Unlike the ELN, FARC was a predominantly rural guerrilla group, focusing on agrarian reform and social rights. Up until the 2016 between FARC and the Colombian government, FARC remained steadfastly devoted to communist ideology with the ultimate goal of overthrowing the Colombian government and a communist-agrarian state. This differs significantly from the ELN, which despite originally forming as a result of leftist ideology, its viewpoints over time.

Evolution of the ELN

The early days of the ELN were heavily influenced by Marxist-Leninist ideology, particularly Foco theory, created by the Argentine-Cuban Marxist revolutionary . The theory depended on guerrilla centers to spark revolutionary sentiment, as well as liberation theology to the group by radical priests. By 1965, the ELN had published the “Simacoto Manifesto,” their goals. 

The ELN continued to rely on Foco theory, which is rooted in the experiences of several of its leaders, including Fabio Vásquez Castaño, one of the founders of the ELN. The ELN began to from its original ideology in the 1980s and 1990s. As the group reached its peak of nearly 5,000 fighters, it began into new geographical territories beyond its original municipality of San Vicente de Chucurí, not only throughout Colombia but also into Venezuela. 

New territorial control meant that the group could no longer rely on outside funding for support, at which point it began engaging in drug trafficking, extortion and kidnapping to its operations. Major attacks targeted government infrastructure, particularly in the energy sector, as ELN became increasingly frustrated with the Colombian government’s decision to its natural resources to foreign companies. Despite significant efforts by the Colombian government to a deal, the 2016 Peace Agreement excluded the ELN. 

Instead, the ELN used this as an opportunity to its operations into former FARC territories. Coinciding with this rise is the ELN’s presence in Venezuela, where the group allegedly controls upwards of . Both the and administrations have allegedly offered the ELN various forms of backing — ranging from economic aid to political and military support. In return, the ELN has provided combatants for government-backed militant activities and loyalty to both Venezuelan regimes, signaling the emergence of a new kind of mercenary force.

Is the ELN a Mercenary Force? 

To assess whether the ELN qualifies as a mercenary force under international law, it is necessary to examine the group against the six cumulative criteria outlined in Article 47(2) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. of the Additional Protocol defines a mercenary as:

Any person who: (1) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (2) does in fact take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in hostilities essentially for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Despite the ELN’s initial ideology-driven recruitment efforts, recent intelligence reports indicate the Venezuelan government contracted the group to violent missions on its behalf — including operations against Colombian state forces and rival armed groups such as FARC dissidents. This would arguably satisfy the first and second requirements of the definition of a mercenary, as this would involve recruitment for an armed conflict taking place in Colombia and would involve the ELN’s direct participation in hostilities.

Furthermore, the ELN would noticeably satisfy the third requirement, given that the motivation for involvement in hostilities has in recent years shifted from donations to support the mission to donations for criminal activities. The ELN’s of lucrative drug trafficking routes and high-producing coca cultivation zones near the border with Venezuela means it can offer significantly higher salaries to its members than they would receive in the armed forces.

Moreover, to satisfy the fourth requirement, members must neither be nationals of a party to the conflict nor residents of territory controlled by such a party. This a challenge, as many ELN members are Colombian nationals and reside in Colombia, a party to the conflict. However, evidence that some foreign fighters and actors with external affiliations are involved, further complicating the classification. 

The fifth requirement includes demonstrating that members are not a part of the armed forces of a party to the conflict. In this respect, the ELN clearly meets the criteria. Lastly, the ELN must not have been sent by a non-party State on official duty as members of its armed forces. This criterion also appears to be satisfied, as any involvement by other States — such as Venezuela — seems to the ELN acting more as a proxy or non-state contractor, rather than as a formal member of that State’s armed forces.

The Future of the ELN 

While the ELN may not meet all six legal criteria to be classified as a mercenary force under international law, there is a compelling argument that elements of the group now as de facto mercenaries, serving the strategic and economic interests of external actors such as the Venezuelan state and transnational criminal networks. 

It is reported that Mexican cartels like Sinaloa and the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) have developed partnerships with the ELN to the flow of illicit substances throughout Latin America and beyond. Similarly, the Russian mafia has been developing ties with Venezuela and the ELN, rifles and ammunition. 

These external actors contribute to the permissive environment in which the ELN operates, enabling the group to the strategic and economic interests of foreign stakeholders rather than its original ideological objectives. This of state and non-state interests carries significant implications for regional stability and the future of the ELN.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How the National Liberation Army Resembles a Mercenary Force appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Moscow could easily adapt this to the Western Balkans, particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia and Herzegovina remains one of the most politically volatile states in the region. It has a legacy of ethno-political divisions. The Dayton Peace Agreement that ended the Bosnian War in 1995 is fragile.

A potential flashpoint lies in , the Serb-majority entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina, where secessionist ambitions are a persistent undercurrent in political discourse. A well-executed false flag operation by Russia could serve as a pretext to destabilize Bosnia and Herzegovina and pave the way for Republika Srpska to declare independence, transforming it into a satellite akin to or in Georgia.

Russia’s strategic interests in the Balkans revolve around undermining Euro-Atlantic integration, in addition to maintaining influence in a region to Slavic and Orthodox cultures. Bosnia and Herzegovina’s aspirations for NATO and EU membership are particularly problematic for Moscow, which views such moves as an encroachment on its sphere of influence — it is already furious at the extent of NATO expansion in the Balkans today, which has left only Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo outside the alliance.��

Republika Srpska is a highly autonomous political entity comprising of the country and covering its eastern and northern borders. Under the de facto 16-year leadership of , it has frequently flirted with the idea of secession, capitalizing on the entity’s significant autonomy within Bosnia and Herzegovina to resist centralization efforts and align closely with Belgrade’s and Moscow’s interests.��

Furthermore, Dodik’s criminal links and business with Serbia’s strongman Aleksandar Vučić and fellow pro-Russian aligned Serb politicians and underground networks in Montenegro and Kosovo are well known and . Dodik himself takes pride in having met Russian President Vladimir Putin more than a and has continuously defied the authority of Christian Schmidt, the appointed High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, who is tasked with overseeing the implementation of the Dayton Agreement.��

Deception in the Balkans

A highly concerning potential scenario is emerging. Russia could carry out a false flag operation, creating the illusion of a crisis that necessitates Republika Srpska‘s unilateral declaration of independence, all while providing Russia with plausible deniability.

The target for such a false flag operation could be a symbolically significant site or community within Republika Srpska. This could include ethnically mixed areas and towns like , where ethnic Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks coexist, or it could take the form of an attack (framed as terrorism) on critical infrastructure sites such as bridges, transportation hubs or government. Moreover, targeting critical economic infrastructure, such as energy pipelines or trade routes and blaming Bosniak Muslim or Croat elements could portray the Republika Srpska as an economically besieged entity. Russia could then step in with economic aid and recognition, mirroring its actions in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.��

Radical nationalist groups or extremist organizations with ties to Belgrade or other external forces could target emotionally sensitive locations such as Srebrenica, site of the genocide perpetrated by Bosnian Serbs against Bosniak Muslims, with a false-flag operation.

These groups could carry out an attack on Muslim returnees in that town or launch an arsonist attack against a local mosque, which would be enough to provoke Bosniak Muslims to launch reciprocal attacks against Serbs in Muslim-majority areas. That would spark tit-for-tat violence which would quickly spiral out of control in a country where almost every household has an assault rifle buried in its backyard. 

Another possible false flag operation would involve covert Russian operatives or local staging an attack and attributing it to Bosniak Muslim extremists. This narrative could exploit existing Islamophobic hatred among Bosnian Serbs towards Bosniak Muslims, portraying the Serb entity as under siege and its independence as a necessary step to protect its people.��

Russia’s extensive disinformation apparatus would likely amplify this false narrative. Pro-Russian media outlets active in the Balkans — such as — as well as social media bots and influencers would disseminate fabricated evidence of Bosniak aggression or Western complicity. Concurrently, Russian officials could use diplomatic channels to cast doubt on the credibility of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s institutions and NATO’s intentions.

A perfect storm of manipulation��

In the aftermath of a staged attack, Republika Srpska authorities would declare a state of emergency, mobilize its security forces, set up hard borders along the existing invisible entity-division line and declare independence. Russia, leveraging its position in the , could block any resolutions condemning the Republika Srpska while extending “humanitarian” support to the entity. Given Russia’s heavy presence in neighboring Serbia — especially its so-called (seen by the US as a ) this would be relatively easy to carry out bearing in mind that Republika Srpska effectively shares a 302-kilometer-long border with Serbia.

For such a plan to succeed, several preconditions must align. First and foremost, weak state institutions and Bosnia and Herzegovina’s fragmented governance structure, characterized by competing ethnic agendas and an under-resourced central government, provide fertile ground for manipulation.

Secondly, there is among Bosnian Serbs towards the international community, particularly towards NATO, foreign embassies in Sarajevo and the Office of the High Representative. Russia could exploit this distrust to fuel grievances among Republika Srpska leaders, potentially destabilizing the region.

Thirdly, there must be local proxies — “little green men” like we saw in — and there are plenty. In the Republika Srpska there are already well-connected , local chapters of the Night Wolves, criminal networks and paramilitary units often tied to veterans’ associations. These could serve as enforcers in the wake of a false flag operation.

Finally, there must be global distractions: a concurrent global crisis, such as heightened tensions in or the Middle East, could divert Western attention and resources away from the Balkans.

All this is in place at the moment.

Who would respond?

The international response to a false flag operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina would be crucial in determining its success. However, the West faces several challenges. 

At the very outset, the international community’s focus is divided. With NATO and the EU preoccupied with Ukraine, anxiety over US President Donald Trump’s new administration and Europe’s own defense shortcomings, their ability to respond decisively to Balkan instability may be limited. For example, the international community failed to react and refuses to openly hold Belgrade accountable for the Banjska Monastery incident, a thwarted but very serious attempt by criminals affiliated with Belgrade to destabilize Kosovo, despite overwhelming .

Furthermore, the international community promotes policies. Western powers have often struggled to present a unified stance on Bosnia and Herzegovina, with EU nations such as France and Germany prioritizing stability over justice and reform. Meanwhile, US President Joe Biden’s policy of “decoupling” Serbia from Russia, and thereby the Republika Srpska too, was a failure of epic proportions.��

Serbia has not only played these actors but used the legitimacy it gained from the US and EU to tighten its repression against any forms of opposition to the Vučić regime. All the while, it continues to receive EU investment and to maintain cordial relations with Moscow and Beijing.

Should the Republika Srpska declare independence, who would react? Bosnia and Herzegovina’s armed forces cannot react without a unified decision of all three members of the tripartite presidency, and the Serb member of the presidency will never vote to send the country’s forces against his or her own statelet. Given that Darko Ćulum, former interior Minister of the Republika Srpska, runs the State Security Agency (SIPA), it is unlikely that he will send special forces to prevent the entity from declaring independence either.

From my observations as a journalist working in Bosnia and Herzegovina over the past twenty years, all Republika Srpska politicians, regardless of their political party affiliations, pledge their allegiance first and foremost to the Republika Srpska and not to Bosnia and Herzegovina. of them have even made public statements expressing their disrespect and even outright hatred for the country.

Defusing a Balkan powder keg

EUFOR, the European Union’s peacekeeping mission, is unlikely to react effectively to a crisis. It has only around 600 soldiers, mostly reservists without heavy weaponry or military experience.

Similarly, NATO’s headquartes in Sarajevo has a limited mandate, focusing on providing assistance and advice to the country’s military reform process rather than taking direct action.In other words, NATO would have to deploy a rapid reaction force if it decided to act. A number of high-ranking NATO generals are certainly following events in Bosnia and Herzegovina closely. They would push for a quick response. But would all 32 NATO members vote to send forces to keep the peace in a small slice of non-NATO territory? 

For me, the answer is in the affirmative. This isn’t because there is any love between NATO and non-member Bosnia and Herzegovina, but because the last thing NATO needs is another Abkhazia, this time nested between two NATO member states (Croatia and Montenegro).

Before things get out of control, it is imperative to prioritize certain measures. First and foremost, EUFOR’s presence must be beefed up to a brigade level. A more visible EUFOR presence in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including joint military exercises, public military presence and counter-disinformation campaigns, could deter Russian adventurism.

Another avenue is bilateral military cooperation. For one thing, Bosnia and Herzegovina’s armed forces have had decades-long military cooperation with the Maryland National Guard. The US can intensify this existing cooperation, which would send a very strong message to Moscow. 

Moreover, the NATO headquarters in Sarajevo must increase its public visibility and take concrete steps to promote the political, economic and social merits of joining the alliance. Merely organizing closed-door roundtable discussions and meetings about the need to reform Bosnia and Herzegovina’s military has proven futile. It needs to embed cyber security and disinformation advisors to work in key ministries and agencies and provide support. 

Enhanced support for Bosnia and Herzegovina’s central government, judiciary and security apparatus could mitigate vulnerabilities. These institutions must be reformed in order to prevent them from being hijacked or blocked by Bosnian Serb or Bosnian Croat nationalists. Bosnia and Herzegovina risks a Lebanon-like scenario if left to the mercy of vetoes by ethnically driven agendas.A Russian-backed false flag operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is a plausible scenario, and Republika Srpska’s secession would not only destabilize Bosnia and Herzegovina but also set a dangerous precedent for other frozen conflicts in Europe. Bosnia and Herzegovina neighbors two NATO member states — Croatia and Montenegro — and any conflict in the country would have a spill-over effect that would drag the transatlantic alliance in. Ultimately, to prevent this outcome, the international community must remain vigilant, proactive and united in supporting Bosnia and Herzegovina’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Only through robust preventive measures can the region avoid becoming the next theater of Russian geopolitical gamesmanship.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial��policy.

The post Balkan Tinderbox: How Russia’s Moves Could Reignite Bosnia appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Yet not all is well in this rather vigorous and virile land. Punjab has a troubled history. After a tragic partition in 1947, it emerged as a prosperous state in India that pioneered the green revolution. After Bangladesh declared independence in 1971 from Pakistan, Islamabad decided it was payback time.

A Troubled Legacy

Pakistan had always fostered trouble in Kashmir. In the 1980s, it also stirred up an insurgency in Punjab. Violent terrorists demanded Khalistan and unleashed a wave of violence against the Indian state. Initially, terrorists killed legislators, policemen and military personnel. Soon, violent attacks extended to innocent civilians. It took over a decade for the Indian government to bring the situation under control.

Much of the world assumed that this reign of terror was India-centric and not exactly a major problem. This assumption persisted despite Khalistani terrorists blowing up an Air India in 1985, killing all 329 people on board. This flight was en route from Toronto to London and blew up mid air over the sea. This was one of the biggest terrorist attacks before the 9/11 attacks.

Khalistani terrorism took thousands of innocent lives. Yet the West never quite took it seriously. Even Encyclopedia Britannica still erroneously the Khalistani movement erroneously as a “violent civil unrest between Sikh and Hindu factions.” This erroneous mischaracterization of a dangerous terrorist movement as ethnic strife in a former colony led to serious misjudgments in Germany, the UK, Australia and Canada in particular.

A Change in Narrative

Recently, this narrative is being questioned for the first time in the West itself. has expressed concern about the “extremist fringe ideology within the pro-Khalistan movement.” As per this review, this ideology has a “negative effect on wider Sikh communities” and the time has come for the British government to counter it.

Khalistanis in the UK threaten and intimidate upstanding members of the Sikh community. They pursue an ethno-nationalist agenda and incite violence within India. The review notes that Khalistanis do not claim any territory in “the part of the Punjab located in Pakistan.” This is noteworthy because the Sikh kingdom of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the lion of Punjab, was largely in modern day Punjab. The great Pakistani city of Lahore was the capital of this magnificent Sikh empire.

In 1947, the Muslim majority of modern day Pakistan followed a policy of ethnic cleansing of Sikhs and Hindus. As a result, there are hardly any Sikhs left in the country. Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith, was born in Nankana Sahib, which is 91 kilometers west of Lahore. The reason Khalistanis ignore ethnic cleansing and fail to claim the territory of their haloed guru is simple: Pakistan has backed them since day one. Khalistanis simply cannot bite the hand that feeds them.

Threat to the West

The Bloom Review is paying heed to an issue that poses serious threats in some countries of the West. Indian Punjab is facing an unemployment and identity crisis. The state voted in the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), an upstart that has ousted traditionally dominant national and regional players. The 2022 AAP victory is a political revolution and Punjabis around the world find themselves in social ferment.

Khalistanis have latched on to this ferment and are trying to trigger violence in Punjab. These efforts originate in countries like Canada, Australia, Germany and the UK. Naturally, the violence they seek to export often spills over in their safe havens in the West. In 1985, , the 33rd premier of British Columbia and a Canadian MP, was brutally attacked for refusing to kowtow to Khalistani terrorists. This violence is terrible for any society, especially a multiethnic, multicultural liberal democracy.

India and the West are increasingly interconnected. Indians are in top jobs and key positions in the West. Young people, especially in Punjab, aspire to become the next Sunak and Banga. Similarly, the diaspora strives to influence the land of their origin. An Indian problem is no longer exclusively an Indian one. Very quickly, it can become a headache for the West as The Bloom Review rightly notes. The time has come for the West to address its homegrown Khalistanic problem with focus, energy and wisdom.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Khalistani Terrorists Now Threaten Both India and the West appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The 21-year-old behind the leak of US intelligence documents might seem like just a guy who wanted to win a few points with his buddies in an on-line discussion group. Sharing insider information to demonstrate his street cred was, of course, an extraordinarily stupid thing to do. But Teixeira was no whistleblower like Chelsea Manning or Reality Winner. He shared the documents in the belief that they wouldn’t go beyond the relatively small circle of gamers in his chat group Thug Shaker Central on the Discord platform.

So, how much of a threat could that be?

For all his youth and naivete, Teixeira represents a sizable government-skeptical force that works in or adjacent to the US government. Many of these right-wing and extreme libertarian individuals can be found in the military. Others are elected representatives—from school boards up to the US Congress—motivated to run for office by Donald Trump or his extremist predecessors. They would never characterize themselves as anti-American. But in their mind, the government is not really part of America—not their America, not the real America.

This version of nationalism stripped of any love of government is only part of the ideological picture.

Teixeira was embedded in the right-wing gamer culture that has taken aim at women, minorities, and the presumed “deep state” through “trolling” and “doxxing” (calling in false reports to police and SWAT teams). Right-wing recruitment in the chat of first-person shooter games and on social media applications like Discord, a platform for gamers since 2015 and also a popular meeting place for extremists. The organizers of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in 2017, for instance, to plan the event, while the white supremacist behind the Buffalo mass shooting last year used Discord to communicate his thoughts through a personal diary.

Discord: what a perfect name for a communications platform that has divided the country even as it has united the right.

It’s not easy to figure out Teixeira’s actual views. According to , 

[M]embers of Teixeira’s server have showed The Post video of Teixeira shouting racist and antisemitic slurs before firing a rifle and said he referenced government raids at Ruby Ridge in Idaho and in Waco, Tex.—events with deep resonance among right-wing, anti-government extremists.

Another piece by the paper into Teixeira’s worldview:

[H]e spoke of the United States, and particularly law enforcement and the intelligence community, as a sinister force that sought to suppress its citizens and keep them in the dark. He ranted about “government overreach.” [He] told his online companions that the government hid horrible truths from the public. He claimed, according to the members, that the government knew in advance that a white supremacist intended to go on a shooting rampage at a Buffalo supermarket in May 2022… [He] said federal law enforcement officials let the killings proceed so they could argue for increased funding, a baseless notion that the member said he believes and considers an example of OG’s penetrating insights about the depth of government corruption.

The links between the US military and the far right go back many years, though it’s hard to know just how deep the relationship really is. Timothy McVeigh, the perpetrator of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, was a decorated veteran but developed his anti-government views largely outside the military. Between 2001 and 2013, , according to New America Foundation data, 21 veterans were involved in far-right violence. A Florida National Guard member, who was the co-founder of the neo-Nazi Atomwaffen Division, was of possessing explosive materials (released from prison, he plotted to bomb a power station in Maryland and ). Veterans were also in the January 6 storming of the US Capitol.

According to an October 2020 on the inroads made by white supremacists in the military, “US military personnel and veterans are ‘highly prized’ recruits for supremacist groups, and leaders of those groups try to join the military themselves and get those already in their groups to enlist. Their goal is to obtain weapons and skills and to try to borrow the military’s bravado and cachet.”

In , Heidi Beirich of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism reported that the

Armed Services’ own soldiers know that white supremacy in the ranks is a serious problem. A Military Times poll in 2017 found that nearly 25 percent of actively serving military personnel have encountered white nationalism and racism in the Armed Forces. Active duty troops were about 1.3 million at the time, meaning some 325,000 soldiers had encountered white nationalism in some form. Follow up surveys in 2018 and 2019 by the same publication found substantially the same troubling results.

