense of immobility or powerlessness is through struggle. And to realize that even though what we are facing is so daunting, if we each play a part, we chip away. We chip away at the bricks. We literally chip away at the bricks of the border. When we do any kind of project in solidarity with any person in struggle, it makes the difference and we see those ripple effects. But I think seeing the immensity of the problem is necessary, but it shouldn’t lead to demobilization, it should lead us to understand that we actually all have a role to play because it is all connected.

    So if we see things as siloed, then it can lead us to be like, oh, I got to fight one thing, but then you’re telling me I have to also fight 100 things and I don’t have capacity to fight 100 things. But if we see that actually our fight is one massive struggle to which hundreds of things are tethered, then fighting our one piece of that puzzle can untether the whole thing. And I think, again, that’s the analytic frame that I think helps overcome that sense of how and where do I contribute? This might be my particular vantage point, but I really think that one thing, especially coming back just to the specificity of the border, and what we’re witnessing and what we have been witnessing for years, this is not a new quote unquote crisis, this is a crisis of displacement and immobility that is centuries-old, and especially escalated decades-old.

    If we reframe what’s happening at the border as a crisis of displacement and immobility, we start to see that this isn’t just an issue of immigrant rights or migrant justice, that this is fundamentally at the heart of freedom. All freedom has been constrained in some shape or form through forms of social control that are meant to demobilize and immobilize communities in struggle. So if we can understand the crisis of displacement and immobility as what underwrites racial warfare, as what underwrites Black and Indigenous genocide, as what underwrites the exclusion of the border, as what underwrites global apartheid when we think about systems like citizenship, then I think we can reframe and re-understand the immigrant rights movement, not just as one of many movements, but something that is fundamentally connected to how we remake the world. To argue against borders, to say that we need to live in a world that doesn’t have borders is not only to struggle for the rights of displaced people, refugees and migrants.

    It is to fight for liberation so that we are all able to live with freedom in our neighborhoods, to fight against gentrification, to fight against settler colonialism, to be able to be at home in our bodies, that these are all much more profound politics of freedom and ungovernability, if you will, to not be dictated by authorities in power and the nation states. To become ungovernable is so central to the politics of no borders. So it’s not just the site of the border, but it is really to fight against all bordering systems, which includes war, which includes empire, which includes the sweat shop, which includes the prison, which includes drone warfare, includes all of it. That that is fundamentally what a no-border struggle is about. When we’re saying no borders, it is a struggle for freedom against all forms of captivity and control.

    KH: What Harsha said about reunderstanding the immigrant rights movement “as something that is fundamentally connected to how we remake the world” speaks to what this moment demands of us, and of our imaginations. We are living in catastrophic times and decisions are being made, on a continuous basis, about who deserves a shot at survival, and who should be left to endure the unsurvivable. This is apparent to anyone who is doing prison or jail solidarity work right now, or anyone in the disability justice community, in addition to people doing migrant justice work. It’s also apparent to anyone who is resisting the violence of colonialism and imperialism. The public’s tolerance for mass death is escalating. To confront that ominous trend, we have to challenge the bordering systems that restrict people’s access to survival, and to one another. As Harsha said, to become ungovernable is central. Our solidarity, our willingness to act, our compassion and the mutual aid we extend must grow freely, unbound by legal restrictions and false demarcations. We have to care deeply, rather than giving in to cynicism, and challenge the violence of bordering throughout our lives. And we have to do that work together, because as Harsha said, we cannot regain our power alone. Our power is collective. Splitting us off, into an atomized existence, weakened that collective power, but when we come together, our potential rises, and new possibilities are born.

    Circling back to the experience of Black refugees in Ukraine: I want to note that some people have depicted the harms Black refugees have experienced as Russian propaganda. Others have argued that even though the stories are true, they should not be emphasized right now, because doing so helps Putin and hurts Ukraine. We have to reject that kind of erasure. We cannot abandon people, or the truth, in the service of better propagandizing a war. What we need is a bigger conversation — one that neither falsely homogenizes Ukraine nor exceptionalizes the racism and cruelty Black people have experienced there during this war. While those harms must be challenged, they must also be addressed on a much broader scale if we are going to take on the forces that are destroying the world, and boxing people out of habitable spaces, border by border, on a racialized basis.

    As Harsha said, we can all resist the norms and dictates of bordering and disposability wherever we are, and I hope we all feel called to do that, in whatever ways we can. I want to thank Harsha Walia for sharing her wisdom with us today. I love talking to Harsha and I am profoundly grateful for her work. If you do not own Border & Rule, please get yourself a copy. It is an essential resource that I return to regularly, and we should all be equipped with that wealth of knowledge. I also want to thank our listeners for joining us today, and remember, our best defense against cynicism is to do good, and to remember that the good we do matters. Until next time, I’ll see you in the streets.