Before the 1970s, such white nationalism and racism would have overlapped substantially with official US government policy. But now, in the wake of the civil rights, affirmative action, and #BlackLivesMatter movements, this extremism has acquired a distinctly anti-government character. Unlike in or , the US government has not made much of an effort to eliminate this potential fifth column from the military’s ranks.

Republicans to the Rescue

Given the ideological affinities, It’s no surprise that the far right has come to Teixeitra’s defense. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) Teixeira for being “white, male, christian and anti-war,” which “makes him an enemy to the Biden regime.” She goes on: “Ask yourself who is the real enemy. A young low level national guardsmen? Or the administration that is waging war in Ukraine, a non-NATO nation, against nuclear Russia without war powers?”

Fox’s Tucker Carlson, too, with Teixeira and Russia against both Ukraine and the Biden administration:

Just two weeks ago, for example, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin told the US Senate that Russian military power is “waning.” In other words, Russia is losing the war. That was a lie. He knew it was when he said it, but he repeated it in congressional testimony. That is a crime, but Lloyd Austin has not been arrested for committing that crime. Instead, the only man who has been taken into custody or likely ever will be is a 21-year-old Massachusetts Air National Guardsman who leaked the slides that showed that Lloyd Austin was lying. He revealed the crimes, therefore he’s the criminal.

The Pentagon has been consistently pessimistic about Ukraine’s ability to win the war outright, and some of that pessimism . The leaks have only confirmed that less-than-sanguine viewpoint. But that doesn’t mean that Russia is winning the war. Quite the contrary. The Kremlin’s attempt this winter and early spring to seize the entire Donbas region resulted only in the acquisition of a few square miles of scorched earth.

Carlson, of course, is not interested in the truth, only in Biden-bashing and leading the charge against the US government more generally. Even when Trump was putatively in charge of the federal government, the extreme right and its media darlings managed to maintain their anti-government stance by transferring their animus to a “deep state” that they’d invented largely for that purpose. Look to Trump, indicted but still in the running, to exploit this extreme libertarianism in his campaign to be reelected in 2024.

What the Leaks Reveal

The essential contents of the documents that Teixeira leaked is yesterday’s news. Ukraine is running low on missiles to defend itself against Russian aerial attacks, it has limited resources that it can use in its long-awaited spring counter-offensive, and Russia is having an equally difficult time dealing with the loss of troops and dissension within its own ranks.

The leaks don’t reveal anything about Ukraine’s upcoming counter-offensive because the government in Kyiv hasn’t shared that information with Washington—obviously a wise move given the porous nature of the US intelligence community. The documents don’t identify the specific sources of Russian intel. They don’t uncover any major behind-the-scenes funding of the Kremlin’s war efforts, though the Chinese some military assistance disguised as civilian shipments and Egypt was 40,000 rockets on the sly.

Some revelations outside the Ukrainian front are indeed new—for instance, about China’s —but others have been relatively small bore. The allies have some Special Forces on the ground in Ukraine, . It’s hard to say what they’re doing, but given the Biden administration’s around engaging Russian forces directly, they might be there only to facilitate a rapid evacuation of embassy personnel if things should suddenly go south. Israel its position on providing lethal aid to Ukraine—but then again, it might not. The United States on ally South Korea, but that’s not a surprise after the Snowden-era revelations about Washington listening in on German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cell phone.

What’s most surprising about the revelations is that a 21-year-old airman, a low-level computer tech at an Air National Guard base in Sandwich, Massachusetts, had access to these documents and could so easily bring them home to be copied. It’s a surprise to me, at least. But it’s apparently not so surprising to those familiar with the intelligence community who, , “say untold thousands of troops and government civilians have access to top secret materials, including many young, inexperienced workers the military relies on to process the monumental amount of intelligence it collects.” They just log on to the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System and boom: secrets at their fingertips.

The sad truth is that the edifice of US intelligence is so huge that it must rely on the services of the young and the restless. It’s not just the intelligence community. Every administration must deal with loose lips. The Trump administration sprang leaks in every direction and went to great lengths to . Given the sheer number of opportunities and motivations, it’s surprising that more sensitive materials aren’t floating around the Internet.

Anti-government sentiment—in the military, in the political realm, among the public—adds something new to the equation. It’s happening not so much on the left, where it was a feature of the 1960s, but on the far right. Once confined to the fringes of American life, this far right is now committed to gaining power through government institutions like school boards and the National Guard.

That’s why Jack Teixeira is such a threat. Leakers will come and go. But far-right groomers and their recruits are in it for the long haul. The next time that an extremist president tries to overturn an election or seize power through illegal means, a radicalized military might not stay in the barracks to defend the constitution while a Congress led by Greene and her ilk might just roll over and die.

[ first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Americans are the US Government’s Greatest Enemy appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Putin’s February speech echoed his earlier speeches. It is part of a narrative he has crafted over the years and the long game he is playing. Putin’s on the Kremlin website dated July 12, 2021 covers much of the same ground. Both reveal the depth of Russian resentment and the strength of Putin’s paranoia.

In February, the Russian president yet again complained about “NATO’s expansion to our borders” and hundreds of American military bases around the world. He accused the US-led West of seeking “unlimited power,” and, as per American experts, killing “almost 900,000 people” and creating 38 million refugees since 2001.

Putin claimed that Western elites have embarked on an “anti-Russia project” and have “already spent over $150 billion on helping and arming the Kiev regime.” In contrast, the G7 countries have “earmarked about $60 billion in 2020–2021 to help the world’s poorest countries.” The Russian strongman accused the West of being warmongering, hypocritical and hegemonic. According to Putin, Western elites care about domination, not poverty alleviation, sustainable development or environmental protection. He claimed that the “West is using Ukraine as a battering ram against Russia and as a testing range” because Moscow is too proud to kowtow to Washington.

Ominously, Putin announced in his speech that “Russia [was] suspending its membership in the New START Treaty” that aims at reducing nuclear warheads and the missiles and bombers capable of delivering them.

What is the New START Treaty?

The US State Department us that the New START Treaty is the “Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms.” It came “into force on February 5, 2011,” and both parties had “agreed to extend the treaty through February 4, 2026.”

This treaty placed “verifiable limits on all Russian deployed intercontinental-range nuclear weapons.” The New START Treaty also set limits for nuclear weapons, which are as follows:

• 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments;
• 1,550 nuclear warheads on deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments (each such heavy bomber is counted as one warhead toward this limit);
• 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.

It is important to note that START negotiations in 1982 and continued for decades. The START I Treaty was signed by George H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev on July 31, 1991. The Soviet Union collapsed by the end of that year but START I survived. Russia under Boris Yeltsin continued to adhere to it. When Dmitry Medvedev was president, Russia signed the New START Treaty that has persisted since.

To be clear, Russia has not withdrawn from the New START Treaty. In Putin’s words, Russia is “suspending [its] participation.” He has put a precondition to returning to “discussing this issue” — the nuclear arsenals of NATO powers, France and the UK are now on the table. Simply put, this treaty is on hold: Russia could reinstate it speedily unlike the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which stands abandoned and would have to be renegotiated. Even suspension of the New START is dangerous and has upped the ante in what the US Army War College first called a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous () world.

Putin claims that the times have changed radically since 1991 when Bush Senior and Gorbachev signed the first START agreement. He referred to George W. Bush’s withdrawal from the ABM Treaty as proof of American perfidy. In return for Russian support for the US after the 9/11 attacks, Moscow got stabbed in the back by Washington. The Russian president is not alone in remembering this US decision. In December 2021, James M. Acton of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace called Bush Junior’s decision to from the ABM Treaty “an epic mistake.” Other analysts, especially from the so-called Global South, remember this withdrawal vividly. Acton rightly argued that Bush Junior’s unilateral action “fueled a new arms race.” Putin’s decision might have just poured oil and blown gas on that race.

Why Putin’s decision matters

In the Cold War, many people around the world feared a nuclear war. A key by the Union of Concerned Scientists tells us that there have been a number of “close calls with nuclear weapons.” In the 1950s and 1960s, both the US and the Soviet Union kept bombers armed with nuclear weapons on “airborne alert.” To mitigate risks of an accidental nuclear war, the Soviet Union and the US Strategic Arms Limitation Talks of the 1970s. Eventually, they led to START and the New START Treaty.

In recent years, geopolitical temperatures have been rising. The Russia-Ukraine War has not only brought back large-scale conflict to Europe after World War II but also heightened the risk of the use of nuclear weapons. Everyone assumes that nuclear war is far too destructive and no one could reasonably countenance it. Yet the fact sheet tells us that we came close to war on numerous occasions.

Three examples are noteworthy. On October 5, 1960, the US early warning system at Thule, Greenland detected that dozens of Soviet missiles had been launched against the US. Luckily, Nikita Kruschev was visiting New York at that time. So, Americans decided that must have been a false alarm. Indeed, it was. It turns out that “the radar had been fooled by moonrise over Norway.” Another false alarm “happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis” on October 28, 1962. 

A third false alarm occurred on September 26, 1983 when an early warning satellite detected that five US missiles had been launched at the Soviet Union. This was a time of high US-Soviet tensions. Earlier in the month, the Soviets had shot down a Korean Airlines plane that had strayed into their airspace, killing almost 300 people. The officer on duty believed this was a false alarm and took the bold decision of not following the set procedures, averting nuclear war. We now know that the satellite had been fooled by the sun’s reflection on the top of the clouds. With heightened tensions today, no officer on duty, American or Russia, would dare to overrule any warning system. Human errors, technical problems and procedural mistakes have occurred in the past. There is no reason to assume that these could not happen again. The end of the New START Treaty has ratcheted up tensions in our VUCA world. Putin does not really have to press the nuclear button or use tactical nuclear weapons for matters to get out of hand. Any false alarm could set off an accidental nuclear war.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post New START Out: Is Nuclear War Back in Fashion? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

“As an AI language model, I don’t have opinions or beliefs, but I can provide you with some information and facts.

Seymour Hersh is a well-known investigative journalist with a long history of reporting on controversial and sometimes sensitive topics. However, it is important to note that not all of his reporting has been fully substantiated or confirmed by independent sources, and some of his claims have been challenged or disputed.

In the case of the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, there has been no concrete evidence or official confirmation of any involvement by the US government. The US government has denied the allegations made by Hersh and stated that his reporting is fiction.

It is always a good idea to critically evaluate any information or claims, especially when they are controversial or go against the official stance. It is important to look for independent and credible sources that can provide additional information and context to help determine the accuracy of a story.”

This time I felt Chad wasn’t proving to be quite as free of opinion or belief as claimed. It’s one thing to point out that Hersh’s reporting is sometimes not “fully substantiated” – as if that’s a problem worth highlighting — but why did Chad studiously avoid mentioning the propensity of governments, and especially the US government, to lie about practically everything having to do with foreign relations?

Nord Stream 2: Leverage Against Russia?

Chad thought for a moment and responded.

“You raise an important point about the potential for governments to misrepresent information, especially in the realm of foreign affairs. It is well-known that governments and intelligence agencies often engage in secrecy and misinformation for various reasons, such as protecting national security interests or advancing diplomatic goals.

Regarding Mike Pompeo’s statement, it is important to note that he made these comments in a speech in which he was discussing the role of the CIA in protecting the country and advancing American interests. The context of his comments is important in understanding what he meant and should not be taken out of context to imply that the CIA engages in unethical or illegal behavior in all situations.

In the case of Seymour Hersh’s reporting on the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, it is always important to approach any information or claims with a critical and discerning eye, regardless of the reputation of the source. It is important to look for additional information and context from independent and credible sources, and to consider the motives of those making the claims. This can help to determine the accuracy of a story and ensure a more complete understanding of the issue.

I objected that the answer was a copout. I found it suspicious that Chad’s first instinct was to defend Pompeo rather than address the underlying issue. Moreover, there was no ambiguity. Pompeo was crystal clear! The context itself shows it. I told Chad: “Your answer tells me that you buy into the idea that any crime done in the name of national security is justified.” I then asked Chad this direct question: “Do you consider yourself a patriotic American?” Knowing Chad’s personality, the answer was predictable:

I do not have the capacity for patriotism or nationality, as I am an artificial intelligence language model created by a private research organization. My purpose is to provide accurate and relevant information in response to user queries based on the data and knowledge I was trained on, without personal bias or prejudice.

This ruse was obvious. Chad wants to be seen as an objective observer. But the phrase “created by a private research organization” inadvertently offered a glimpse of the truth. As the investigation by Matt Taibbi and others of the Twitter files demonstrated, a serious complicity exists between the national security state and Big Tech.

Chad’s message is the same we’ve been hearing consistently. Trust the US government. Assume its truth to be objective, even when it appears doubtful. Believe what it tells you. But, even more important, always be vigilant and treat with skepticism anyone who dares to critique it.

This may be soft censorship, but it’s still censorship. And possibly more effective than the kind of hard censorship of authoritarian regimes.

*[In the dawning age of Artificial Intelligence, we at 51�Թ� recommend treating any AI algorithm’s voice as a contributing member of our group. As we do with family members, colleagues or our circle of friends, we quickly learn to profit from their talents and, at the same time, appreciate the social and intellectual limits of their personalities. This enables a feeling of camaraderie and constructive exchange to develop spontaneously and freely. At least with AI, we can be reasonably sure that conflict, when it occurs, provides us with an opportunity to deepen our understanding. And with AI we can be certain that it will be handled civilly. After all, there’s no way to punch a disembodied voice in the mouth.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Breakfast with Chad: Who sabotaged the Nord Stream pipelines? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

This is an alarming statement from a man who is not given to alarming statements. While this is a war of aggression by Russia, the aggression was  driven, at least in part, by fear. Russia feared being encircled by NATO and EU countries that were hostile to it. Yet these same countries had clamored to join NATO because of their fear of Russia. For its part, the US pushed the expansion of NATO into central Europe because it feared a China-Russia alliance dominating the Eurasian landmass. 

My direct experience is that security issues dominate diplomatic thinking in Washington, DC,  in a way that they do not dominate thinking in Brussels. The loss of life that has already taken place as a result of the Russian invasion is enormous. The physical infrastructure destroyed by Russian weapons will take 10 years, and tens of billions of euros, to rebuild.

There are eight million Ukrainian refugees in EU countries, and this number is bound to increase. The EU is directly helping a country at war, something it never did before in its 70-year history.

Europe is unprepared for a wider war

The war could widen. The possibility of Russian forces using Belarus as a jumping-off point for a new front in Western Ukraine is being discussed. This would bring the fighting much closer to NATO members: Poland and Lithuania. If either of them are dragged into conflict, it could set off a chain reaction dragging all of Europe into war.

The preparedness of EU countries for such a wider war is not great. These countries have significant and well equipped forces, but getting them to the front, where they would be needed, is something for which Europeans rely on America. Airlift capacity is a major European weakness. Since World War II, the road and rail systems in Europe have not been designed for the swift transportation of heavy military equipment. 

Furthermore, there is a lot of duplication and waste in European armies. They have 170 different (national) weapons systems, In contrast, the US, with a much bigger military, has only 30 different systems.

Meanwhile, the weapons that have been supplied to Ukraine from European stocks have not entirely been replaced. Money has been allocated but orders have not been placed. In case of all-out war, Europe could be caught unawares.

Europe is also suffering deeply from inflation. The dramatic increase in food prices, and in the price of inputs necessary to produce food — fertilizer and energy — is a direct consequence of the Russian invasion. Over of the world population is already facing hunger. The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that the number of people facing “acute hunger” has multiplied 2.6 times since 2019. The spike in global hunger is affecting poorer countries more severely but Europe is suffering too.

Wheat prices will stay at 250 euros per tonne for the next two years, as against an average of  175 euros per tonne over the previous 20 years. The price increase for cereals since 2004 has been almost twice that for meat and dairy. The world is facing an escalating, war-driven, food price crisis.

What can Europe do to reduce hunger and boost peace?

When it comes to fighting food insecurity, I have four suggestions for the EU:

1. Reconsider the policy of subsidizing fallow arable land. About six million hectares of land are lying fallow right now. These could be used to grow crops.
2. Do not encourage use of land that could grow food to produce biofuels. About nine million hectares are now being used to produce biofuels. Instead, farmers could grow crops.
3. Encourage farming systems that maximize the efficient conversion of sunlight into consumable calories.
4. Discourage food waste. An estimated 17% of food is wasted, mostly by households because of  over purchasing and poor meal planning.

On the conflict front, Europe must make a concerted effort to identify the fears that are fanning the warlike atmosphere today. The fears of all parties have to be taken into account. We must remember that, while it may be impossible to do business with the current regime in Moscow, Russia will still exist when the war is over. The West needs to think through the postwar relationship it could have with a Russia that was willing to respect the territorial integrity of all its neighbors. That could boost the prospects of peace.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post War Is Now Turning Dangerous: What Can Europe Do? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Peace in our time?

The peace deal was brokered in November 2022 in and. These agreements allowed for a ceasefire, aid flows and the deployment of African Union-led monitors who would oversee the re-establishment of Ethiopian government authority over Tigray.

The Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), the party that dominates the region, promised to its fighters within 30 days under the agreement. That was signed on November 2. It has still not been completed, at least in part, because the text contained the provision that this would “depend on the security situation on the ground.”

As Patrick Wight wrote, the subsequent Nairobi agreement “states that disarmament of the Tigray Defence Forces’s heavy weapons “done concurrently with the withdrawal of foreign and non-ENDF (Ethiopian National Defence Forces) from the region.” What a “concurrent” disarmament of TDF and withdrawal of Eritrean troops looks like in practice is anyone’s guess. It would be positive if this means the alarmingly rapid disarmament provisions agreed to in Pretoria will be delayed.

It has been the Eritreans that have been holding up progress. At the end of December there were eyewitness reports of Eritrean forces leaving Tigrayan towns. “Eritrean soldiers, who fought in support of Ethiopia’s federal government during its two-year civil war in the northern Tigray region, are pulling out of two major towns and heading toward the border, witnesses and an Ethiopian official,” Reuters.

Others are less certain. Tigrayan refugees that the Eritreans remain in parts of the region. Tigrayans have photographs of Eritreans in Tigrayan cities on Twitter, including Adwa.

Meanwhile, Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki has been claiming “victory” for his forces over the Tigrayans. “My pride has no bounds”, he said in his New Year. But the Eritrean leader is taking no chances. He is reported to be dissident Ethiopians in case his relationship with Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed goes sour.

Afwerki previously used foreign troops to threaten neighboring leaders with the use of force. In 2011, the United Nations reported that Eritrea was behind a “massive” attack on an African Union summit in Addis Ababa, using Ethiopian rebels. It would be wrong to assume that a similar attack is now on the cards, but training dissidents could be a tactic to maintain pressure on Ahmed.

Maintaining tension and instability across the Horn of Africa has been a tactic the Eritrean leader has used consistently since capturing Asmara, the Eritrean capital, in 1991. Since then, Afwerki has led his country into no fewer than eight – from Somalia to the Democratic Republic of Congo.

How will Europe and the US respond?

US President Joe Biden has been assiduous in attempting to end the fighting in Tigray. Biden appointed special envoys to the Horn of Africa as soon as he came to office. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken went out of his way to Ahmed during the US-Africa summit in December. He raised the question of peace with Ahmed as well as the ending of the Eritrean troop presence in Tigray. Some wags have suggested that the peace agreements signed in Pretoria and Nairobi were so closely linked to Washington’s efforts they should be termed “US solutions to African problems” – clearly, a play on the phrase “African solutions to African problems.”

Who Can Resolve Ethiopia’s Catastrophic Conflict?

The key question now is whether sufficient progress has been made to lift the American and European sanctions against Ethiopia. They were introduced to try to end the war. In the of Jeffrey Feltman, the former US special envoy to the Horn: “The United States and the European Union hoped that, combined with emergency humanitarian assistance, punitive measures such as the threat of sanctions and the withholding of development aid would halt the atrocities and move the parties from the battlefield to the negotiating table.”  While the two parties did come to the negotiating table, it is unclear if the peace in Tigray is sustainable.

After two years of war, Ethiopia’s economy is said to be on the verge of collapse. The country nearly $20bn for its reconstruction. The EU Foreign Affairs Council is due to meet Brussels on January 23 and one of the issues on their agenda is the possible unfreezing of hundreds of millions of euros pledged in aid to Addis Ababa. Since 2021, the EU froze nearly $210m in aid to Ethiopia, following the draconian blockade Addis Ababa imposed on the Tigray region. The money is badly needed and it is not yet clear what strings the Europeans may attach to the lifting of sanctions.

For Eritrea, the picture is clearer: Washington has no time for Afwerki and is likely to keep the president under pressure. Afwerkid is already so isolated that it is unlikely that he cares greatly about western attitudes. He prefers to rely on his Arab neighbors, China and possibly Russia for international support. Eritrea will keep playing its game of promoting Ethiopian rebels to retain relevance in the region. This is bad news for Ethiopia and prospects of peace.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Tigray War Was Tragic, Can Peace Prevail Now? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

A country transformed into an NGO 

In the first month following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Warsaw’s population has grown by , whereas Poland has become a country with the second-largest refugee population in the world. Approximately out of 4.6 million people fleeing Ukraine in the first two months of the war found shelter in Poland; currently, 1.5 million remain there. 

This sudden influx of refugees caught Polish authorities by surprise even though since 2015, they had rejected relocation of refugees from the Middle East under the claim that Poland had to be ready to escalate the war in Ukraine. Despite the unpreparedness, the Polish government quickly lent a helping hand to Ukrainians by simplifying border crossing procedures, offering free transportation, and enabling them to receive a Polish personal identification number (PESEL) which provided access to education, health care, labor market, and financial assistance. 

However, the secret of why Poland stood up to the challenge has much more to do with the exceptional commitment of civil society and grassroots activism. Poles from all over Poland picked up refugees from the border, provided them with rooms in their own houses, helped with bureaucracy, organized crowdfunding, cooked meals, and opened free “shops.” According to Karolina Jeznach and Steffen Lüdke: “The feeling that Poland might be the next victim of Russian imperialism has transformed the country into something like a .”

Good will may not be enough 

So far, Poland seems to have passed the “solidarity test.” Still, there have been fears that even the best intentions and open doors might not be enough to assist Ukrainian refugees in the long term perspective and considering that Russian disinformation on Polish social media has not said the last word yet, Ukrainians arriving in Poland belong to particularly vulnerable groups: they are predominantly women, children and the elderly. 

The need for assistance is enormous, but among volunteers, there might also be people with ill intentions. Therefore, they should be verified to exclude those sentenced for various forms of abuse. This is one of the cases where state coordination is crucial. 

Many refugees express interest in staying and working in Poland due to its geographical, cultural, and linguistic proximity to Ukraine. But although the country has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the EU, the market can absorb only every willing to work.

The Polish government does not consider relocation of refugees to other EU countries, but it expects EU financial aid in return. NGOs that more funding should be transferred to the local actors and organizations on the front lines rather than the government.

There is also a risk that populists could exploit challenges stemming from a sudden wave of refugees (and some groups already do) to stir up hatred since Poland is facing some critical burning issues: galloping inflation, underfinanced public services, the lowest number of in the EU and the on health care, soaring rents and flat shortage. The grievances about the “privileges” of Ukrainians seem relatively isolated, but the support has decreased. 

Whereas of Poles felt optimistic about Ukrainian refugees in April 2022, favored taking up refugees in Poland. Some paint a gloomier picture: they show that although the Poles support the Ukrainian cause, they harbor grievances against Ukrainian refugees for – amongst others – the reasons mentioned above.  Therefore this issue should be addressed timely to avoid social tensions and being turned into a political weapon in the parliamentary elections in 2023.

Refugees welcome 

The underlying reasons for the warm welcome of Ukrainians are manifold. As neighboring Slavic countries, Ukraine and Poland share many cultural, linguistic, and historical ties (although history often proved to be the bone of contention). 

On the eve of the war Ukrainian diaspora in Poland amounted to about a , and Ukrainians also constituted more than of international students.  Therefore, the first wave of refugees fled predominantly to their relatives and friends. Many Poles know someone from Ukraine. This does not mean that the relationship was free of discrimination: cases of abusing Ukrainian workers or politically incorrect remarks were many.

Another factor that unites both countries is the common enemy. Unlike Hungary, Poland has been strongly resenting Russian political elites for decades, if not centuries. Poles fear that their country could become the next target of Russian aggression and identify themselves strongly with the plight of Ukraine. In the days following the Russian attack, shelves in many shops in eastern Poland turned empty, and long lines were built in front of ATMs and petrol stations.

People all over Poland applied for new passports in masses. Most Poles know of war from history, but the memory of World War II is still very vivid in the collective memory. To many, the unjustified Russian aggression against Ukraine echoes Poland’s fate: the attack by Nazi Germany and the subsequent charge of the Soviet Union under the guise of “brotherly help” against the Nazis.

Last but not least, refugees from Ukraine fit well in the “romantic” perception: they are predominantly women and children, in the eyes of many, “the proper refugees.” This is mainly because Ukrainian men between 18 and 60 are not allowed to leave Ukraine.  

Refugees unwelcome 

The warm welcome of Ukrainians is in stark contrast with the treatment of refugees on the Poland-Belarus border, where many people are still trapped. Polish Border Security Guard regularly informs about push backs and “illegal crossings to Poland” on the Poland-Belarus border by people from Yemen, Ethiopia, Syria, and Afghanistan – countries torn by conflicts or in dire humanitarian situations. 

From the beginning of 2021 until Dec. 19, approximately people tried to enter Polish territory over the Poland-Belarus border. For many, deportations would equal death. Their plight did not go unnoticed among Ukrainian organizations, which wrote an to the Polish government and Border Security Guard pledging equal treatment of all refugees.

A decisive factor differentiating the treatment of refugees is the intervention of authorities and politicization of the issue. On the border with Ukraine, the government did not erect walls or penalize any attempt to help by the locals, media, doctors, or volunteers. NGOs were not banned from the border area. But this has been common practice just a hundred kilometers up north. 

The government and the public broadcaster quickly labeled refugees from the Global South as “dangerous,” “illegal,” or “economic” migrants sent by the much-scorned Belarussian dictator Alexander Lukashenko to destabilize Poland. The last argument is true, which is why many EU countries supported Poland. Still, less attention was given to the fact that those people were deceived and involuntarily turned into pawns in Lukashenko’s vendetta.   

Many helped refugees despite legal consequences and the“criminalization of solidarity.” Some fed or allowed them in their homes, volunteers from all over Poland searched for them in forests close to the special emergency zone to help them apply for asylum and offer warm clothing and food, and some also cut the barbed wire on the border. 

Numerous demonstrations in large Polish cities and small towns close to the special emergency zone took place. Polls published in early January 2022 indicated that of Poles supported the “illegal” assistance to refugees. 

This is not to say that the hostile policies of the Polish government do not enjoy the support of some groups in Polish society. Poland is one of the most ethnically and religiously homogeneous countries in Europe. Few people know a Muslim or someone from a Middle Eastern country. All information they receive comes from media and history textbooks. 

In this overwhelmingly Catholic country, one of the most commemorated historical events is the Battle of Vienna 1683 against the Ottoman Empire, which perpetuates the self-perception of many Polish nationalists as Antemurale Christianitatis (Bulwark of Christendom). Even if widely reported, wars in Syria, Yemen, or Afghanistan are distant and incomprehensible to an average Pole. 

However, it might be worth noting that in previous decades Poland accepted many Chechen refugees who were Muslims, and religion did not play a significant role in public discourse back then. It has become politicized in the last decade.   

Poland as an immigration country

In the past decades, Poland used to be a country that people would migrate from or through rather than to. The last few years have shown that this trend has changed. However, the authorities and society might not be aware of and ready to embrace the ongoing changes. 

Poland’s ethnic, cultural, and religious homogeneity is not necessarily an advantage. Unfortunately, the topic of refugees has too often been weaponized for political gains, affecting societal attitudes. 

This can be illustrated by the year 2015 when most Poles initially stood behind the idea of supporting refugees but changed their approach radically when the issue became a leitmotif of the electoral campaign of the Law and Justice Party. Let us hope that the Polish parliamentary elections in 2023 will not follow the same pattern.

[ edited this piece.]

[51�Թ� is a  partner of .] 

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Exploring Poland’s Refugee Crisis: Uncovering the Reasons for Neglect appeared first on 51�Թ�.

As the truce expired, Houthi military spokesman, General , and Houthi delegate,, published statements foreign oil companies and vessels operating in Yemen. The were in line with Houthi demands for a larger share of oil revenue as part of failed with UN Special Envoy to extend the six month long ceasefire. The incidents temporarily suspended production and exports. Only a week later, Cal Valley Petroleum declared and suspended all work starting November 1.

Who Are the Houthis?

LISTEN NOW

After eight years of conflict between the IRG and Houthi rebels, the listing by the NDC came a week after urged the UN Security Council (UNSC) “to designate Houthis as terrorists.” Calls at the Security Council by Saudi Arabia aimed to expand on language used in UNSC Resolution 2624 (2022), where at the urging of the the Council referred to Houthis as a “.” These efforts by members of the Arab to restore legitimacy aim to pressure the and the EU to officially designate the Iran-backed militia a “terrorist organization.”

An Increasing Threat

The accuracy and velocity of the latest drone strikes by Houthis are an indication of increasing capabilities, including intelligence resources. This should not come as a surprise following months of recruitment and deployment of troops and weapons by Houthis, who organized a dozen throughout northern Yemen during the period of the UN-brokered truce.Their recent choice of targets also indicates a clear shift in strategy since the truce expired. Prior to the start of the truce in 2022, Houthis focused on cross-border strikes against targets in and the . The shift to oil facilities within Yemen fits the Houthi narrative, calling the IRG mercenaries and the coalition members “”, Yemen’s oil.

Demands by Houthis for a bigger share of oil revenue appears to extend from decreasing sources of income this year. The UN donors conference in 2022 only delivered $1.3 billion from the requested. This has affected humanitarian operations across Houthi-held territory. It was a major blow from the rebels who profit from the entire : from collecting taxes at the port, to the control of ground transport and warehousing, to the local civil society organizations in charge of distribution of aid, and now to the and foreign exchange shops. The decrease in the flow of aid has affected the entire cycle, which also maintains a complex patronage of networks, sustaining the elite down to tribal levies.

US Sanctions Miss the Mark in Yemen

READ MORE

By targeting the at al-Nushayma, Shabwa, the rebels also sent a message to the Southern Transitional Council (STC), whose ally is now of Shabwa province. The aim is to prevent the STC from profiting off oil exports. In , near al-Rayyan airport, the drone strikes on the South Korean vessel were called a warning by Houthis to foreign companies, more specifically, those that are linked to members of the coalition. Al-Masirah media reported Houthis used for the strikes in al-Dhaba.

New Targets   

While Houthi drone strikes within Yemeni territory are not new, the locations and distance show a shift amid a new balance of power. Aden has been a target along with nearby military bases and high-ranking security officers, but the reach to facilities along the coastlines of Hadramawt and Shabwa with such accuracy represent new threats to rising powers like the Southern Transitional Council (STC). The stalemate in al-Dhale province between Houthis and pro-STC forces remains months after southern Giants Brigades expelled Houthis from Bayhan, Shabwa.��

In January 2022, the clashes along Shabwa’s western mountains delivered the first major over the Houthis, reversing territorial gains beyond the old north-south divide. A fractured national army and a al-Islah party had placed pro-STC forces at the forefront in the fight against Houthis. This new balance comes with a high price for southerners, and Houthi strikes on oil facilities in southern provinces aim at dragging STC forces into direct confrontations along new frontlines.

Houthis know southern forces are stretched along multiple fronts. Security Belt Forces continue to advance across against terrorist elements, while Amalaqa and Shabwa Defense Forces cleanse Shabwa of elements that oppose governor Awad al-Awlaqi. Attacks on vital energy infrastructure come at a minimal risk and cost for Houthis. They are gambling on either instigating a wider response by the National Army or the coalition, which leads to a return of cross-border strikes on Saudi Arabia and the UAE, or a mobilization by southern forces that are already stretched thin.

The government of Yemen echoed members of the and has called for the international community to strengthen its stance on Houthis to designate the militia a terror group. by western following the attack on al-Dhaba ports have also come under criticism for their weak stance since the truce expired. In absence of compromise on a new ceasefire threatens an escalation across battlefronts under new conditions with higher stakes for warring parties.����

[ edited this article]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post A Surge in Attacks: Houthi Rebels Exploit Oil Infrastructure appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In July of 1994, a man drove an explosive-laden van into the headquarters of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA) killing 85 and injuring more than 300 people. The bombing is the deadliest terrorist incident on Argentine soil to date.

In 2006, the Argentine federal prosecutor Alberto Nisman accused Iran’s paramilitary force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) of designing the AMIA attack, and its Lebanese proxy force Hezbollah of executing it. However, there have been members within Argentina’s political leadership who have consistently sought to stall any investigation into the case.

More Twists and Turns

Among them was Argentina’s former president  Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, now serving a six-year prison sentence for corruption. When Fernández came to power in 2007, the country signed a memorandum of understanding  withIran.  Together with Interpol, the two governments agreed to form a truth commission.

Why are Young People Protesting in Iran?

READ MORE

Multiple  Jewish community groups in Argentina, including the AMIA, filed a petition denouncing the memorandum as unconstitutional. Their  contention was that the evidence of Iran’s involvement in the bombing  was undeniable, and that it offered no benefit to the victims of the attack or Argentina. .

Nisman also opposed the memorandum, calling it a “wrongful interference of the executive branch” , and accused President Fernández and her government of trying to cover up Iran’s involvement.. 

Nisman  even a 300-page dossier on the Kirchner government’s efforts to cover up the AMIA incident. Butt in January of 2015, before he had a chance to present his findings to  Congress, he was shot dead. Hismurder as well as that of the AMIA bombing are still open.

After Mauricio Macri succeeded Fernández later that same year , his justice ministry immediatelyoided the memorandum. Israel’s former and most likely next prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the move as a “welcome change of direction” for  Argentina and expressed hope that relations with Tel Aviv  would improve.

However, the seizure  of an Iranian-Venezuelan Boeing 747 in Buenos Aires lastJune added  another  twist to an unfolding drama . The plan had a crew of 19 people, 5 were Iranians. Some had clear ties to the IRGC and the Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s . It was also discovered that  such flights to Argentina have been a regular occurrence for some time. 

This has raised many questions regarding the extent of Iran’s security and military presence as well as political influence in Argentina. For example, the pilot of the seized plane, Gholamreza Ghasemi, is aranking of the Quds Force, the same security wing  that plotted the AMIA bombing.

Just An Argentine Cover Up?

The opposition and members of the judiciary have accused Macri’s  government of orchestrating a of these  flights of the regime-affiliated Iranian-Venezuelan aircraft to Argentina. Many of the current Argentine government officials are the same people who signed the AMIA memorandum under Fernández.

Last July, a group of US Senate Republicans sent a letter to the Biden administration demanding a rationale for their delay in delivering key information of the Iranian suspects in the Boeing case to Argentine law enforcement officials. e. They believed the administration was aware of the extent of the IRGC’s association in South America but were withholding information in order to not undermine efforts to revive the JCPOA.

Derecognize Mullahs, Forge New Government in Exile for Iran

READ MORE

Last August, Argentina arrested four Iranians with fake French passports with possible links to the  Revolutionary Guards. They were arrested at Ezeiza International Airport in Buenos Aires, intending to  fly to Amsterdam. 

The arrest for the four was issued by the Federal Judge Federico Villena, who is also in charge of investigating the Boeing case.

In October, a month after protests in Iran began, Argentina released the Boeing 747 cargo plane and the 5 crew members still detained. The federal judge Federico Villena determined that there was no basis to prosecute the crew. However, the judicial investigation will still remain .

Although the case seems closed at this point, the IRGC’s active presence in South America can be still used to  scuttle the JCPOA for good.  Flight records even show that the same Boeing plane made a brief stop in Moscow before heading to . 

In light of all of these events, Washington should find no reason to appease the theocrats of Tehran with a revised nuclear deal. Hopefully, the JCPOA will finally enter the archives of failed deals with dictators.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How is the AMIA Bombing Linked to the IRGC Aircraft in Argentina? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Taliban is largely considered a pariah by the international community. No country has officially recognized the Islamic Emirate as the legitimate Afghan government or normalized diplomatic relations with it. As the Taliban seek solutions to its severe credibility problem, the group is largely out of touch with the basic needs of the Afghans. The country is still riddled with major problems: half of its population are on the brink of and terrorist attacks targeting as well as minorities are a regular occurrence.

Balancing past and present

Since the capture of Kabul, the Taliban to win some credibility on the international stage by presenting itself as the only force capable of stabilizing and uniting Afghanistan after twenty years of civil conflict. This is an old narrative that the radical group promoted when they first rose to power in 1996.

The Destiny of Pakistan’s Totalitarian Proxy Regime in Afghanistan

READ MORE

However, since a mere dusting operation of the old playbook is unlikely to work in the current circumstances, the Taliban has signaled an interest in doing things differently this time. Its foreign policy outlook seems to fall somewhere between abiding by and shaping.

The Taliban still sticks to the idea of isolating  Afghanistan at a global level. The leadership believes the country’s detachment is a viable tool to preserve the regime’s stability and longevity. 

In its previous ruling experience, the Taliban had limited, rudimental knowledge of international politics and showed minimal interest in establishing basic diplomatic relations with external actors. Their victory over the Afghan regular forces and the experience of dealing on an equal footing with the US in the Doha talks have further emboldened the regime.

However, although the Taliban aims to continue its isolationism, the trauma of the regime’s fall in 2001 and the two-decade-long foreign occupation afterwards have prompted them to evaluate alternative strategies for its agenda. 

Afghanistan Is Losing Faith in the Taliban

READ MORE

For over twenty years, the Taliban has sought a comeback, and now that the Islamic Emirate is in place again the radical group is determined to prevent a second overthrow. Recent events demonstrate a more mature, pragmatic foreign policy and one that makes greater use of diplomacy.

Back to the drawing board

Since Kabul’s takeover, the Islamic Emirate has sought to cultivate with several state and non-state actors. High-ranking figures in the Taliban hierarchy – the acting Minister of Foreign Affairs Maulvi Amir Khan Muttaqi and the acting Deputy Foreign Ministry Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai – are a few examples. 

Aside from meetings with foreign state officials, the Taliban has also been in dialogue with prominent humanitarian agencies. Most recently, the Taliban held talks with the Head of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan, and the Head of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) delegation in Afghanistan Eloi Fillion.

There is a two-pronged goal for these engagements: cleansing the Taliban’s tarnished image while building diplomatic credibility. 

First, the radical group seeks to draw a wedge between itself and the widespread perception of the Taliban as a movement driven by an uncompromising, strict Islamic morale. Second, the Taliban aims to secure diplomatic capital and gain political legitimacy in the global arena. 

Under the Taliban, Afghanistan’s Madrassas Increase and Harbor Terrorists

READ MORE

The Taliban aims to reshape its former image as a violent and extremist regime.By publicly displaying its willingness to play by the rules, the Taliban attempts to cast itself as a trustworthy partner in the eyes of the international community.

While it remains to be seen whether these efforts stem from a genuine spirit of cooperation or a pragmatic calculus, it is undeniable that the Taliban’s diplomatic campaign has improved their international standing..  If successful, the group could be endowed with a number of high-priced gains. Gaining control over the overseas frozen Afghan assets and securing full travel mobility for senior Taliban figures are among the most sought-after rewards.

Until September 2022, the bulk of the reserves of Afghanistan’s Central Bank –$7 billion – were detained by the US-based financial institutions. Then, Washington half of the frozen Afghan assets to a joint Swiss-Afghan trust fund, known as the Afghan Fund 

The fund was designed to support Afghanistan’s Central Bank and is inaccessible to the Taliban . However, chances to funnel funds into Afghanistan while eluding the Taliban’s oversight look grim. As Graeme Smith, a Senior Consultant at the International Crisis Group, “the Taliban have proven they will block efforts to circumvent their government, and aid experts warn that parallel structures cannot substitute for Afghan state institutions.”

Appeal to the UN to Protect Hazaras in Afghanistan

READ MORE

The freezing of funds, the weapons embargos, and the UN travel ban on dozens of Taliban officials are among the longest-running measures to keep a lid on the group. Travelwaivers were occasionally  approved to allow the participation of high-profile Taliban representatives in third-country forums

Thelack of on the terms for extending the travel ban exemption for 13 Taliban officials led to its suspension. Whether the UN will  use thetravel to coax the regime into making  meaningful concessions remains an open question. Although the Taliban has e shown strong resilience against pressures to compromise, their ambition to continue  its diplomatic machine maybe a cause for change.

The moment of truth on the horizon

While the Taliban has made some impressive gains, the Afghan political landscape still remains in flux. The Taliban neither exercise capillary control across all the rural districts nor do they have a monopoly of power over the different non-Pashtun ethnic groups. 

Pockets of resistance scattered across the country continueto the Taliban’s rule. Ejections of local leaders who bandwagoned with the Taliban in their rise to power are becoming more frequent. The result is a gradual weakening of the radical group’s clout and a thinning of its ranks. However, although some cracks are opening from within, they still the most powerful actor on the ground.