    Show Notes

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Seg2 train station

    Poland continues to be a vital destination for refugees fleeing the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, who risk cold winter temperatures and travel for days to cross the border into safety. Humanitarian aid relief workers are calling for the European Union to put more pressure on Russia to agree to a ceasefire and find a diplomatic solution to end the war. Speaking from Lublin, Poland, Becky Bakr Abdulla of the Norwegian Refugee Council says that as the world focuses its attention on Ukraine and Russia, refugees from countries such Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen are experiencing less hospitable treatment. “Let’s not also forget tens of millions of other refugees and displaced people around the globe that need equal amount of support,” she says.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    Western powers insisted that they were trying to prevent this war while doing everything possible to ensure that it happened. Now they say they are trying to end this war while doing everything possible to ensure it continues.

    Normally when western powers are involved in a war they at least pretend they support the people in the enemy nation and just oppose its government. With Russia they’re just “No, fuck your music, fuck your food, fuck your books, fuck your cats, fuck everything about all of you.”

    The word “detente” has been deliberately scrubbed from the western lexicon. This has created a false dichotomy where everyone thinks the only choices are either escalate until we have a nuclear war or “OMG SO JUST GIVE PUTIN WHATEVER HE WANTS AND LET HIM TAKE OVER EUROPE???”

    Any time you oppose freakish world-threatening escalations that’s the response you always get: “So just give into the bully and let him have everything?? That’s appeasement!” They’re sincerely unaware that there’s a third choice between World War 3 and crowning Putin Emperor of Planet Earth.

    This is by design, because detente and US unipolar hegemony are mutually exclusive. You can’t dominate the entire planet and also let Russia be its own nation; it’s either one or the other. Detente was a popular concept back when we lived in a multipolar world, during the USSR, but since it’s been dominated by one single superpower that word has been phased out of public awareness. Now that US unipolar hegemony is the normalized mainstream consensus ideal within the western empire, any talk of working toward peaceful solutions that don’t subjugate one power to the other show up before indoctrinated minds as outrageous heresy.

    Putin: Don’t cross this red line or it will mean war.

    Westerners: He’s probably bluffing. Cross that red line.

    Putin: *starts a war*

    Putin: Now don’t cross this other red line or it will mean nuclear war.

    Westerners: He’s probably bluffing. Cross that red line.

    I’m really not feeling great about how much of mainstream western punditry today boils down to “What’s the maximum amount we can provoke and attack Russia without starting a nuclear war? Some say the line is here, but I think it’s probably further back.”

    It’s starting to feel like westerners won’t understand the seriousness of nuclear brinkmanship until there’s an actual nuclear exchange. One of those rare lessons in life that you can’t learn until it’s too late to benefit from having learned it.

    It reminds me of young drivers, how they’ll get into accidents because they don’t have a good visceral understanding of the very real dangers on the road. Except instead of damaging your fender, they’ll wipe out all life on earth.

    There’s such a massive, massive disconnect between the unparalleled dangers we’re toying with here and people’s attitudes about them. In the general public, and throughout the political/media class as well. It’s so easy to imagine an “Oh shit it wasn’t a game after all” future moment.

    No part of the way empire managers have acted up to this point suggests they can be trusted not to set off an unthinkable chain of events from which there’s no return. They’ve been making wrong calls every step of the way. And it’s so easy to fuck this up.

    “Tankie” used to mean “western Stalinist”. Now it just means “person who understands power dynamics and foreign policy”.

    People say, “Ukraine has a right to choose its own alliances and join NATO if it wants.”

    Sure, and NATO has a right to reject it and promise it will never make Ukraine a member. And it should have. That’s how alliances work; it necessarily goes both ways. Not everyone gets membership. It’s not a fucking library card.

    Those who support a no-fly zone or any other direct attack on Russian forces are enemies of our species. They have the most dangerous worldview in existence, without exception. They are more dangerous than Nazis, and they should be reviled as such.

    The fact that support for nuclear brinkmanship is mainstream doesn’t make it okay, it makes it infinitely more dangerous than if it were a fringe position. It’s not less important to condemn it because it’s mainstream, it’s more important. Much, much more important.

    I’ve been screaming at the top of my lungs for years about the mounting risks of nuclear war while people called me a crazy idiot the entire time. Now nuclear superpowers are on hair trigger alert while officials hurl accusations that the other side is preparing a biological weapons attack.

    At least I fucking tried. With what precious little influence I have in this space, I have done my very best. Come what may.