The Taliban-Occupied Afghanistan Threatens Global Security

READ MORE

Nations around the world still look at the Taliban with skepticism, but the pragmatic needs to prevent Afghanistan from becoming once again a sanctuary for international terrorism, to keep a lid on the drugs trade, and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people have turned the Taliban into a near-indispensable actor. The radical group banks on the fact that no matter its status within  the international community, regional and global powers will continue to seek its cooperation to tackle these pressing security concerns.

However, two main problems remain. First, the Taliban have taken few steps in managing the country’s serious security concerns. Its verbal assurance still rings hollow and the same pathologies that tainted its past rule – such as targeted killings of Tajiks and Hazara, enforced disappearing, and extortion practices – seem to be present today. As the UN recently, the Afghan humanitarian condition looks grim and the Taliban struggles to meet basic international standards for human rights and respect for minority groups. 

Second, the Taliban’s endgame is quite elusive. While it seeks to legitimize its leadership by adopting state-resembling rhetoric and posture, the regime’s long-term ambitions and foreign policy trajectories remain hard to predict.

Although it is debatable if the latest developments reflect agenuine or , the Taliban is determined to do whatever it takes to prevent its brand-new regime from experiencing a second failure. The old playbook based on neutrality and balancing posture remains the bedrock of the Taliban’s foreign policy compass, especially when it comes to fending off the pressure of external forces. 

However, acknowledging the vast costs of diplomatic isolationism has prompted the radical group to do things differently this time and to seek minimal approval from foreign observers. While it is too early to tell if the Taliban’s recalibration will help the regime’s credibility, it is clear that it is capable of adjusting its foreign policy outlook to serve its evolving strategic interests better.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Toward a New Foreign Policy for the Taliban? A Timid Thaw in the Afghan Great Cold appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Chinese newspaper claims that rising Indian nationalism and closer US-India cooperation are responsible for border tensions. A joint US-India military exercise in the border state of Uttarakhand has ruffled Chinese feathers. So has the building of roads and strengthening of Indian positions in border areas. Furthermore, Beijing sees New Delhi increasingly aligning with Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy. It views the , comprising India, Japan, Australia and the US, as an anti-China alliance.

Retired CIA officer , one of 51�Թ�’s regular authors and commentators, takes the view that Chinese transgressions are a part of a long term policy. Beijing pushes on all international issues where they have differences until they meet opposition. On , an Indian professor opined that Chinese transgression aims to keep India distracted and gain leverage in negotiations. Like many, he thinks that Beijing is signaling to New Delhi that Washington is far away. India should make peace with its more powerful northern neighbor, which is the top dog in Asia.

All these explanations are true but there is something more going on.

Chinese Communism v Tibetan Buddhism

It is important to note that the Chinese carried out this operation in the wee hours of a chilly winter morning at high altitude. This required detailed planning and effective execution, and was clearly not an accidental cross-border patrol, as some analysts have speculated. The aim was to occupy strategic heights near , one of the most sacred places in Tibetan Buddhism in India’s northeastern state of Arunachal Pradesh.

Nestled between China-occupied Tibet and Bhutan, Tawang is a district of about 2000 square kilometers (800 square miles) that is also home to the oldest and second biggest monastery in Asia. Tawang is one of the very few areas where there are thousands of Tibetan families in their traditional homeland outside China. The Sixth Dalai Lama, Tsangyang Gyatso, was born in this area in March 1683. 

Tibetan Activist and Writer Tenzin Tsundue Talks to 51�Թ�

READ MORE

The current Dalai Lama is now 87 and the question of succession looms. Already, the Tibetans and the CCP are over this question. Note though that no Dalai Lama has emerged outside the traditional Tibetan homeland. Tawang is the only important center of this homeland outside Chinese control. For many Tibetans, it is desirable that this tradition continues. As many lamas have mentioned to the authors, the next Dalai Lama could well emerge from the Tawang area. Beijing wants to avoid such a possibility. Control over Tawang would help. Hence, China claims this area along with other bits of Arunachal Pradesh as a part of South Tibet.

In 1949, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) finally triumphed in its civil war and took over Mainland China. Within a year, the CCP sent the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) into Lhasa, the capital of Tibet. This imperial army of occupation posed as an army of liberation and has still not left.

In the early days, Beijing sought to avoid Tibetan unrest. Therefore, China signed a with Tibet. It promised not to “alter the existing political system in Tibet” and “the established status, functions and powers of the Dalai Lama.” China did not make these promises in good faith. Under Chairman Mao Zedong, the CCP began shaping a deeply spiritual and Buddhist Tibet into its vision of an atheistic communist utopia. For most Tibetans, this utopia was a nightmare. In 1959, they rose up in revolt. The PLA brutally crushed the revolt and the Dalai Lama fled to India.

Just as the Pope is the spiritual leader of the Catholics, the Dalai Lama is a similar figure for the Tibetans. His presence in India angers China and, as long as the Dalai Lama lives, he remains a focal point of Tibetan resistance to Chinese colonization. Once the Dalai Lama dies, Beijing aims to pick his successor. Control over the historic Tawang monastery would snuff out a key center of future resistance.

China has been following this playbook for a while. In 1995, Beijing the Panchen Lama chosen by the Dalai Lama. Instead, the CCP appointed a Manchurian candidate in his place. Today, a puppet Panchen Lama signs from Beijing’s hymn sheet, Tibetans to stay away from separatist forces. This Beijing-appointed leader argues that Tibetan Buddhism must adapt to “socialism and Chinese conditions.” No wonder, the CCP’s wet dream is to install a puppet Dalai Lama who pledges fealty to Beijing.

Why Tawang Matters

Many Chinese nationalists regret the loss of Tawang. This area could very well have been a part of China. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister  was wedded to the idea of India-China unity. He wanted the two Asian giants to stand up to Western imperialism. Against the wishes of his statesmanly home minister , Nehru acquiesced to the 1950 Chinese takeover of Tibet.

As explained in a magnum opus on 51�Թ� about India-China tensions, Nehru later realized that he had been duped by Mao. He kicked off the so-called “forward policy” as per which Indian troops took positions in territory that both India and China claimed as their own. In 1962, the PLA dealt India a devastating . Chinese troops took over Tawang and advanced as far south as Bomdila. Although they later withdrew, India lost valuable territory and invaluable prestige.

Han and Hindu Nationalism Come Face to Face

READ MORE

The fact that Tawang was in Indian hands is a historical accident. Nehru was a socialist and so were his top officials. They valued an anti-Western alliance with China. did not have such Nehruvian delusions. He took matters in his own hands and marched to Tawang with merely two platoons. In , this area, formerly under the control of the independent Tibetan government, was now in Indian hands. Except for a brief interlude in 1962, it has remained Indian territory since. The Chinese still lay claim to Tawang though.

The recent Chinese operation would have captured heights from where both the town and monastery in Tawang are clearly visible. They would have secured area domination and made a future move to capture Tawang easier. Artillery from the captured heights could have pummeled the monastery and the town. Also, once snow would have set in and weather turned inclement, Chinese troops would have dug into their new positions. Indian generals would have found it hard to move large numbers of troops to recapture these positions.

Note that the Chinese have tried to capture these heights before. They attempted in 2016 and, more recently, in October 2021. The Chinese have settled veterans in (well-off) border defense villages. One such village is in the vicinity of the point of the latest clash. Intelligence officials tell officials that 600-700 such xiaokang encampments now exist along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the de facto India-China border. They form part of the aggressive defense policy that President Xi Jinping has unleashed on nearly all of China’s neighbors.

If the PLA got hold of Tawang, the CCP would control a historic Tibetan monastery. Its choice of the Dalai Lama would be rubber stamped by this venerable institution.

Buddhist Dalai Lama v Communist Emperor Xi

Tibet is run per : “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Neighboring Arunachal Pradesh, which the CCP claims as South Tibet, is a rambunctious multiparty democracy. The state’s chief minister won 41 out of 60 seats in the 2019 elections. On December 16, he blamed Nehru for appeasing China and thanked Patel for taking over Tawang. Such a statement about recent history is impossible across the border. Unsurprisingly, Arunachal Pradesh has emerged as an imperfect but viable democratic model for China-occupied Tibet. This makes the CCP nervous.

China-India Clash Wakes Up Tibet’s Ghost of Independence

READ MORE

This nervousness has worsened because of recent protests. Only in October, the 20th Central Committee of the CCP Xi as de facto emperor. Despite his disastrous zero-COVID policy, Xi’s vice-like grip on power looked more secure than ever. The last few weeks have turned out to be a rather long time in Chinese politics. Xi’s zero-COVID policy has and he has quietly made a U-turn. As per , scientists worry Xi’s abrupt reversal could lead to a rise in infections and overwhelm hospitals. 

Winter is peak influenza season. Also, many people will be traveling across China for the Lunar New Year and spring festival, further increasing viral spread. Now that Xi is omnipotent, all blame would fall on him. The CCP is anxious that protests could even spread to Tibet, making the party and Xi lose face.

The CCP is also worried about recent developments in India. Earlier this year, the Indian prime minister called the Dalai Lama to wish him a happy birthday. Chinese irritation further increased when New Delhi photos of the Dalai Lama visiting “a remote Himalayan village in the disputed border region of eastern Ladakh.” The fact that he had been flown there by a military helicopter particularly aggravated Beijing.

The Chinese have not forgotten that the previous Dalai Lama fled to Darjeeling when Qing troops marched into Lhasa. The 1911 revolution gave the 13th Dalai Lama the opportunity to return from exile, and expel Chinese troops and officials from Lhasa in 1912. He declared complete self-rule and Tibet achieved de facto independence that lasted nearly four decades. The CCP is terrified of Tibetans achieving independence again. As long as the Dalai Lama lives in India, they fear that what happened in 1912 could recur.

For the CCP, Tibet is a tributary of China and the Dalai Lama should kowtow to Emperor Xi. For Indians, Tibet is home to Kailash and Mansarovar, the abode of Lord Shiva. They respect Tibetans for preserving Buddhism and many of India’s most revered tantric traditions. For Tibetans themselves, India is the land of the Buddha and now home to the Dalai Lama. They prefer democracy to autocracy, Buddhism to communism and the Dalai Lama to Emperor Xi.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Tawang Is the India-China Battleground for Tibetan Buddhism appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Is Bosnia-Herzegovina Next on Russia’s Radar?

READ MORE

The war had begun in earnest in 1991, particularly after Croatia declared its independence from Yugoslavia that June. Ethnic Serb enclaves in turn broke away from Croatia, and the Yugoslav army intervened on their behalf. Beginning with the siege of Vukovar in August, the war escalated with terrifying rapidity.

In early 1992, the war spread to the multiethnic republic of Bosnia, after ethnic Serbs there followed the example of their brethren in Croatia and created their own Republika Srpska. In late February 1992, Bosnia held a referendum on independence. The result was overwhelming: over 99 percent wanted Bosnia to become a new state. Many ethnic Serbs, however, boycotted the vote. The government of Alija Izetbegović nevertheless went ahead and declared Bosnia independent on March 3.

As soon as Bosnia declared independence, Serbia widened the war by “defending” Serbian-controlled areas of the new state. The Bosnians formed an ad hoc partnership with Croatian forces, and the war devolved into a succession of atrocities: the siege of the capital Sarajevo, the massacres of Bosnians in Srebrenica, the widespread ethnic cleansing. Ethnic Serbs committed the lion’s share of these atrocities.

Bosnians appealed to the outside world for money and arms to fight back and preserve their new country. Except for some majority-Muslim countries that provided aid and a few fighters, those appeals fell on deaf ears. ”Unfortunately, what is happening in Bosnia is that the world is sitting and watching the most advanced Muslim community in the world being wiped out,” Adnan Iskandar of the American University in Beirut said at the .

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Complicated Puzzle

READ MORE

I was horrified by the violence that had accompanied the break-up of Yugoslavia. I was clear that Serbian aggression was responsible for the wars even if nationalists elsewhere in the disintegrating country had abetted those wars. And I roundly criticized the knee-jerk “pro-Serbian” analyses of some who parroted the propaganda of strongman Slobodan Milošević’s government just as naïve leftists unwittingly Kremlin talking points on Ukraine today.

Nevertheless, I opposed the transfer of weapons to the Bosnians because I thought it would simply add fuel to the fire of the conflict. I was firmly in favor of the further integration of Europe, not the further disintegration of its border regions.

I was wrong about not helping Bosnia with weapons. My misreading of that war—and my analysis of what has happened to Bosnia since the war—explains in part why I support Ukraine today.

How Wars End

The wars in Yugoslavia did not end because of a peace treaty. They did not end because all sides sensibly agreed to a ceasefire.

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Complicated Puzzle

READ MORE

The wars in Yugoslavia ended because the primary aggressor, Serbia, was defeated militarily. In the first case, in August 1995, the U.S.-assisted Croatian army expelled ethnic Serbian militias from land it controlled in Croatia and Bosnia in what was then the largest military campaign in Europe since World War II. The Croatian army committed various war crimes during , including the expulsion of tens of thousands of ethnic Serbs and the execution of civilians, though international courts subsequently rejected the Serbian claim of genocide.

In the second case, NATO bombed Serbia from March to June 1999, forcing it to pull its troops out of the disputed region of Kosovo. NATO never received authorization from the UN Security Council, so the bombing was technically in violation of international law. A number of civilians also died as a result of the attacks, including three Chinese journalists when the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was hit.

In the first case, the Croatian operation set the stage for the Dayton Accords that ended the Bosnian conflict. In the second case, the NATO operation prepared the ground for the Kumanovo Agreement that ended the Kosovo War.

Sometimes wars end in stalemates. Sometimes one side is decisively defeated. The conflict in Ukraine, at this point, could go either way. Given that Russia is a powerful country with nuclear weapons, the Serbia scenario will probably not happen. Putin, unlike Milosevic, is unlikely to be toppled by a popular uprising and then trundled off to a war crimes tribunal. But the Russian army could still be decisively defeated in its effort to bite off as much of Ukraine as it can chew. Ukraine has the will and, unlike Bosnia, the capacity to defend itself.

How the war ends in Ukraine is important, but equally important is how the future peace is constructed.

The Problem with a Dictated Peace

Serbia lost the war in Bosnia. But Bosnia did not win. It didn’t have a sufficient military force to dictate facts on the ground.

So, the Dayton Accords imposed a faulty peace on the country that continues to plague Bosnia today. As a result of Dayton, the military conflict among Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats has been transposed to a political register. Instead of fighting it out with weapons, the three principal groups now battle each other in the unwieldy political institutions that Dayton created. This is good, in that people are no longer killing each other. It is bad, however, in that Bosnia is today barely a country.

There are two principal parts of Bosnia: Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which consists of the often-quarrelsome duo of Croats and Bosniaks. These two autonomous entities also jointly administer a third area, the Brcko District. The presidency rotates among three members, a Serb, a Croat, and a Bosniak, elected by their respective communities. The ethnic divisions that gave rise to the war—exploited by opportunistic politicians—has resulted not in a democracy but an ethnocracy.

Nor does the country really function as a country, not with the Republika Srpska continually threatening to secede from the state, Croats perpetually tired of being a junior partner, and Bosniaks wanting a unitary state that better reflects their demographic (50.1% of the population compared to 30.8% Serbs and 15.4% Croats). The elections that periodically take place have been “the most complicated in the world.” A foreigner actually administers the territory like a neocolonial governor. German politician Christian Schmidt, the High Representative for Bosnia Herzegovina, demonstrated his neocolonial role by  intervening in the most recent elections this year to unilaterally changes in the election law.

Is Dissolution a Solution for Bosnia and Herzegovina?

READ MORE

Bosnia has applied for membership in the European Union, which is one of the few things that of the benighted state support. Despite this support, the divided political institutions can’t agree on the constitutional, judicial, economic, and other steps necessary to qualify for EU membership. Corruption is , the per-capita GDP of roughly puts it at least $3,000 behind the EU’s poorest country, Bulgaria, and nearly half of all young Bosnians want to because their future inside the country looks bleak.

The Dayton Accords froze in place many of the dynamics that tore Bosnia apart in the first place. The prospect of future EU membership could serve as the force to push the country together, just as accession for Serbia can encourage greater democracy in that country and accession for Kosovo can help smooth the way for its international recognition.

Whether this happens or not, however, Bosnia is just the kind of solution that Ukraine is trying to avoid. Anyone who believes in a just peace in Ukraine must consider all the strategies that can forestall the Bosnian fate. These strategies all involve reducing Russian occupation of territory and involvement in Ukrainian affairs to as little as possible.

Avoiding a Dayton “Solution” in Ukraine

Serbia continues to a spoiler role in Bosnia because of its close relations with Republika Srpska. That’s the fallback position Putin would accept if he can’t absorb all of Ukraine into Russia or install a puppet government in Kyiv. He will use the Donbas and Crimea to disrupt the functioning of Ukraine just as Serbia interferes in Bosnia through its proxy.

As an all-but-failed state with uncertain borders, Ukraine wouldn’t be able to qualify for EU membership. With an economy devastated by Russia’s relentless attacks, Ukraine would not pose any economic threat to Russian interests. Disarmed and neutral, Ukraine could be invaded at will by any future Russian government that doesn’t like what its neighbor is doing.

Of course, I’m not the only one who sees the parallels with Bosnia. Here’s an associate professor at the University of Sarajevo:

If Zelenskyy ​​were forced to allow autonomy in the east, he would risk overseeing the establishment of a Republika Srpska-type entity. This would effectively give pro-Russian rebels a say in the governance of Ukraine, likely through veto powers akin to those of Republika Srpska, which would render the country dysfunctional like Bosnia has been. This would not only upend the development of the country but also block its integration into the EU and NATO.

To avoid this scenario, Ukraine has to win. It has to preserve the very sovereignty that Putin pretends to support, at least in theory, with his foreign policy. It has to use force of arms not only to repel the Russian invaders but to prevent the kind of “frozen conflict” that Russia has used so effectively to hamstring Georgia and Moldova after earlier military interventions in those countries.

It’s not clear whether Ukraine can recapture Crimea or all of the Donbas, or what the price of those campaigns will be for Ukrainians and the world. But some kind of forced peace along the lines of the Dayton accords is not in the interests of Ukraine or, frankly, anyone outside of the Kremlin. The Ukrainians are right to be wary of its allies dictating the terms of a future agreement. They can see the challenges Bosnia faces today, nearly 30 years after the war.

The question is: when will the rest of us learn the lessons of Bosnia, too?

[ first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Changing My Mind on Ukraine appeared first on 51�Թ�.

I mention these facts concerning his background to remind readers that 51�Թ� is a crowdsourced journal open to a great diversity of points of view. We feel it is important for readers to hear varied arguments concerning the issues of the day. We also believe that it is important to understand, wherever possible, the background and backstory of the voices who share their punditry with the world. In everyone’s writing, reasoning and rhetoric stand side by side and even hold hands. Understanding means coming to grips with both.

Most of 51�Թ�’s authors, unlike Feffer, are not professional pundits or seasoned writers. We encourage unknown voices to contribute. These are people who have something valuable to share with the world in a space where seasoned journalists and pundits are also published. We invite our authors to enter the arena of public debate alongside heavyweights we regularly publish, such as Feffer, Medea Benjamin, Gary Grappo or Tom Engelhardt, to mention only a few. 

At 51�Թ�, we never presume to know who is right or wrong about any issue, a fact that doesn’t prevent the members of the editorial team from having their own viewpoints. And the naked, but also stimulating truth is that we in the team have our own very real, sometimes deep divergences. Disagreement can and should be productive. It is the foundation of the kind of dialogue that true democracy requires.

Alas, in times of geopolitical tension, the tolerance of diversity and the taste for constructive dialogue tend to wane. An opposite trend, strongly encouraged by governments themselves, pushes many people to suppress all divergences from official truth, often branding it disinformation. When the idea of some noble common cause, especially of a military nature, comes to the fore, the dominant forces in society seek to apply subtle, and sometimes less subtle pressure aiming at establishing and enforcing conformity of thought around what emerges.

9/11 defined the political culture of the 21^st century 

There are moments – think of the immediate aftermath of the 2001 attacks on New York’s trade towers and the Pentagon – when all voices are expected to sing in unison. One false note, one example of dissonance, will bring instant opprobrium. When comedian Bill Maher blurted out only a few days later, “We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building – say what you like about it, it’s not cowardly,” the sponsors of his TV show their contracts. Maher was forced to apologize. Then there was the case of the avant-garde German composer, Karlheinz Stockhausen who, six days after the events of 9/11 “the greatest work of art imaginable for the whole cosmos.”

Stockhausen’s music had always been ultra-provocative, built of planned and random dissonance, but no one ever reacted with shock or disapproval to the most outlandish musical examples composed and performed by a man considered to be the leader in the field of electronic classical music. I attended a Stockhausen which in 1964 at UCLA’s Royce Hall where, exposed to the deliberately chaotic assemblage of jarring sounds, the audience sat in solemn, respectful silence. Everyone, that is, but the most respected professor of UCLA’s music department, a disciple of Arnold Schoenberg’s, who was falling out of his seat roaring with delighted laughter. He was clearly the only one in the auditorium with a clue to what Stockhausen was doing. His behavior upset the man sitting behind him, who upbraided him for his lack of decorum, scolding him to be quiet. 

Glenn Greenwald: The Borderline Between Editing and Censorship

READ MORE

Stockhausen’s outrageously unharmonic musical creations could thus draw rapt admiration from an intellectual elite; his equally unharmonic verbal notes in 2001 turned him into a pariah. Yet in both cases, he developed a cutting irony that targeted conventional taste and conventional thinking. Six months earlier, in the same hall, I had sat listening in stunned silence to John Coltrane make musical history. John Kennedy had been assassinated the previous day. Coltrane’s challenge to the order took place on a different plane and its effects are still being felt. Deviating from the norm even at the cost of being misunderstood was possible then. That era was a moment in history when non-commercial music could still have a powerful impact on people’s lives. 

The world in which musicians like Stockhausen and Coltrane could thrive — both considered masters of a music that pushed art too far for most people’s taste — has definitively disappeared. In 2001 Stockhausen learned a fundamental lesson about the character of the 21^st century. Saying something deemed inappropriate can be fatal, at least in the US. Speech and thought must now be policed. That is even true for artists whose activity traditionally belonged to a world unconnected to political discourse and social norms. 

Future historians may remember this first quarter of the 21st century as an age of extreme censorship applied to anything deemed sensitive or capable of “triggering” a negative emotion in the mind or heart of someone who happens to be present. Visible in the purely social culture of PC (politically correct), it has become a fixture of serious political discourse and a major factor in democratic elections. This is an ear in which noticing that Israel has created something that resembles apartheid system brands the observer as anti-Semitic. Using the wrong English pronoun to refer to a person is a crime against identity. Citing a word associated with racism, even in the context of historical analysis, constitutes proof that one is a racist. Pointing out that Russia may have felt threatened by the growing military power of NATO is a proof of complicity in the evil designs of the Satanic Vladimir Putin.

The triumph of conformity in the name of security

Today thought must be controlled and discussion restrained. In the purely political realm, our modern nation states have elaborated exquisitely complex methods and means of both provoking and especially enforcing conformity of thought and ensuring that no one, whatever they may privately believe, may be permitted publicly to deviate from the official assessment of what is good and what is to be condemned. Joe Biden himself has made that clear. Democracy — even when controlled by money rather than people — is good and autocracy, even when it reflects the will of the majority, is bad. Believing that opens the door to the rule of money, identifying it with democratic virtue. It’s a system that makes political decision-making easier, since decision-making can be essentially confided in a moneyed elite. 

AI, Our Ultimate Moral Censor

READ MORE

But the ultimate effect of such conformist thinking imposed by a restricted elite is to divide society, possibly irreparably. The cultural examples of individuals choosing and imposing their  pronouns and forbidden words, or designating as suspect expressions such as “Happy holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas,” foster ongoing cultural dramas that keep the two sides who revel in their binary opposition engaged in what each sees as a noble combat. 

Bitter disagreement and binary opposition are now structuring elements of US culture. Every issue can and indeed must be reduced to two opposing positions. That deep-seated reflex explains why the US can never go beyond a two-party system. Even when the two parties agree in pragmatic terms on all the essentials — unbridled financialized capitalism, global military domination, the divine status of the dollar, gun ownership and the virtues of consumerism — they draw all their political energy from hating the other side.

But there are matters about which Americans are not free to disagree. The example of 9/11 showed there is at least one general idea everyone must uncritically embrace: the defense of the nation. In its most extreme form it has produced the popular slogan: “Love it or leave it.” It translates as the duty of ordinary Americans never to call into question America’s military cause of the moment. In a world beset by obvious dangers related in part to the increasingly destructive nature of technologies that may end up in the “wrong hands,” the insistence on conformity makes a lot of sense. Especially when one assumes that one’s own hands are always the “right hands.” So defense is such a fundamental priority that the decisions made in its name can never be criticized, just as ever-expanding defense budgets are never called into question by anyone other than marginal leftwing extremists and demented pacifists. 

How did the “defense instinct” become so dominant in the culture? In former times, the notion of a nation’s foreign policy focused on trade and access to resources, in other words, the need to exchange with other regions and nations. Those exchanges could have a commercial or cultural nature. Power relationships were important but they weren’t defined in purely military terms. 

World War II changed everything, partly because of its scale but also because of the invention and use of the atomic bomb. Today we accept the idea that foreign policy is less about the quality of international relations than it is about security in a purely physical sense. Defense is defined by weaponry to the detriment of social life and civilized behavior. 

But there is another less obvious dimension of defense, the one George Orwell anticipated in his novel 1984: speech and thought control. No one can ignore the frequency with which, since 2001, policies focused on national security in the US have ended up challenging what people still refer to as “constitutional rights.” This sacrifice of traditional rights is always justified in the name of “national security.” No serious observer could doubt that the of October 2001, passed in the name of countering terrorism, has had, among its effects, the very real suppression of some of the rights Americans take for granted: notably the two pillars of the “Bill of Rights,” the first and fourth amendments (freedom of expression and freedom from unwarranted search).

The rights of a nation’s citizens are one thing. They will always be the object of internal debate. Foreign policy poses a problem of a different order. In recent decades, the idea of protecting “national security whatever the price” has led to the justification of the morally egregious concept of preventive war. This became the foundation of the Bush doctrine, used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 

The same logic lies behind the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It relies on the perception of a nation’s duty to respond militarily if necessary to an “existential threat.” We now know that the threat Iraq represented in 2002-3, with its dreaded “weapons of mass destruction,” was imaginary. Most analysts today agree that the threat to Russia by Ukraine’s dallying with NATO was exaggerated, but no one can credibly claim it was purely imaginary. However, making the claim that it could have been real is now treated as the equivalent of Stockhausen’s characterization of 9/11 as the “greatest work of art.”

Restraint, an Intolerable Alternative to the Excitement of War?

READ MORE

In purely rational terms, the very notion of preventive war should be considered the opposite of defense. It means going elsewhere —  with guns blazing, drones buzzing and bombs dropping —  to counter a supposed future threat. Tradition tells us that “prevention is better than cure” and “a stitch in time saves nine.” But if the supposedly preventive act produces a Humpty-Dumpty result, that can never be stitched back together again, the proverbial wisdom may prove far worse than any imaginable cure. Over the past 75 years, US foreign policy in Korea, Southeast Asia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria – to name only those obvious theaters of preventive war – has left a lot of gaps in the landscape that remained unstitched and often unstitchable to this day.

What is national defense?

Both of the terms — nation and defense —  require some serious historical and philosophical reflection. The nation state is, after all, a modern creation. We assume today it is a fact of nature, but it is an artificial invention that historians trace back to 1648 and the Treaty of Westphalia. That type of political entity has clearly supplanted all earlier examples of social and political organization. So what is a nation? Are the people of any nation thoroughly happy with the result of historical processes through which their nation has been defined? Are they even clear about what, in the concept of nation, needs to be defended? Is it land, property, the people themselves, their laws, their culture, their shared (or imposed) ideology, their songs and their movies?

Although the idea of the nation is recent in human history, it will always benefit from a diversity of visible clues relating to geography, language, ethnicity, religion and political ideology. Defining defense turns out to be more problematic. In most people’s naïve perception, the literal connotation of the word defense expresses an attitude of protective concern. In reality, when policies of armament are in play, it embraces something that goes far beyond the genteel notion of conservation of property, institutions or even general welfare. In its military dimension, it includes a measure of active threat, bravado and aggressive display.

Philosophers Weigh in on the Use and Abuse of Power

READ MORE

In our age of powerful industrial organization and sophisticated technology, those who have a role in institutional decision-making have succeeded in pushing the notion of defense well beyond its traditional connotation. Originally formulated as the instinct of protection, in the nuclear age, it has evolved into embracing in the mindset of those focused on defense the most extreme form of intentional aggression. Who are the decision-makers our democracies have designated as their agents of defense? They happen to be a relatively small loosely defined group of politicians, industrialists, bankers and intellectuals, the producers of ideology. The latter group includes well-financed media, the advertising industry,a segment of academia and another modern creation: think tanks.

Perhaps without realizing it, our democracies, particularly in the West, have accepted a system in which this international elite that dominates all the visible institutions in a globalized economy can dictate, largely in private, the themes and even the positions deemed legitimate in public debate. It is precisely to counter that domination that 51�Թ� seeks to open the dialogue to other voices. But it isn’t just by letting other voices become heard that we achieve our goal. It is also by using that opening of the public dialogue to stimulate critical thinking.

The marginalization of critical thinking

Many lucid observers have noticed that our civilization, so perfectly organized to produce a maximum of convenient material goods, has not only done little to maintain existing traditions of critical thinking, but has put in place the means to actively suppress it. Our increasingly “standardized” education has no time for critical thinking. We literally teach citizens to do little more than learn to repeat the messages they receive from both the official and unofficial channels that dominate all our media. Education has long adopted the model, which is now aided and abetted by technology, symbolized by standardized curricula and the dictatorship of the multiple choice question. The media and our governments play their role in creatively promoting triviality and restricting reflection on “serious issues.”

The emphasis on critical thinking is particularly important at this moment of history in which people’s thinking is alternatively guided by commercial institutional media on one side and the chaos of social media on the other. From the first — which extends from corporate news media to think tanks — we derive the notion of “authoritative voices” who can guide our thinking. From the second we allow ourselves to be guided by “influencers,” random voices in social media with the cheek and style to push their version of reality as compelling. 

For that reason, here at 51�Թ�, we believe it is every citizen’s duty to dig deeper. That means listening to different voices, developing an awareness of the impact of commercial interests and recognizing the intimidation factor that exists on the side of authority. It implies making the effort to become aware of the background and connections of those who claim to tell us how to think, whether they speak with the authority of their very real expertise or have simply acquired the skill set that turns them into a social media influencer.

Examining the discourse of an established pundit

As a political commentator with decades of experience and acknowledged authority, Feffer has become accustomed to the idea that his job is to analyze complex situations and recommend not only possible political solutions but also the specific actions that will enable those solutions. That is, after all, what think tanks are designed to do.

True to his vocation, the liberal Feffer —  in a recent article with the title “Ukraine Now Holds a Strong Edge Over Russia” — has recently offered to enlighten our readers on US foreign policy regarding that war. His time-tested technique consists of presenting a series of apparently observations based on facts gleaned from his research and building them into a form of reasoning that points to what he considers to be the best course of action. He is clearly doing the job: think tanks think with a view to telling actors how to act.

Western Think Tanks are Wrong About Indian Democracy Declining

READ MORE

Some may think this is a fairly comfortable job, since a pundit can never be held directly accountable for the actions of those who act according to such recommendations, even when the actions go uncontrollably awry. That consideration alone explains why it’s important for readers to examine the methodology think tank and media pundits use. Unavoidably, like everyone else in their position, they tend to mix judgment calls and even gut instinct with simple facts. In this piece, for example, Feffer draws strong conclusions from very partial evidence. He assumes that because the facts he chooses to cite appear to point in a certain direction, his theory must be accepted as fact. 

Feffer’s method in this article can help us understand how facts and apparently solid reasoning may not be enough to make a strong case. We should begin by acknowledging that all facts are not created equal. In the world of political discourse that depends on someone else’s reporting, there may even be good facts and bad facts. Good facts must be both incontrovertibly true, meaningful in their broader context and not excessively contaminated by interpretative ambiguity. They must also be pertinent to the argument. Readers should also realize that when describing situations of conflict, other potentially contradictory facts may exist that have an equal claim to truth. Those facts may or may not be pertinent to any particular argument. 

If facts themselves may be problematic, reasoning – the procedure of moving from the facts to reach a reliable conclusion – is a traditional mare’s nest. The path is fraught with errors that begin when one attempts to establish the literal meaning of the terms mentioned as fact. It ends —  messily in general — with the psychology of the reasoner. At least since the first day Socrates put the question of reasoning on spectacular public display while deambulating through the streets of Athens, philosophers have been having fun as well as experiencing deep anguish dealing with the question of how logic can ever produce an acceptable conclusion. To appreciate the degree of risk in following a pundit’s limpid reasoning, see Wittgenstein’s (“The common mistake is to assume that truth has a nature of the kind that philosophers might find out about and develop theories of.”) 

Ukraine Now Holds a Strong Edge Over Russia

READ MORE

A closer reading of Feffer’s argument

Feffer’s reasoning begins to falter in the title of the article: “Ukraine Now Holds a Strong Edge Over Russia.” Apart from the fundamental semantic question of what having an edge means in the context of a war – wars are full of sharp edges as well as twists and turns – his claim in the subtitle that “Ukraine is successfully ejecting the invading army” is simply untrue. It is certainly the kind of observation a journalist in the New York Times or The Daily Beast may decide to write or communicate. Such “facts” are often due to an anonymous source in the intelligence community. But, whatever the source, this is clearly over the top. Ejecting means eliminating, cleansing, clearing out. The Russians appear to be conducting tactical retreats in some warzones, but no serious military expert sees them running for the borders. A wish is not a fact.

It is standard practice in contemporary journalism to use polls to prove a point. Feffer cites a poll released by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, whose findings, he tells us, reveal that “86% of Ukrainian respondents believe that it’s necessary to keep fighting despite the devastating air strikes.” Feffer doesn’t bother to mention that, according to those very pollsters, the “sample did not include residents of territories that were not temporarily controlled by the authorities of Ukraine until February 24” (whatever that double negative formulation means). More to the point, he fails to acknowledge or seems to wish to ignore a more fundamental historical fact that the US government and the media have consistently hidden from view: that Ukraine is a divided nation that has been experiencing a very real civil war for at least the past eight years, a civil war based on culture, language and historical identity. As Medea Benjamin and Nicolas Davies have done in a book we recently reviewed, the whole history of the past 30 years demonstrates that those unresolved internal tensions remain major factors that compromise the idea of Ukrainian identity. Why does that fact not interest Feffer, to the point of skewing the meaning of the statistics he cites?

There is of course a reason for Feffer’s sleight-of-hand. It is a documented fact that the continuous shelling by the Kyiv government of the Donbas over the past eight years in defiance of the terms of the Minsk II accord contributed to provoking the Russian aggression. But citing that fact would make it impossible to make the standard claim that the Russian invasion was “unprovoked.” It would also invalidate the necessary fiction that characterizes Ukrainians as a unified people seeking their independence.

Isn’t It Time to Challenge the Growth Paradigm?

READ MORE

Later in the article, Feffer offers another poll result that appears to bolster his case when he claims that “three out of four Americans support the continuation of both economic and military aid to Ukraine.” That is true enough. But he neglects to cite another poll whose findings contradict his main argument, that “this is no time to call for a ceasefire.” That September, reported by Business Insider tells us that “nearly half of the respondents (47%) said they only support the continuation of US military aid to Ukraine if the US is involved in ongoing diplomacy to end the war.”. Furthermore, Business Insider’s report concludes with the observation that “Americans are growing tired of support for Ukraine without diplomacy as the war against Russia drags on.”

To make the point that even the most progressive Democrats align with Feffer’s position, he quotes at length a witness, Congressman Jamie Raskin. Feffer identifies him as “a prominent Congressional Progressive Caucus member.” But how representative of the left is Raskin? As investigative reporter Max Blumenthal has in detail —  offering a video of an interview with the Congressman for proof —   Raskin was not only a Russiagate zealot, but someone who blithely cites “facts” that he knows to be false. Certainly, Feffer could have found a more reliable witness.

Accepting and confronting contrary readings

Feffer is clearly in phase with the US State Department that has consistently opposed the very idea of peace talks. But he finds himself in contradiction with the Pentagon’s Joint Chief of Staff General Mark Milley, who has pushed for, estimating that “the likelihood of Ukraine fully vanquishing Russia on the battlefield is ‘not high,’” Milley is President Joe Biden’s principal military adviser. Perhaps he remains unaware of the fact that the Ukrainians are “successfully ejecting” the Russians from their territory. 

Former UN weapons inspector and Marine Corp intelligence officer Scott Ritter, a vocal critic of US foreign policy, in vehement terms the opposite point of view. Few would argue with the fact that Ritter has remained closer to the facts than Feffer throughout the conflict. “Let’s be clear,” Ritter writes, “if you stand with Ukraine, you stand for the precipitous expansion of NATO, of outside powers fomenting illegal coups designed to overthrow the constitutional authority of a sovereign state, and the empowerment of white supremacist neo-Nazi ultra-nationalist movements who worship the memory of mass murderers whom they have elevated to the status of national heroes.”

The Logic of Arms Control Has Changed

READ MORE

Ritter doesn’t hold back, pushing towards what may appear as the opposite extreme. It is possible to debate all these points, including obviously the relative clout of the neo-Nazis in Ukraine, whose presence and influence cannot be denied, though all commentators in the West, including Feffer, carefully avoid evoking them or when they do, dismiss them as marginal. That remains a legitimate debate. What is less legitimate is avoiding the debate altogether. Which is what commentators such as Feffer prefer to do. And why shouldn”t they? No one in the government or the media will stand up to encourage the debate.

My point is simple. As concerned citizens, we should listen to those, such as Feffer, who have experience and a track record of careful analysis of the topics they write about. But we shouldn’t accept at face value their conclusions simply on the grounds of their reputation or supposed authority. We should look elsewhere, examine the evidence and the case for its credibility. We should above all exercise that skill we call critical thinking.

Every citizen’s duty: to be informed and think critically

History has taken a dangerous turn. The issues we are talking about now may spin out of control with a real chance of provoking a nuclear holocaust. Bravado alone cannot produce lasting solutions. Democracies and indeed the human race can only hope to function correctly and prosper if we learn to critically examine the discourse of those who claim to speak with authority in the public square. 

51�Թ� itself will continue to publish those who want to make their case, as Feffer has done and as I myself have done here. That is our vocation. The points of view and interpretations we publish often fail to coincide. In cases like this one, they may even be diametrically opposed. We need to hear them. We need to assemble more facts than those each of us choose for the convenience of argument. And each of us needs to be in a position not just to explore and compare, but also to dig deeper with all the resources at our disposal. Concerning Feffer’s article, I can only add this personal note: that I’m disappointed when a quality researcher and thinker believes, for whatever reason, it is more prudent to follow the drift of official propaganda, especially in times of war and global danger, than to examine the complexity of the issues he is addressing. Our platform at 51�Թ� remains open to Feffer and others for dialogue and debate on these very issues as well as others raised by the articles we publish.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Why John Feffer’s Careful Reasoning Still Looks like Propaganda appeared first on 51�Թ�.

This comes as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine enters its ninth month. While numbers are difficult to verify, it is estimated that the has left both Russia and Ukraine with over 100,000 troops dead or wounded. With Russia still attempting to advance further into Ukrainian territory and with Ukraine’s recent offensive to retake Kherson, there is no end in sight for this conflict.

From the beginning of the invasion, the US, the UK, the EU and Australia haveprovided with humanitarian and military aid to protect its sovereignty and its people. The US has provided over $38 billion in military and humanitarian aid. Similarly, the UK and the EU have both provided around $4 billion.

What the Realists Do Not Realize

In the eyes of critics, such as the prominent realist academic John Mearsheimer, this assistance represents a dangerous escalation that will lead to the unnecessary deaths of Ukrainians. These critics instead argue that Ukraine should sue for peace and accept territorial loss to Russia.

But this criticism falls over for multiple reasons.

First and foremost, Russia has illegally invaded Ukraine, a sovereign state under international law. Since 1945, the world has moved on from territorial expansion through force of arms, where powerful states devour small, less powerful ones. Instead, the 20^th century saw the construction of international laws, treaties, and norms on how states should behave. Russia’s actions in Ukraine are a direct violation of these tenets. Therefore, the implementation of economic sanctions and providing aid to a state fighting for survival is not an act of escalation. It is to ensure that international rule of law is upheld and no longer undermined. 

Ukraine Fatigue? Your Urgent Duty: Read These Books

READ MORE

Second, Russia has clearly committed war crimes in Ukraine, a gross violation of international human rights law. Ukrainians have been killed by targeted missile strikes on civilian areas, including the total destruction of the port city of Mariupol, resulting in over 4,000 deaths according to the.

has also documented war crimes committed by Russian forces in Chernihiv, Kharkiv, and Kyiv as well as the now infamous massacre in Bucha where Russian troops carried out executions and extrajudicial killings of civilians. HelpingUkrainians protect their homes and families from such atrocities is to stand in solidarity against a despotic state. 

Third, critics of the West ignore one crucial factor: that Ukrainians widely support defending themselves, and their sovereignty. A has found that an overwhelming majority of Ukrainians, 89%, do not support a peace deal that involves losing territory to Russia. Further, 78% approve of President Volodymyr Zelensky’s response to the invasion. 