    ____________________________

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

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • Seg1 mariupol childrens hospital

    The Russian military invasion of Ukraine has devastated civilian centers such as schools and hospitals. Over 2.2. million people have fled the country, resulting in a dangerous refugee crisis in Europe as Russia refuses to guarantee the “humanitarian corridors” promised for civilians to safely evacuate. “What we’re talking about is repeated attacks on civilian infrastructure, which is illegal under international law,” says Bel Trew, independent correspondent for The Independent, who has been reporting on civilians being targeted in other Ukrainian cities.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • ANALYSIS: By Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning at Evening Report

    In this A View From Afar podcast, political scientist Dr Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning deep dive into the big picture that hangs over the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    That big picture has many aspects to it, and as such any resolution to the atrocities being committed in Ukraine will likely be weighed against what is a challenge to the international law and rules-based order.

    In a previous episode in this series, Dr Buchanan and Manning examined how the world was transitioning into a democracies versus authoritarian bipolarity.

    This episode continues in that theme, but digs down into how descendent powers, or nations, tend to create or become entrenched in wars, and how Russia, in 2022, fits this pattern.

    And, there are comparisons to global Western powers too.

    But this episode goes further. It examines how transitional international moments, conflict as a systems regulator, can move to counter Russia.

    In 2022, the United Nations Security Council, due to the P5 nations having veto powers, appears no longer fit for purpose.

    A UN-led multilateral response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is unlikely.

    Frustrated by Russia
    The UN General Assembly appears frustrated by Russia’s refusal to acknowledge the combined insistence of the UNGA that it cease its war against Ukraine.

    Against this backdrop, NATO, at this juncture, cannot directly defend Ukrainians as Ukraine was not able to become a NATO member state before Russia invaded its territory.

    Sometimes rules and law provide security and stability in the world. And sometimes, as seen in 2022, it permits conflict to burn on.

    As discussed, the global rules-based order is fast changing in 2022. And as such, this underscores a need to re-set the international system.

    But what can be done to stop people from being killed in this unprovoked war – a war that in many ways illustrates a wider war between democracies and authoritarians, as the world transitions toward a new bipolarity?

    And, if a global order reset is needed, what would that reset look like?

    These are huge challenges that require sensible analysis.

    You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

    • The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was nominated as a top defence security podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.
    • Follow A View from Afar via affiliate syndicators.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • A global campaign has been launched for cancellation of Ukraine’s foreign debt, which stands at US$125 billion, reports Federico Fuentes.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Paris, March 9, 2022 – Russian and Ukrainian authorities must ensure that members of the press can cover the war in Ukraine safely and freely, and Russian forces must refrain from targeting journalists, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Wednesday.

    Since late February, Russian troops have injured at least three journalists from international outlets, and at least one reporter for a Ukrainian outlet has been attacked for their reporting.

    “It is more crucial than ever for journalists to be able to cover Russia’s invasion of Ukraine safely and freely,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York. “Ukrainian journalist Yevhenii Sakun was tragically killed by a Russian shelling attack on a TV tower in Kyiv, and we fear other reporters may die as the war continues. We call on all parties involved to ensure the safety of journalists before the worst happens again.”

    Sky News

    On February 28, Russian soldiers fired on a team from the British broadcaster Sky News near the village of Stoyanka, in the Kyiv region, according to news reports and Sky News.

    Russian soldiers shot chief correspondent Stuart Ramsay in the lower back, as well as camera operator Richie Mockler, who was hit twice in his body armor, according to those reports, which said that Ramsay was recuperating from his injuries and his life was not in danger.

    Producers Martin Vowles, Dominique Van Heerden, and Andrii Lytvynenko were also members of that Sky News team, and escaped the attack unharmed.

    The journalists shouted that they were members of the press as soon as the attack started, and were wearing clearly marked press vests, according to those sources and a video posted by the Kyiv region police following the attack.

    Freelance Swiss journalist Guillaume Briquet

    On March 6, Russian troops shot at and robbed freelance Swiss journalist Guillaume Briquet near the village of Vodyano-Lorino, in southern Ukraine’s Nikolaev region, according to media reports, a photo the journalist posted on Facebook, and an interview he gave to French TV station BFM TV.

    The soldiers shot Briquet’s vehicle four times, despite it being clearly marked as “Press,” and also fired four shots near his head, according to those sources, which said that he sustained injuries from broken glass on his head and arm.

    When Briquet exited his vehicle with his hands up and identified himself as a journalist, a group of men who said they were Russian soldiers “robbed me, stole my money, and threatened to kill me,” he said in that interview. The soldiers stole his passport, personal belongings, photographic equipment, a laptop, and more than 3,000 euros (US$3,319), according to those news reports.

    Al Araby TV

    On March 5, heavy Russian shelling trapped Adnan Can and Habib Demirci, two journalists for the London-based broadcaster Al Araby TV, with a group of civilians near Irpin, in the Kyiv region, according to multiple news reports.