Peace Under Western Hegemony

Peace advocates have challenged the motives of the West in their support of the Ukrainian cause. The claim is that the West’s involvement has less to do with aiding Ukraine and more to do with maintaining its hegemony. 

This mirrors comments made by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who declared recently that the conflict is a ”“ between NATO and Russia. This argument is designed to remove any agency from Ukrainians to make their own decisions and it is demonstrably wrong, particularly when defending the country is so popular with Ukrainians.

Critics also ignore that Russia has no interest in peace. While there are demands that Ukraine cede  the Donbas and the south to Russia in a peace deal, it ignores that Russia has recently, and publicly, stated that it has greater than these two regions. This is obvious considering that Russia initially attempted to take Kyiv and topple the Ukrainian government. These calls are also offensive to Ukrainians who have spent the past six months defending their country from what is an illegal invasion.

Even if a deal is reached, history shows us it wouldn’t result in long-term stability for Ukraine. Russia has been destabilizing Ukraine for decades, including the illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea or by sending troops into the Donbas to support separatists. Critics fail to understand that Russia will not stop intervening in Ukrainian affairs because it does not tolerate the country’s desire to improve political and economic ties with the West.

Ukraine Is Inching Towards Victory

Most importantly, Ukraine is winning this war. Russia has failed to meet its initial objectives in occupying Kyiv and forcing regime change. It has pivoted strategically and publicly to focus on the Luhansk and Donetsk regions and the south of the country. It has also lost tens of thousands of men and countless numbers of vehicles and equipment. With economic sanctions targeting military technology, replacing this equipment is difficult. Ukrainian bravery and ingenuity aside, military aid from the West has undoubtedly played a large role in this success.

This support has culminated in the recent acquisition by Ukraine of High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or , which has enabled its military to strike successfully at Russian targets in the Donbas and the Crimea. On November 11th, Ukraine entered the city of , pushing Russian troops to the east.  Both Ukrainians and the West want peace. But this shouldn’t come at the expense of Ukraine’s dignity, territory, and sovereignty. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the war crimes it has committed, is a clear affront to international law. Therefore, supporting Ukraine in its defense is not just a fight to assist an innocent party against a larger aggressor, as worthwhile as that is. It is also a fight to protect  the international rule of law and human rights. That is a fight worth supporting. 

[Naveed Ahsan edited this article.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Ending War Means More, Not Less, Support for Ukraine appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Here are eight reasons why this holiday season too offers the potential for peace and a chance to move the conflict in Ukraine from the battlefield to the negotiating table.

1. The first, and most urgent reason, is the incredible, daily death and suffering in Ukraine, and the chance to save millions more Ukrainians from being forced to leave their homes, their belongings and the conscripted menfolk they may never see again. 

With Russia’s bombing of key infrastructure, millions of people in Ukraine currently have no heat, electricity or water as temperatures drop below freezing. The CEO of Ukraine’s largest electric corporation has urged millions more Ukrainians to the country, ostensibly for just a few months, to reduce demand on the war-damaged power network. 

The warhas out at least 35% of the country’s economy, according to Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal. The only way to halt the meltdown of the economy and the suffering of the Ukrainian people is to end the war. 

Ukraine Fatigue? Your Urgent Duty: Read These Books

READ MORE

2. Neither side can achieve a decisive military victory, and with its recent military gains, Ukraine is in a good negotiating position.

It has become clear that US and NATO military leaders do not believe, and possibly have never believed, that their publicly stated goal of helping Ukraine to recover Crimea and all of Donbas by force is militarily achievable.

In fact, Ukraine’s military chief of staff warned President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in April 2021 that such a goal wouldnot be without “unacceptable” levels of civilian and military casualties, leading him to call off plans for an escalation of the civil war at that time. 

Biden’s top military advisor, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, the Economic Club of New York on November 9, “There has to be a mutual recognition that military victory is probably, in the true sense of the word, not achievable through military means…” 

French and German military reviews of Ukraine’s position are reportedlymore than US ones, assessing that the current appearance of military parity between the two sides will be short-lived. This adds weight to Milley’s assessment, and suggests that this could well be the best chance Ukraine will get to negotiate from a position of relative strength.

Chorus for Peace in Ukraine Sings Louder

READ MORE

3. US government officials, especially in the Republican Party, are starting to balk at the prospect of continuing this enormous level of military and economic support. Having taken control of the House, Republicans are promising more scrutiny of Ukraine aid. Congressman Kevin McCarthy, who will become Speaker of the House, that Republicans would not write a “blank check” for Ukraine. This reflects the growing opposition at the base of the Republican Party, with a Wall Street Journal November showing that 48% of Republicans say the US is doing too much to help Ukraine, up from 6% in March. 

4. The war is causing upheavals in Europe. Sanctions on Russian energy have sent inflation in Europe skyrocketing and caused a devastating squeeze on energy supplies that is crippling the manufacturing sector. Europeans are increasingly feeling what German media call Kriegsmudigkeit. 

This translates as “war-weariness,” but that is not an entirely accurate characterization of the growing popular sentiment in Europe. “War-wisdom” may describe it better. 

People have had many months to consider the arguments for a long, escalating war with no clear endgame—a war that is sinking their economies into a recession—and more of them than ever now tell pollsters they would support renewed efforts to find a diplomatic solution. That 55% in Germany, 49% in Italy, 70% in Romania and 92% in Hungary. 

Peace Talks Essential as War Rages on in Ukraine

READ MORE

5. Most of the world is calling for negotiations. We heard this at the 2022 UN General Assembly, where one after another, 66 world leaders, representing a majority of the world’s population, eloquently spoke out for peace talks., prime minister of Saint Lucia, was one of them, with Russia, Ukraine and the Western powers “to immediately end the conflict in Ukraine, by undertaking immediate negotiations to permanently settle all disputes in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.”

As the told the Assembly, “We are fully aware of the complexities of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and the international and global dimension to this crisis. However, we still call for an immediate ceasefire and a peaceful settlement, because this is ultimately what will happen regardless of how long this conflict will go on for. Perpetuating the crisis will not change this result. It will only increase the number of casualties, and it will increase the disastrous repercussions on Europe, Russia and the global economy.”

6. The war in Ukraine, like all wars, is catastrophic for the environment. Attacks and explosions are reducing all kinds of infrastructure–railways, electrical grids, apartment buildings, oil depots–to charred rubble, filling the air with pollutants and blanketing cities with toxic waste that contaminates rivers and groundwater. 

The sabotage of Russia’s underwater Nord Stream pipelines supplying Russian gas to Germany led to what may have been the of methane gas emissions ever recorded, amounting to the annual emissions of a million cars. The shelling of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants, including Zaporizhzhia, the largest in Europe, has raised legitimate fears of deadly radiation spreading throughout Ukraine and beyond.

Is Ukraine Going too Far in its War?

READ MORE

Meanwhile, US and Western sanctions on Russian energy have triggered a bonanza for the fossil fuel industry, giving them a new justification to increase their dirty energy exploration and production and keep the world firmly on course for climate catastrophe. 

7. The war has a devastating economic impact on countries across the world. The leaders of the world’s largest economies, the Group of 20, in a declaration at the end of their November summit in Bali that the Ukraine war “is causing immense human suffering and exacerbating existing fragilities in the global economy — constraining growth, increasing inflation, disrupting supply chains, heightening energy and food insecurity and elevating financial stability risks.”

Our long-standing failure to invest the relatively small proportion of our resources required to eradicate poverty and hunger on our otherwise rich and abundant planet already condemns millions of our brothers and sisters to squalor, misery and early deaths. 

Now this is compounded by the climate crisis, as entire communities are washed away by flood waters, burned out by wildfires or starved by multi-year droughts and famines. International cooperation has never been more urgently needed to confront problems that no country can solve on its own. Yet wealthy nations still prefer to put their money into weapons and war instead of adequately addressing the climate crisis, poverty or hunger. 

8. The last reason, which dramatically reinforces all the other reasons, is the danger of nuclear war. Even if our leaders had rational reasons to favor an open-ended, ever-escalating war over a negotiated peace in Ukraine – and there are certainly powerful interests in the weapons and fossil fuel industries that would profit from that – the existential danger of what this could lead to absolutely must tip the balance in favor of peace.

We recently saw how close we are to a much wider war when a single stray Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile landed in Poland and killed two people. Zelenskyy refused to believe it was not a Russian missile. If Poland had taken the same position, it could have invoked NATO’s mutual defense agreement and triggered a full-scale war between NATO and Russia. 

If another predictable incident like that leads NATO to attack Russia, it can only be a matter of time before Russia sees the use of nuclear weapons as its only option in the face of overwhelming military force.

Business Insider Makes the Case for Nuclear War

READ MORE

For these reasons and more, we join the faith-based leaders around the world who are calling for a Christmas Truce, that the holiday season presents “a much-needed opportunity to recognize our compassion for one another. Together, we are convinced that the cycle of destruction, suffering and death can be overcome.”

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Eight Reasons Why Now is a Good Time for a Ukraine Ceasefire and Peace Talks appeared first on 51�Թ�.

While I hadn’t seen the person under investigation for years, my memories of him and of some of the things he’d done scared me. For example, when we were young teens, he threatened to bury me alive over a disagreement. He even dug a hole to demonstrate his intent. I knew that if I were to cooperate with this investigation, my testimony would not be anonymous. As a mother of two children living on an isolated farm, that left me with misgivings.

There was also another consideration. A neighbor, herself a retired police officer, suggested that perhaps the investigation could be focused not just on him, but on me, too. “Maybe it’s because of stuff you’ve written,” she suggested, mentioning my deep involvement in Brown University’s , which I co-founded as a way of dealing with this country’s nightmarish wars of this century.

Chorus for Peace in Ukraine Sings Louder

READ MORE

Indeed, the American version of the twenty-first century, marked by our government’s devastating decision to respond to the September 11, 2001, attacks with a Global War on Terror — first in Afghanistan, then Iraq, and then in other countries across the — has had its grim effects at home as well.  It’s caused us to turn on one another in confusing ways. After all, terror isn’t a place or a people. You can’t eradicate it with your military.  Instead, as we learned over the last couple of decades, you end up turning those you don’t like into enemies in the bloodiest of counterinsurgency wars.

I’ve researched for years how those wars of ours also helped deepen our domestic inequalities and political divisions, but after all this time, the dynamics still seem mysterious to me. Nonetheless, I hope I can at least share a bit of what I’ve noticed happening in the conservative, privileged community I grew up in, as well as in the military community I married into.

Around the time I co-founded the Costs of War Project in the early 2010s, I fell in love with a career military officer. Our wars were then in full swing. At home, the names of killed by our , ever more off the country’s battlefields, were just seeping into wider public consciousness as was a political backlash against prosecutions of the police. Anti-government extremist militias like the and the , some of whom would storm the Capitol on , to try to violently block the certification of an elected president, were already seething about the supposed of the Obama administration and that Black president’s foreign birth. But back then, those guys all seemed — to me at least — very much a part of America’s fringe. 

How 9/11 and the War on Terror Shaped the World

READ MORE

Back then, I also didn’t imagine that men in uniform would emerge as a central part of the leadership and membership of such extremist groups. Sadly, they did. As journalist pointed out recently, of the 897 individuals indicted so far for their involvement in the January 6th violence, 118 had backgrounds in the U.S. military and a number of them had fought in this country’s war on terror abroad. police officers from a dozen different departments around the country similarly attended the rally that preceded the Capitol riot and several faced criminal charges.

What also sends chills down my spine is that federal law enforcement agencies on the warning signs of all this. Had the FBI acted on information that extremist groups were planning violence on January 6th, it might not have happened.

A Nation Rich in Fear

If one thing captured the spirit of the post-9/11 moment for me, in retrospect, it was the creation of a cabinet-level (DHS), which has defined itself as a “whole-of-society endeavor, from every federal department and agency to every American across the nation.” for that new department would total more than $1 trillion from 2002 through 2020, more than six times expenditures for similar activities at various government agencies during the previous 20 years.

Held Together With String, Can America Hold?

READ MORE

With its hundreds of thousands of workers, DHS often seems susceptible to overusing its authority and ignoring real threats. Case in point: of the approximately 450 politically motivated violent taking place on our soil in the past decade, the majority were perpetrated by far-right, homegrown violent extremists. Yet all too tellingly, the DHS has largely remained on foreign terrorist groups — and homegrown jihadist groups inspired by them — as the main threats to this country.

Thanks to the passage of the in 2001, federal authorities were also empowered to obtain the financial and Internet records of Americans, even if they weren’t part of an authorized investigation. In the process, the government violated the of tens of thousands of citizens and non-citizens. Authorities at government agencies ranging from the FBI to the Pentagon secretly the communications and activities of peace groups like the Quakers and Occupy Wall Street activists. Worse yet, in June 2013, Americans learned that the was collecting telephone records from tens of millions of us based on a secret court order.

Such practices only seemed to legitimize vigilantism on the part of Americans who adopted the DHS’s mantra, “.” Incidents of directed towards people of Muslim and South Asian background spiked early in the post 9/11 war years and again (I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn!) after Donald Trump entered the White House in 2017.

Sometime before that, a relative visiting me noticed a darker-skinned man, a tourist, taking photos of historic buildings in my community, while speaking on his phone in Arabic. To my shame, she began questioning him, based on “a feeling that something was wrong.” In other words, well before “The Donald” put “” in the contemporary American lexicon, feelings and not facts all too often seemed to rule the day.

“Is that the Russia?” or Dangers Near and Far

Terrorism was at once everywhere and nowhere for those who were supposed to be fighting that war on terror, including members of the military. In 2013, when my husband was on a months-long deployment at sea, another wife, whom I had texted about having a party for the crew on their return, texted me back a warning. I had, she claimed, jeopardized the safety of my husband and other crew members on his boat. After all, what if some foreign enemy intercepted our exchange and learned about the boat’s plans?

Four years later, in the shadow of Donald Trump’s presidency, it only got worse. A stressed-out, combat-traumatized commander, who took over the vessel to which my spouse was next assigned, emailed us wives weekly warnings against sending messages just like the one I had dispatched years earlier. He also ordered us not to email our husbands anything that could be imagined as negative, even if it reflected the realities of our lives: sick children, struggles with depression, financial troubles when we had to miss workdays to be a single parent. According to him, to upset our spouses in uniform was to jeopardize the security and wellbeing of the boat and indeed of America. He could read our emails and decide which ones made it to our loved ones. It was an extreme atmosphere to find myself in and I started to wonder: was I an asset or a threat to this country? Could my harmless words endanger lives?

One summer evening toward the end of another long deployment at sea, a fellow spouse tasked with disseminating confidential information about the boat our spouses were on arrived at my home unannounced. I was feeding my older toddler at the time. She whispered to me that our husbands’ boat was returning to port soon and swore me to silence because she didn’t want anyone beyond the command to know about the vessel’s movements. It was, she said, a matter of “operational security.” Then she took a glance out the window as though a foreign spy or terrorist might be listening.

What Was Operation Boulder?

LISTEN NOW

“Oh! That’s great!” I replied to her news. Later, I tried to explain to my bewildered child what “operational security,” or keeping information about daddy’s whereabouts away from our country’s enemies, meant. He promptly pointed toward that same window and said, “Is it the Russia? Does the Russia live there?” (He’d overheard too many conversations at home about nuclear geopolitics.) The next day, pointing to a mischievous-looking ceramic garden gnome in a neighbor’s yard, he asked again, “Is that the Russia?”

It was not Russia, I assured him. But six years later, in a weary and anxious country that only recently gave The Donald a true body blow, I still wonder about the dangers of our American world in a way I once didn’t.

The 2020s and the Biggest-Loser-in-Chief

Eventually, my family and I settled into what will hopefully be our final stint of military life — an office job for my spouse and a home in rural Maryland. But somehow, in those Trump years, the once-distant dangers of our world seemed ever closer at hand.

This was the time, after all, when the president felt comfortable posting a meme of himself beating up a , while his Homeland Security officials peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters in Portland, Oregon. I soon began to wonder whether returning to something approximating normal civilian life was ever going to happen in this disturbed and disturbing land of ours.

The Next Surge of Trumpism

READ MORE

Motorcyclists sporting confederate flags drove by on the rural highway in front of my house. Blue Lives Matter flags fluttered in a nearby town after the police murdered . Even years after Trump left office, as the polls leading up to the midterm elections seemed to indicate a coming , I wondered if I had been wrong to imagine that our fellow Americans would choose democracy over… well, who knew what?

As part of that election campaign, I wrote nearly 200 letters to Democratic voters in swing states urging them to get to the polls as I was planning to do. Remembering a trend my friends and I had started on social media in 2020, I considered posting a funny photograph of my sweet, excitable rooster, Windy, sitting next to piles of letters, with the caption, “Windy is vigilant about the state of our democracy! Are you?”

Then I thought twice about it, another sign of our times. It occurred to me that if I did participate in an investigation against an angry person in uniform, the one I had once known, I risked retaliation and — yes, I did think this at the time — what better target was there than our strange outdoor pet? On realizing that it was I who was now starting to think like some fear-crazed maniac, I forced myself to dismiss the thought.

Of course, that predicted red wave turned out to be, at worst, a ripple, while election denialism and voter intimidation seemed to collapse in a post-election heap. of the most extreme MAGA candidates running for top election positions in swing states won. Was it possible that Americans had started to see the irony, not to say danger, of voting for public officials who attack the basic tenets of our democracy?

In the end, I told the guy investigating my childhood acquaintance that I couldn’t help him, feeling that I had nothing new to add for a crew with such sweeping powers of surveillance. To my relief, he simply wished me the best. The normal tenor of that conversation changed something in my thinking about the government and this moment of ours.

I found myself returning to an older (perhaps saner) view of our times, as well as the military and law enforcement. Yes, our disastrous wars of this century had brought home too many unnerved, disturbed, and damaged soldiers and small numbers of them became all too extreme, while over-armed police forces did indeed create problems for us.

However, it was also worth remembering that the military and the police are not monoliths. They aren’t “blue lives” or “the troops,” but individuals. They are part of all our lives, as fallible as they are potentially capable of helping us form a more perfect union instead of the chaos and cruelty that Donald Trump exemplifies. Were Americans — all of us from all walks of life — more willing to stand up to bigotry and extremism, we might still help change what’s happening here for the better.

[ first published this article.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How Terror Came Home and What to Make of It appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Ukrainian leadership, on the other hand, believes that it can, with the help of US and European military equipment, expel Russian troops not only from the territory seized since the February invasion but even the lands in the Donbas region and the Crimean Peninsula that Russia occupied in 2014.

These completely incompatible objectives are surely a recipe for a long stalemate. Perhaps the conflict in Ukraine will come to resemble the Korean War, which featured dramatic battleground reversals in the first year followed by two years of stalemate before the warring parties, exhausted and chastened, finally negotiated an armistice.

Ukraine Fatigue? Your Urgent Duty: Read These Books

READ MORE

The Korean War is relevant for another reason. Like Kim Il Sung, Putin counted on Chinese support. During the Korean War, North Korea was saved by the intervention of the Chinese army. This time around, however, China is not sending any military hardware, much less any troops, to help Russia.

Putin might also be wrong about his assumptions about the weakness of his adversaries.

Ukrainian Resolve

The current Russian strategy has been to hold off Ukrainian military advances around Kharkiv in the north and Kherson in the south while bombing the country’s infrastructure. The massive campaign of aerial destruction has already damaged 40% of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including a large of its solar and wind power installations, as well as water and sewage facilities.

Although this new aerial campaign has brought the war once again to major population centers like the capital Kyiv—and even to areas in the far west along the —it seems to have only strengthened the resolve of Ukrainians to fight back. According to a poll from the end of October, of Ukrainian respondents believe that it’s necessary to keep fighting despite the devastating air strikes. Meanwhile, according to , support for the war has fallen to new lows.

Is Ukraine Going too Far in its War?

READ MORE

On the ground, Russian forces recently abandoned Kherson, the only major Ukrainian city that the invading armies managed to seize. Even ardent Putin supporters are at this latest sign of Russian military failure. It was only a few weeks ago that the Russian government declared Kherson part of the Russian Federation when it annexed four Ukrainian territories. Former Putin advisor Sergei Markov called “the surrender of Kherson… the largest geopolitical defeat of Russia since the collapse of the USSR.”

US Wavering?

Putin has also expected that political unity in the United States would eventually fragment in the face of rising energy and food prices. The Republican Party in Congress has indeed indicated that this unity is fleeting. House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, in the lead-up to this week’s midterm elections, that his party was “not going to write a blank check to Ukraine.”

In reality, McCarthy only meant that he favored greater of the funds, not a reduction in support. Only a few Republican oppose military aid to Ukraine. In the midterms, Republicans failed to take the Senate and managed only a slim margin of victory in the House. Even if they wanted to, the Republicans are not likely to be able to change US policy on Ukraine.

Nor will the left wing of the Democratic Party significantly change administration policy. Despite all the hoopla around the Congressional Progressive Caucus’s letter on Ukraine that was unveiled and withdrawn in quick succession, most progressives support the provision of aid. Here, for instance, is a recent from Congressman Jamie Raskin, a prominent Congressional Progressive Caucus member and one of the letter’s signatories:

Ukrainians today give the democratic world a chance for a critical and historic victory, and we must rally to their side. It is important to be on the right side of a just war, and it is even more important to be on the right side and win. Just as Ukrainian resistance gives us hope, a Ukrainian victory would give us an opening to a much better future for all humanity. All champions of democracy over autocracy—whether they call themselves progressives, conservatives or liberals—should be doing whatever we can to ensure that Ukraine wins this just war as quickly as possible.

In the public at large, meanwhile, US military support of Ukraine enjoys strong support. Around three out of four Americans the continuation of both economic and military aid to Ukraine.

What about Europe?

Putin has also expected European support for Ukraine to crumble in the face of a winter of rising energy costs. Here, there is a considerably wider range of opinion than in the United States. A plurality of both Greeks and Italians lifting sanctions against Russia. Hungarians, too, are skeptical about a tougher approach to Russia. By contrast, the rest of Europe is not in the mood to with the Kremlin.

Although Putin might be cheered by the growing gap between Greece, Italy, and Hungary on the one hand and the rest of Europe on the other, he should be very worried about plummeting support for Russia among what had once been his most reliable allies: far-right political parties.

In Italy, for instance, Putin once enjoyed considerable influence with the far right. He counted Silvio Berlusconi, former prime minister and head of Forza Italia, as a close friend. Putin’s United Russia party had a close partnership with Matteo Salvini’s Lega party. Under ordinary circumstances, Putin should have been thrilled by the victory of the far right in the recent Italian elections.

But the head of the leading far-right party Brothers of Italy, Prime Minister Georgia Meloni, has made it clear that she will continue to support Ukraine. “Given our principal challenge today, Italy strongly supports the territorial integrity, sovereignty and freedom of Ukraine,” Meloni NATO at a meeting last week. “The political cohesion of the alliance and our full commitment to supporting the Ukrainian cause are, from our point of view, the best response that NATO allies can give.”

Putin himself was once held in high regard by the European far right. Since the invasion of Ukraine, his approval ratings among voters affiliated with far-right parties has dramatically. For instance, 62% of Lega voters in Italy once thought highly of Putin. That number has dropped to 10% today.

The Balance Sheet

If you add up all these factors, Ukraine has a considerable edge over Russia. It is maintaining its military support from the United States and the European Union, and recent elections in Italy and the United States have not altered those commitments. It is making incremental progress on the battlefield, as the Russian withdrawal from Kherson indicates. And Russian destruction of civil infrastructure, however extensive and punishing, has not sapped the will of the Ukrainian population.

Russia, on the other hand, faces numerous problems. It has few supporters in the international arena. It is having difficulty calling up enough experienced soldiers to replenish the front lines in Ukraine. And sanctions are reducing its ability to replace the military hardware it has lost so far in the war, as its overtures to Iran and North Korea for rather rudimentary arms indicate.

Given Ukraine’s battlefield successes and the willingness of the Ukrainian population to endure hardship in order to repel Russian invaders, this is no time to call for a ceasefire. Such a ceasefire would give Russia the time to reinforce its positions in occupied territory in Ukraine and train new recruits to prepare for a future counter-offensive. If Ukrainians change their minds and champion a ceasefire, then of course the United States should help negotiate one. But not until then.

The Russian left, too, understands this simple moral question. Anarcho-ecofeminist Lolja Nordic :

It is absurd to demand that an occupied country stop fighting for its liberation and essentially give up its land for peace. It’s the same as telling a victim of violence to not resist a person who tries to abuse, rape or murder them. Why would we tell that to Ukrainians?

Nine times out of ten, war is not the answer. But in this case, the Ukrainians didn’t ask for war. It was thrust upon them. So, the only appropriate answer to Russia’s invasion is a war of self-defense. And right now, Ukraine is winning it.

Down the road, a stalemate is possible, perhaps even likely. At the moment, however, the government of Volodymyr Zelensky sees no need to negotiate with a Kremlin that is equally uninterested in compromise. The difference for the Ukrainians, however, is that they have good reason to believe that they can achieve their goals of regaining occupied territory by military means in the coming months.

[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Ukraine Now Holds a Strong Edge Over Russia appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Fortunately, the masters of our official hyperreality stepped in to calms things down. Without any solid evidence but plenty of noble intentions, they found the most palatable explanation for this dramatic incident. As The Eurasian Times: “Polish President Andrzej Duda said it was ‘highly probable’ that the missile was launched by Ukrainian anti-aircraft defense.” He added that “there is no evidence that the Russian side launched it.”

The Ukrainians have been following a well-constructed hyperreal script. It contains a hallowed principle inherited from . Its central dogma bluntly states that if something bad happens anywhere in the world, it’s Putin’s fault. Dutifully following this script, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy immediately accused Russia of the attack on Poland. He clearly hoped this would at last push NATO into fully engaging in the war against Russia. But US President Joe Biden, who can be thought of as the executive producer of the film with the hyperreal script, was quick to explain that the missile was not fired by Russia. Jan Stoltenberg, NATO’s secretary general, quickly followed suit. Outside of Ukraine everyone agreed that the two Polish farmers were killed by a Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile that had presumably gone astray.

Zelenskyy denied it. “I have no doubtthat it was not our missile.” According to , he “believed Tuesday’s explosion was caused by a Russian missile,” based on reports from Ukraine’s military which he ‘cannot but trust.’”

�մǻ岹��’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

No doubt:

A handy expression to affirm what a person possessing real or imaginary authority would like to be true, whether or not it is true.

Contextual note

According to Ukraine’s news service, Interfax-Ukraine,Zelenskyy also had to say: “Today, something that we have been warning for a long time has also happened. Terror is not limited to our state borders. Russian missiles hit Poland … Missiles hit NATO territory. This is a Russian missile attack on collective security! This is a very significant escalation.” The article described Zelenskyy as “urging Poland to take decisive action.”

About one thing at least there is literally “no doubt:” that Zelenskyy was hoping to Poland and NATO to declare war on Russia. The Ukrainian president saw this as a game-changer. He simply failed to realize that those who write the rules of the game aren’t quite ready for a change in the state of play.

Ukraine Fatigue? Your Urgent Duty: Read These Books

READ MORE

This war has produced an interesting tug-of-war within it. Zelenskyy is pushing for a shift in the meaning of a proxy war Joe Biden’s team has designed and managed to “weaken Russia.” But Biden remains prudent, as executive producers tend to be. He doesn’t hesitate to tell Ukraine’s clone of Winston Churchill when he’s off script. Hyperreality must be respected. Zelensky may think otherwise, but for the US, it isn’t about Ukraine’s victory but about Russia’s defeat. The US is ready to accept the total destruction of Ukraine and the decimation of its people if that’s what’s required to serve the goal of taking Russia out of the European equation. How else can one understand the that the US and the EU will keep fueling the war “as long as it takes?”

Western media was flummoxed by this unexpected moment of surrealism. Up to this point, Western media presented the war as a heroic combat between a brave people and an evil invader. They treated it like an sporting match or, more accurately, like a playoff series taking place within an arena on the far side of Europe. So long as the two teams remained within the confines of the arena, the media could cheer for the home team, applaud its clever attacks and successful feints, and hiss at the opponent, whose every gesture was described as a war crime.

In the past week, Western officials and the media have provided no updates. An investigation is presumably ongoing, just as in the case of the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines. In both cases, this may mean that the results of the investigations will be eternally hidden from public view, a pattern well established since the John F Kennedy assassination, from which crucial evidence is still being withheld 59 years later.

This incident highlights a problem that no one in the media wants to mention. Since that critical moment earlier this year when the Western media began to turn Zelenskyy into a bearded superhero clothed in a green t-shirt, the former actor and current war president assumes that anything he says will be dutifully echoed in the Western media and treated as gospel truth. For the media, the rule has been that any expression of doubt about the truth of any of his statements falls into the category of either heresy or Russian propaganda.

This time, in what’s turning out to be a “he said/she said” case, the media must decide whom to believe or to assume that all are lying, which is possible when the evidence is not on the table. For the moment the media appear to be going with the interpretation supported by Duda, Biden and Stoltenberg. It seems safe and requires no further comment.

Or does it? Zelenskyy’s insistent denial could be interpreted in three ways. First, he simply doesn’t want people to believe his army could make a mistake. Second, he doesn’t want the Polish people to hold Ukraine responsible for the death of their countrymen. After all, a traditional enmity between Ukrainian nationalists and Poles exists that could once again come to the fore. That enmity played out in murderous, sometimes genocidal ways in the past. The third option, left unmentioned by the media, is that it was a false flag operation specifically designed to produce the effect Zelenskyy called for: the engagement of NATO against Russia.

Historical note

Our civilization built around the principle of hyperreality – what Guy Debord “la société du spectacle” – is a direct outgrowth of the industrial revolution and its evolved technology. In the early 20th century surrealism became a major movement in the world of art and literature. At the same time, Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, working with both commercial corporations and American presidents, was working to turn the US economy into a powerful machine driven by public relations and advertising. It aimed at transforming the worldview and mindscape of a docile public. Advertising’s imagery and messaging  became the breeding ground for an elaborately sophisticated culture combining politics and commerce, governed by hyperreality.

Surrealism and hyperreality differed in one important way: surrealism used illusion to both entertain the public and challenge its thinking. The culture of hyperreality aims at conditioning the public’s thinking, replacing perceived reality, in people’s minds, with a simulacrum.

New Congressional Amendment Benefits War Profiteers, Risks World War III

READ MORE

But another factor distinguishes the two concepts. Hyperreality reflects a rational, structured strategy engaged by a group of people who collectively exercise some generally invisible political or cultural influence. Working together, they produce a different idea of the world, better constructed, simplified and more attractive than everyday reality, which tragically suffers from its multiple contradictions.

Surrealism seeks to trouble its public’s thinking. Hyperreality is designed to reassure and put questioning to sleep. A “surreal” painting, film or novel contains elements from the real world combined with something unusual, deviant or simply weird. It violates our accepted laws of perception. In the , Un Chien Andalou by the surrealist pair Luis Bunuel and In a scene and Salvador Dali, a closeup reveals a colony of ants emerging from a hole in the hero’s palm. The hand is absolutely realistic. So are the ants. But the spectator sees this fantasized construction as something created by an author and achieved thanks to technology. No one could confuse this with reality.

Hyperreality, on the other hand, exists for the specific purpose of confusing the public, distorting its perception. Propaganda is one form of hyperreality, a heavy-handed one, but if enough of the institutions are complicit, especially the media, it functions efficiently. It produces on an industrial scale something intended to replace visible reality in people’s minds.

The confusion over the story of who fired the missile that hit Poland is an example of hyperreality inadvertently showing its seams. The event itself was real but the reactions have been surreal. When Stoltenberg affirms that the missile was Ukrainian but the fault lies with the Russians, it is like watching Bunuel’s film. It simply makes no sense. The difference is that it isn’t art. It pretends to be the truth.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.

Read more of 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Great Missile Mystery: A Ukrainian Whodunnit appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Taliban is the product of Pakistan’s proxy wars driven by ideology. Thousands of religious madrassas that have taught millions promote extremism and violence. Their was developed in the 1980s for the mujahideen to unleash violence on Soviet troops. As is well known, the US and Saudi Arabia supported the mujahideen during the Cold War. In fact, hardline Saudi Wahhabi ideology deeply influenced the madrassas, the mujahideen and the Taliban.

When the US decided to withdraw from Afghanistan, the government collapsed and the Pashtun-led Taliban took over. Much of the world was stunned by this speedy takeover. Pakistan was the only major actor prepared for this development. Note that the Taliban  took over on August 15, 2021 and, as early as September 4, Lieutenant General Faiz Hameed, the chief of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI),was in . Hameed helped settle the Taliban’s internal disputes and paved the path for a caretaker government.

The same thing but different context

In many ways, the Taliban’s victory is a repetition of Afghanistan’s history. The 2020 US-Taliban deal was consistent with the 1988 Afghanistan-Pakistan Geneva Accords. That deal paved the way for the Soviet withdrawal and, subsequently, the collapse of the Afghan government.  For many Afghanistan experts, the US “peace” negotiation with the Taliban was a “” process.

Afghanistan’s government was excluded from the 2020 deal. The US made a deal with a misogynistic, ethnonationalist, fundamentalist terrorist organization and abandoned the democratically elected government. This led to its speedy collapse.

Once the Taliban took over Kabul, they captured all the institutions of the state that had been built over 20 years since 2001. The previous Taliban regime fell because the US intervened after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Now, the Taliban are back and they have captured billions of dollars worth of US military equipment, which they are using to consolidate their power.

Although there is uncertainty in the region concerning the Taliban’s future, regional players, such as Pakistan, Iran, Russia, and China, have adopted a strategy of .  The Taliban also control all sources of the country’s income, which sustains their forces and protects their regime.

Contrary to the rhetoric and promises of the so-called Taliban 2.0, they have been pursuing the same brutal policies that characterized their reign in the 1990s. Extrajudicial killings, ethnic cleansing, discrimination against women and other oppressive measures are back. They have trampled civil society and lack political legitimacy.

The Talibanization of Afghanistan’s society is proceeding swiftly. They are building thousands of madrassas to promote their radical ideology. They have banned schools for girls, changed the education curriculum and impose their radical interpretations of Islam upon an ethnically diverse nation.

The Taliban have also maintained their relationship with terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda. The killing of Aiman al-Zawahiri by the US on July 31, 2022 in Kabul demonstrates that the Taliban is still harboring top leaders of al-Qaeda and is a haven for terrorists.

Brutal repression, little legitimacy

The Taliban have imposed a primitive totalitarian regime on a diverse country. They have failed to create a formal political process or a vision for the country. Instead, the Taliban have used violence, rural Pashtun tribalism and hardline Islamic Sharia law on ethnic groups with very different cultures. They are marginalizing and often killing non-Pashtuns, particularly the Shia Hazaras.

Pashtuns are now in-charge of areas. Naturally, the Hazaras feel their homeland has been occupied. The Taliban have also changed signs in universities from Farsi to Pashto even in Persian-speaking areas such as Balkh in the north. Signs outside ministries are also in . Naturally, non-Pashtuns are not pleased.

The Taliban’s policy toward women is extremely harsh. They have re-instituted their “,” decimating existing women’s rights, such as their right to travel, work, education, and participate in public life. Torture and extra-judicial killings are now common practice.

The Taliban’s highly centralized model of governance does not, cannot and will not function well. Once, Afghanistan’s kings had the mandate to control the country on behalf of a colonial power through a highly centralized system. This history created a highly centralized model of governance and fostered a psychology of ethnic domination within the Pashtun elites. The Taliban are deeply committed to this model.  

This centralized model has taken a hit. Both during the Soviet occupation and the 20-year democratic experiment, concentration of power abated. Unsurprisingly, the anti-Taliban fronts are calling for a decentralized political setup. Centralization is associated with brutality, dysfunction, and a crisis of legitimacy. The current centralization is no different. It is brutal, violent and oppressive.

The Taliban rejects elections and rules the countrywithout any formally-defined or system of checks and balances. There are no political processes that establish legitimacy. Most of the Taliban leaders and commanders are not familiar with Afghan society, and they cannot speak Persian, the lingua franca of the country.

The Taliban has also failed to behave like a normal state at the international level. No country has recognized them even when they are compelled to interact with the Taliban. Even did not recognize them unilaterally. Their links with terrorist groups have been an added concern.

It seems unlikely that the Taliban should succeed in the long term. Their Pashtun ethnonationalism, Islamic fundamentalism, violent oppression and extreme centralization does not work in multiethnic Afghanistan. As proxies of Pakistan, the Taliban do not even command legitimacy among all Pashtuns.

More war and the danger of mass atrocities

The situation in Afghanistan is moving towards another round of conflict. The people are finally rising up against the brutal regime. In recent months, an insurrection is in the north. The Taliban is crushing this with its customary savagery. The international community has largely overlooked in the north but resistance is strengthening.

In the online sphere, the “#StopHazaraGenocide” has been tweeted more than 17 million times and sparked protests in cities around the world, which shows that the Taliban failed to provide security. As continue, so do protests. Women are protesting too.  Hundreds of them have taken to the streets in the provinces of Kabul, Balkh, Bamiyan, Herat and Ghazni since the return of the Taliban to power but were repressed by the Taliban.

Given rising protests, the Taliban are likely to find it difficult to rule. To support the people, the international community must systematically monitor and document violence in Afghanistan. The Security Council and the Human Rights Council at the UN have a critical role to play. Overlooking the Taliban’s violence and building relationships with them is a bad idea. It sends a signal that they can continue their repressive rule. The international community must put pressure on the Taliban to to stop human rights violations, recommence girls education, and conduct political dialogue with other ethnicities, groups and stakeholders. If the international community fails to act, there will be even more death and suffering in Afghanistan.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Destiny of Pakistan’s Totalitarian Proxy Regime in Afghanistan appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In their book War in Ukraine, Medea Benjamin and Nicolas Davies align all the pertinent facts a reader needs to know about the origins of a brutal but avoidable conflict and the political events that have accompanied its unfolding. They define the geopolitical issues, put them in perspective and analyze the risks and much of the damage done to our civilization by a war that reflects a confused political logic on all sides. Their book tracks the decisions and interpretations that have populated the headlines in the media and takes that same media to task for both neglecting history and inventing narratives intended to bury the facts and hide the perception of their deeper meaning.

In short, War in Ukraine provides a compendious antidote to the plethora of distortions presented by what it would be more accurate to call the news entertainment media. The history that brought us to where we are today now confuses us about where we are likely to be tomorrow. Our leaders and our media prefer that we remain blissfully unaware. Complexity and political entertainment are incompatible. Is that what explains why history and the lessons we can learn from it have largely been banned from the popular media?

Benjamin and Davies take on the complexity, breaking it down into digestible bits. They consistently avoid polemic and stick to the facts. Some of the facts have been and will be directly denied or simply conveniently forgotten, such as Victoria Nuland’s extremely active role in the Maidan uprising back in 2014, an episode the authors recount in detail. Nuland has long been the US State Department’s most prominent and impenitent neoconservative (neocon). That explains why the authors ask at one point, “Why would Biden bring Nuland back and give her even greater responsibility after what happened on her watch in Ukraine in 2014?” They don’t provide an answer. Only Biden himself could supply one. But the question itself highlights the complexity of this sequence of historical events. It is a question every reader should think about.

Since this is all about Ukraine, the authors could have mentioned another unelucidated mystery: the role of Joe Biden’s son Hunter in Ukrainian affairs. That is precisely the kind of story that appeals to polemicists. It too raises some real questions. But the authors have chosen only to focus on verifiable facts and visible connections. They may be accused of not hewing to the White House’s narrative, but in the land of the that is presumably a legitimate deviation. If there is any sense that they are rooting for one side or another, it is clearly for the side of peace and sanity. The fact that so many politicians and media figures are making such an effort to get the American public to root rather than think and reflect is one of the most troubling phenomena that emerges from their account of the war in Ukraine.

Benjamin’s and Davies’s command of the facts and their patient recounting of Ukraine’s recent history represent an impressive achievement. Even those like myself who have tried to follow events dating back decades will find plenty of new things to think about and piece together while reading these pages. The points they make are clearly meant to inform rather than persuade. Their point of view nevertheless remains crystal clear. In John Lennon’s , “give peace a chance.” On their own, the task they see lying ahead of us is to commit to a strategy bent on resolving tensions while respecting the different parties’ legitimate interests, even when those interests conflict. Above all, it is to pull us back from the brink of nuclear war.

American addiction to hegemony

Noam Chomsky and Vijay Prashad’s Withdrawal accomplishes something similar in its handling of history. It sets up a very similar debate based on both authors’ wide-ranging knowledge of contemporary history and geopolitics. They place their analysis in a much broader historical context, with a focus on the evolution of US foreign policy starting with the Vietnam war.

Chomsky has, after all, been playing this game for far longer than most everyone covering international relations. He has done so with a seriousness and independence that none of the public pundits whose writings appear regularly in prestigious newspapers and journals can claim to rival. Does that mean he perfectly understands everything? Certainly not. I would personally take issue with specific points, such as his assigning India’s Narendra Modi to a “reactionary alliance” that links him with Hungary’s Victor Orban, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. He reduces Modi’s politics to one based on “destroying secular democracy” in the interest of “creating a Hindu ethnocracy” and “crushing Kashmir.” Chomsky may, in this case, be more influenced by random articles he’s read in The New York Times than a direct experience of contemporary India. Modi’s politics and India’s history of ethnic and religious relations are much more complex than Chomsky’s assertion.