    In a report published on March 8, the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine, a local trade group, announced that the Al Araby TV journalists managed to escape unharmed after spending about four days in a bomb shelter without electricity or adequate water or food.

    Slidstvo.Info

    On March 7, an unidentified man attacked Dmytro Replyanchuk, a reporter for the Ukrainian investigative outlet Slidstvo.Info, while he was reporting at a monastery in Kyiv, according to news reports and a statement from the outlet sent to CPJ via messaging app.

    Replyanchuk and a camera operator, whose name was not disclosed in those reports or the outlet’s statement, were attempting to interview people at the monastery about the war when a man walking with a stick started hitting Replyanchuk’s leg with it, yelling at the reporters to leave, as seen in a video posted by Slidstvo.Info.

    Other unidentified men at the scene tried to snatch Replyanchuk’s camera and shouted at the journalists as they left the scene, that video shows.

    The Slidstvo.Info statement said that the outlet had filed a report to the police, but that the attackers were still unidentified. Replyanchuk did not sustain any serious injuries.

    CPJ emailed the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Kyiv regional police for comment, but did not immediately receive any replies.

    Previously, Ukrainian journalist Yevhenii Sakun was killed on March 1 when Russian forces shelled a TV tower in Kyiv, and two journalists from the Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet were shot by unidentified attackers on February 26, as CPJ documented at the time.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Diabolic methods of propaganda and perception management are at work now that have no precedent. This is war waged in a new way — against domestic populations as well as those declared as enemies.

    The post The Casualties Of Empire appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren speaks during a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on Capitol Hill on March 3, 2022, in Washington, D.C.

    Gas prices are soaring to record highs, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) wants to tax fossil fuel companies’ profits to prevent them from fleecing customers at the gas pump.

    In a MSNBC appearance on Tuesday, Warren said that she is cosponsoring a bill with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) and other Senate Democrats that would tax windfall profits, or sudden and unusually large profits, for oil companies as the Russian invasion has escalated.

    “Look, we get it, supply and demand, that prices go up. But profit margins should not go up,” Warren said. “That’s just oil companies gouging when they do that.”

    As of Wednesday, the average price in the U.S. for a gallon of regular gas is $4.25, which is the highest it’s ever been, according to AAA. Gas prices are rapidly rising; even just a week ago, the same gallon of gas cost $3.65, which was also a huge increase from pre-pandemic prices.

    Prices which were already on the rise as oil and gas companies took advantage of high inflation to make gas more expensive have soared over the past couple of weeks due to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. And while the public is pummeled by high gas prices, fossil fuel companies are making billions in profits.

    President Joe Biden has been advising fossil fuel companies not to increase prices in order to pad profits, but without concrete action, companies have no reason not to continue on their current path.

    Lawmakers have floated the idea of a windfall profits tax for oil companies in order to combat profiteering at the pump, but have not yet formally announced a bill. Last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) suggested the proposal in a tweet, saying that corporations are using the crisis in Ukraine and the pandemic “as an excuse to price gouge customers.”

    On Wednesday, Whitehouse also gestured toward the idea in a series of tweets. “This is Putin’s gas price increase. There can be no ‘energy independence’ as long as we power our economy with commodities whose value is determined by global events beyond our control,” Whitehouse wrote.

    “Furthermore, the fossil fuel industry should not be allowed to take advantage of a crisis by hiking prices and collecting a massive windfall,” he continued, saying that the U.S. would do better to switch to renewable energies.

    Republicans have jumped on high gas prices, saying that the Biden administration isn’t doing anything to mitigate the problem. Earlier this week, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) pointed out that gas prices were about $2.17 in 2020 ignoring the fact that the pandemic and mass quarantining had made prices plunge.

    Instead of examining whether corporations are taking advantage of crises to price gouge – and data suggests that they are the GOP is teaming up with Big Oil to spout dangerous rhetoric and advocate for more drilling. Not only would this be disastrous for the climate, it would also likely not help with current gas prices at all.

    Experts say that it would be nearly impossible for the U.S. to ramp up production in time to address current prices, and U.S. production doesn’t have as large of an impact on prices as Republicans are claiming it does.

    In reality, “There is essentially no action the Biden administration could take that would really move the needle on oil prices, or at least policies that would have to do with oil and gas production in the U.S.,” Daniel Raimi, an economist who studies the oil industry for Resources for the Future, told E&E News.

    As for the GOP’s argument that ramping up production is necessary for energy independence, that’s a farce too, Raimi said. “As long as we use oil, we are dependent on every other country in the world.”

    Another problem that Republicans may not want to own up to is Wall Street. Amos Hochstein, the State Department’s senior advisor for energy security, told the Financial Times that Wall Street investors who are “insisting on dividends and fiscal discipline” in the midst of the crisis are the ones who are truly responsible for the current sky-high gas prices.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.