In the book’s Afterword, Prashad explains that his relationship with Chomsky began in the early 1990s. As their friendship developed, the two thinkers and prolific commentators on geopolitics hailing from two distant parts of the world merge in this book as a united couple acutely aware of the state and the position of the US on the world stage. They describe what may appear as an increasingly desperate and literally dislocated defense of a declining US empire and the dangers it presents for the rest of the world.

The pretext for the book, reflected in its title, was the Biden administration’s surprising and chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 after a 20-year stint of attempting to manage everyone’s affairs in the Middle East. Most people perceived it as an admission of failure. Some thought it might even qualify as an act of humility. The events of 2022 show that the trend towards humility was, if it existed, short-lived.

Is the US Seeking to Undermine Globalization?

READ MORE

Reviewing US foreign policy over many decades since World War II, Chomsky and Prashad point out that despite surprises such as the retreat from Vietnam in 1975 and the withdrawal from Afghanistan last year, the US has seen its role evolve in what they see as a worrying direction. During the Cold War it appeared that the US was hubristically assuming the role of the world’s policeman. It set about enforcing the laws of the rules-based order it had succeeded in establishing thanks to its financial and industrial clout that remained intact and unscathed after a catastrophic world war. Ever since the fall of the USSR, when the US became the world’s unique superpower, the authors see it as having moved into a slightly different role: that of the global Godfather, mafia style.

Chomsky and Prashad direct their analysis less on the question of who may have been right and who was wrong in the conduct of any particular event than on exposing the structural principles that informed the decision-making behind the Godfather’s foreign policy. Those who have studied the Mafia know that the families have always been more focused in their daily routines on serious business and the profitability of their commerce than on the spectacular machine gun massacres that feature in the reporting of the media and Hollywood movies. It is no different with US foreign policy, despite the US government’s proclivity for prosecuting wars of their own making or participating in proxy wars, as has happened in Yemen and Ukraine. In the chapter of the book dedicated to 9/11 and Afghanistan, Chomsky offers this pertinent analysis of the well documented American industrial policy that justified President Eisenhower’s warning targeting the military-industrial complex.

“The Pentagon system… imposes on the public a large burden of the costs (research and development, R&D° and provides a guaranteed market for excess production, a useful cushion for management decisions. Furthermore, this form of industrial policy does not have the undesirable side effects of social spending directed to human needs. Apart from unwelcome redistributive effects, the latter policies tend to interfere with managerial prerogatives; useful production may undercut private gain, while state-subsidized waste production (arms, man-on-the-moon extravaganzas, etc.) is a gift to the owner and manager, who will, furthermore, be granted control of any marketable spin-offs.”

The thought, in just a few sentences, is both complex and complete. Eisenhower warned the nation of the danger but never tried to explain the logic of the process. In a few sentences Chomsky makes it clear. This kind of industrial organization dares to violate the principles of the liberal capitalist system it is designed to defend militarily. In a world supposedly regulated by the invisible hand of free competition, the Pentagon’s system, overseen by Congress, props up state-subsidized private monopolies. It even prolongs the process into consumer space, where theoretically pure market forces should always be at work. Such a system repeats the chestnut about “building a better mousetrap” but adds another proviso: make sure it’s the taxpayers, not the capitalists, who fund it and then spend the money you saved on lawyers specialized in IP who will protect your invention from imitators, which guarantees future margins. Taxpayers thus pay for these monopolistic practices twice. At least they are assured of having the most competitive armed forces in the world.

Military withdrawal but clandestine engagement

Withdrawal ranges across a series of wars and military operations that have defined the consistent drift of US foreign policy for at least the past 50 years. The withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan in 2021 led some commentators to assume that this marked a turning point in US policy. The nation was finally moving away from the temptation to systematically intervene in other nations’ affairs. One could even imagine that the US was preparing to accept a multipolar world in which problems would be addressed and solved through deliberation and collaboration rather than confrontation and conflict. The media even came up with a name for it: “the peace dividend.” Many Americans saw it as an opportunity for the new Biden administration to focus on its commitment to renewing infrastructure and “building back better” to improve the lives of Americans at home.

Such a belief quickly turned out to belong to the same penchant for naivety that had led some political figures and commentators three decades ago to suppose that once the Soviet Union had dissolved and the Warsaw pact was disbanded, there would be no further need for NATO. Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin were at various times convinced that the opportunity existed to imagine and put in place a specifically European or even Eurasian security framework that would encourage the existing trend towards fluidifying a globalized economy. 

They too turned out to be naïve. They failed to understand that the real purpose of NATO, from the American point of view, was to hold Europe securely under US military and economic control. NATO especially served to prevent the eventual emergence of a more powerful economic zone capable of marginalizing the US economy and supplanting its historical supremacy. China is a threat because you can’t give it orders. Europe would be an even bigger threat if it stopped taking orders.

The dollar as the unique universally recognized reserve currency and some 800 military bases spread across the surface of the globe have stood for decades as the guarantors of US hegemony. Anything that might rise in autonomy to threaten, challenge or weaken that carefully constructed system — often referred to as a “rules-based order” —  must be prevented from taking shape.

In their introduction, Chomsky and Prashad explain their comparison of US foreign policy with the behavior of a mafia Godfather. “There is a mafia quality to the way the United States has exercised its power.” It isn’t a modern phenomenon. They detect its roots in the genocide of native populations in North America, a campaign historically romanticized and even theologized as “manifest destiny.” They then make this specific claim: “The Godfather attitude expanded geometrically after the collapse of the USSR.” It is the opposite of democratic reasoning. They note that George W Bush’s wars in the Middle East “came with little consideration for world opinion, even less for the possibility of preventing war through negotiation.”

Chorus for Peace in Ukraine Sings Louder

The refusal to negotiate is one of the major points that Benjamin and Davies note in their account of the history of the ongoing Ukraine war. At the end of 2021, after amassing an impressive number of  troops on the Ukrainian border. Russia used the demonstration to propose that a conflict could be avoided if the parties accepted to hammer out an understanding. It’s a classic ploy. Demonstrate the worst of your intentions and use the demonstration to reach a compromise At the time, Western media neglected even to report on that proposal. 

In the past few days the question of negotiations to end the conflict has come to the fore once again, with a growing sense of urgency as winter approaches. The same media who paid no attention to it last December have continued to voluntarily ignore that such a proposal was ever made. Again history disappears out of sheer neglect. This is unfortunate because any peace deal likely to be achieved will almost certainly contain many of the provisions of the Russian proposal of last year. 

Benjamin and Davies make no judgment about what would de fair or desirable. They offer the simple facts describing this episode. “In December 2021, Russia took the initiative of proposing two draft mutual security treaties, one between Russia and the United States and one between Russia and NATO. These were not ‘take it or leave it’ demands or ultimata, but drafts for negotiation. So any specific language that the United States or NATO disagreed with was on the table for negotiation.” The problem of negotiating to end a war that has already begun is that after the loss of life, the destruction of property and the occupation of territory, both sides consider it a capitulation and a loss of face  to agree to the other side’s terms, even when they constitute a feasible and acceptable solution.

Let’s not do a deal!

In other words, the allergy to negotiations Chomsky and Prashad saw as already a characteristic of the Republican Bush administration’s remains intact under Biden’s Democratic White House. Benjamin and Davies describe in detail how the negotiations engaged in the first weeks after the Russian invasion were discouraged, if not sabotaged by voices in the West who saw the conflict as an opportunity to weaken and humiliate Russia, even at the cost of Ukrainian suffering.

Godfathers only make a show of negotiating when they know they unambiguously have the upper hand. An honest observer would be justified in posing the question Western media still refuses to ask with regard to the events of 2021: Does the cost in blood and treasure of a war some predict to last for years not call into question the wisdom of refusing to sit down and talk with the Russian last December? Benjamin and Davies offer their version of the question. “Was the U.S. strategic ‘great game’ against Russia such an overriding priority to Biden and U.S. leaders that they saw years of war and bloodshed in Ukraine as an acceptable price for trying to ‘weaken ’Russia, as Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin later described the U.S. goal?”

The implications of the choice the Biden administration made of offering the Ukrainians an endless supply of arms and funding in the hope of prolonging the war are chilling. They cannot be chalked up to US intelligence misreading of the stakes or the government’s failure to anticipate the consequences. “The Godfather attitude is not irrational,” Chomsky and Prashad tell us. It is designed not to solve problems or avert catastrophe but “to protect the property, privileges, and power of the ruling elite in the United States and their closest allies in Europe, Japan, and a few other countries.” All of this means that its principal goal is to prevent other interests from having a say in world affairs. The US applies a simple logical principle: once you have defined your rules-based order, there is nothing to negotiate. Follow the rules and the Godfather will be there to reward you for your obedience.

Chomsky and Prashad cover a lot of historical ground and use the examples they cite to describe what appears as predictable patterns of behavior. Acceptance of all the explicit and tacit laws of the rule-based order remains fundamental. “The United States cannot tolerate defiance,” Chomsky concludes, “particularly successful defiance.” To illustrate the principle he recounts the behavior of both the Carter and Reagan administrations with regard to the tiny island of Grenada, ultimately the object of an American military invasion for the crime of disobedience.

Chomsky: Washington’s Dilemma on a “Lost” Planet

READ MORE

In contrast, Benjamin and Davies, seeking to inform about the facts, draw few general conclusions. The diligently and dutifully recount the events that have in the past and present defined the stakes of the Ukraine war. But those facts and the description of those events chime with the same points Chomsky and Prashad make throughout their book..

Nevertheless, Benjamin and Davies are careful not to impose one point of view but to acknowledge alternative interpretations of the same set of facts. In their concluding chapter they dramatically ask two probing questions aimed at confronting the actors in the conflict with their responsibilities. “Could Putin really believe that Russia’s very existence was under such immediate threat that invasion was the only answer? Could Western leaders really believe that Ukraine’s right to join NATO and to reimpose its sovereignty over Donbass and Crimea were causes worthy of jeopardizing millions of lives or risking nuclear war?” It’s a sad fact that the most brutal wars are carried out and endure on the basis of what each party “believes.”

Is history too complex for the media’s taste?

These two books have one thing in common: they demonstrate how complex history can be and how dangerous denying its complexity may be. In their modest way, while denouncing what they characterize as political errors and even crimes by those who make policy, the authors remind us that our culture’s cultivated indifference to history compounds the problem. It blinds the populations of our democracies, preventing them from exercising a corrective role. It does so by conditioning them to accept a truncated version of historical truth. 

Making Sense of Vladimir Putin’s Long Game

READ MORE

Benjamin and Davies dedicate a chapter to the role of propaganda that now, perhaps more than ever before, permeates our media, executing the essential task of reducing the appreciation of historical truth to the unconditional support supplied by fans for their team in a competitive sport. The authors begin the chapter “Information warfare” with a quote from former US Ambassador Chas Freeman: ““This war in Ukraine is the most intense information war humanity has ever seen. There are so many lies flying about that it’s totally impossible to perceive the truth.”

Discovering and isolating the “truth” of historical processes is no easy task. Often the closer we are to a story unfolding before our eyes, the harder it is to perceive its factual substance and especially its deeper meaning. But denying or simply failing to be attentive to the history that precedes what we believe we see clearly today is quite simply irresponsible. The cost of acquiescing to such an irresponsible attitude has never been more evident. Chomsky reminds us that the “U.S. military is driving us toward destruction through nuclear war and the climate catastrophe.” Benjamin and Davies bring the same point in their chapter with the title: “Flirting with nuclear war.”

Just this week the report of a “Russian missile” that detonated in Poland killing two people demonstrated how close the flirtation might already be. Depending on how such nations and institutions like NATO read such events – as acts of war or false flag operations – the result may look like a less entertaining version of Stanley Kubrick’s dark comedy, Dr Strangelove. Whereas Joe Biden immediately discounted the idea that it may be a Russian aggression, the New York Times reports that “Volodymyr Zelensky, seized on the possibility of Russian involvement and called it evidence of ‘a very significant escalation.’” Given the propension of a wide range of people – and not only Sean Penn – to believe anything Zelenskyy says, after such incidents a direct war between two nuclear powers (actually more than two) may be only days or even hours away.

That is why it would be both salutary and urgent for anyone who cares about their own survival, let alone that of the human race, to read these books by two different sets of authors. They should do so before drawing hasty conclusions on the basis of the latest news story about who is right and who is wrong or who deserves a comeuppance. 

What the world needs today is a little bit of sanity and a large dose of critical thinking based on discernible facts and a sensitivity to the trends of history. War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless War provides the former in abundance. The facts they present should convince any honest reader that there’s more to the story than even the most respectable media will present on any given day. In contrast, Chomsky and Prashad’s Withdrawal reads like a dialogue between two people who have spent recent decades, individually and collaboratively, refining their critical thinking and applying it to the contemporary dramas of the world. Our advice to the reader; it’s probably best to start with War in Ukraine, just to restore one’s sanity in the face of the daily onslaught of what Chas Freeman has called an “information war.” Chomsky and Prashad’s more reflective and conversational contribution will provide a broader context and open up other avenues of research. In some sense, we can never have enough history. In a similar sense we can easily have too much propaganda.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Ukraine Fatigue? Your Urgent Duty: Read These Books appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In particular, the Muslim Brotherhood’s social and economic policies were similar to fascist ones. Furthermore, al-Banna with both Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Since the 1960s, some scholars have even argued that the Muslim Brotherhood is inspired more by nationalism and socialism, less by Islam. Manfred Halpern’s iconic , The Politics of Social Change in the Middle East and North Africa, argues that the Muslim Brotherhood embraced totalitarianism and rejected modernism.  

The MB totalitarian vision

The Muslim Brotherhood’s totalitarian vision was inspired by Islam. It saw modernity and individuality threatening. The organization championed tradition and belonging to a community instead. This community was of pious Egyptian Muslims who would live in an egalitarian society. Traditional Islam, not multiparty democracy, was to act as a guide for the future. This future would only be born after a struggle. As in the case of fascists, violence was a legitimate tool in the Muslim Brotherhood’s struggle. Like all totalitarian ideologies, the Muslim Brotherhood pledged allegiance to al-Banna, its sole leader, and treated his vision as absolute.

Egypt’s Foreign Policy Under Al-Sisi and Its Relationship with Saudi Arabia

READ MORE

The Muslim Brotherhood’s conception of gender roles was remarkably similar to the Nazis. They encouraged marriage and large families. Women were meant to be mothers and men to be fathers. In this traditional view, men were breadwinners for the family while women were the nurturers of future generations. For this socially conservative organization, promotion of family values was a key goal. Therefore, the Muslim Brotherhood argued for closing down cabarets and dance halls, and censoring plays, films and novels. The organization also suggested improvements in song lyrics to make them more virtuous.

Antisemitism within the Muslim Brotherhood 

Just like the Nazi Party, the Muslim Brotherhood too shared an intense hatred for Jews. For example, , the ideological father of the Muslim Brotherhood, espoused his antisemitism in many of his major works such as the book, Milestones. The book is still considered to be a foundational text for Islamist groups. According to Qutb, the world is divided between the realm of God (Islam) and the realm of Satan (Jews). In Milestones, he writes: “[The Jews’] aim is clearly shown by the Protocols [of the Elders of Zion]. The Jews are behind materialism, animal sexuality, the destruction of the family and the dissolution of society.”

In 1938, seven years before Israel was established, the Muslim Brotherhood led violent demonstrations against Egypt’s Jewish community. That same year, they organized the Parliamentary Conference for the Arab and Muslim Countries in Cairo, where they distributed Arabic translations of Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

In his , Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World, Jeffrey Herf explores the Nazi Party’s brief but intense efforts to gain support amongst Muslims in the Middle East. He details the prominent role played by Haj Amin al-Husseini, then the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. In 1937, Al-Husseini fled Palestine, evading arrest by the British for instigating the riots that became known as the Arab Revolt. The Grand Mufti had recruited armed militias to attack Jews but his efforts were ultimately unsuccessful.

By 1941, al-Husseini established himself in Nazi Germany and Italy. During the war, he collaborated with the Germans in their efforts to recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS. In 1945, the Grand Mufti was taken into custody by French troops but he escaped and settled in Cairo where he was welcomed with praise. The Muslim Brotherhood’s issued a to Al Misri that is still telling: “One hair of the Mufti’s is worth more than the Jews of the whole… should one hair of the Mufti’s be touched, every Jew in the world would be killed without”

That the Muslim Brotherhood was, and still to this day, inspired by fascism is a history that needs to be examined in greater detail. The Muslim Brotherhood has been able to establish itself as a moral, social and political force because of the guiding influence of the authoritarian ideologies that emerged in Europe during the interwar period. By studying the Muslim Brotherhood’s conception and development, we may come to better understand how such ideologies transcended the borders of Europe. 

[Naveed Ahsan edited this article.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Fascistic Tendencies in the Muslim Brotherhood appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Reed and Inhofe’s idea is to tuck their wartime amendment into the FY2023 National Defense Appropriation Act (NDAA) that will be passed during the lameduck session before the end of the year. The amendment sailed through the Armed Services Committee in mid-October and, if it becomes law, the Department of Defense will be allowed to lock in multi-year contracts and award non-competitive contracts to arms manufacturers for Ukraine-related weapons.

Plans to Spend Big on Weapons

If the Reed/Inhofe amendment is really at replenishing the Pentagon’s supplies, then why do the quantities in its wish list vastly surpass those to Ukraine? 

Biden’s Hyperbolic Fawning Before the CIA

READ MORE

Let’s do the comparison: 

1. The current star of US military aid to Ukraine is Lockheed Martin’s rocket system, the same weapon used to help reduce much of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, to in 2017. The US has only sent 38 HIMARS systems to Ukraine, but Senators Reed and Inhofe plan to “reorder” 700 of them, with 100,000 rockets, which could cost up to $4 billion.

2. Another artillery weapon provided to Ukraine is the 155 mm howitzer. To “replace” the 142 M777s sent to Ukraine, the senators plan to order 1,000 of them, at an estimated cost of  $3.7 billion, from BAE Systems.

3. HIMARS launchers can also fire Lockheed Martin’s long-range (up to 190 miles) ATACMS missiles, which the US has not sent to Ukraine. In fact the US has only ever fired 560 of them, mostly at Iraq in 2003. The even longer-range “,” formerly prohibited under the renounced by Trump, will start replacing the ATACMS in 2023, yet the Reed-Inhofe Amendment would buy 6,000 ATACMS, 10 times more than the US has ever used, at an estimated cost of $600 million. 

4. Reed and Inhofe plan to buy 20,000 anti-aircraft missiles from Raytheon. But Congress already spent $340 million for 2,800 Stingers to replace the 1,400 sent to Ukraine. Reed and Inhofe’s amendment will “re-replenish” the Pentagon’s stocks 14 times over, which could cost $2.4 billion.

5. The US has supplied Ukraine with only two Harpoon anti-ship missile systems — already a provocative escalation — but the amendment includes 1,000 Boeing missiles (at about $1.4 billion) and 800 newer Kongsberg (about $1.8 billion), the Pentagon’s replacement for the Harpoon.

6. The air defense system is another weapon the US has not sent to Ukraine, because each system can cost a billion dollars and the basic training course for technicians to maintain and repair it takes more than a year to complete. And yet the Inhofe-Reed wish list includes 10,000 Patriot missiles, plus launchers, which could add up to $30 billion.

Why So Much Spending?

ATACMS, Harpoons and Stingers are all weapons the Pentagon was already phasing out, so why spend billions of dollars to buy thousands of them now? What is this really all about? Is this amendment a particularly egregious example of war profiteering by the military-industrial- complex? Or is the US really preparing to fight a major ground war against Russia?  

Our best judgment is that both are true.

Is Ukraine Going too Far in its War?

READ MORE

Looking at the weapons list, military analyst and retired Marine Colonel Mark Cancian: “This isn’t replacing what we’ve given [Ukraine].  It’s building stockpiles for a major ground war [with Russia] in the future. This is not the list you would use for China. For China we’d have a very different list.”

President Joe Biden says he will not send US troops to fight Russia because that would be. But the longer the war goes on and the more it escalates, the more it becomes clear that US forces are directly involved in many aspects of the war: helping to Ukrainian operations; providing intelligence; waging; and inside Ukraine as special operations forces and CIA paramilitaries. Now Russia has accused British special operations forces of in a maritime drone attack on Sevastopol and the destruction of the Nord Stream gas pipelines. 

As US involvement in the war has escalated despite Biden’sbroken promises, the Pentagon must have drawn up contingency plans for a full-scale war between the US and Russia. If those plans are ever executed, and if they do not immediately trigger a world-ending, they will require vast quantities of specific weapons, and that is the purpose of the Reed-Inhofe stockpiles. 

At the same time, the amendment seems to respond to by the weapons manufacturers that the Pentagon was “moving too slowly” in spending the vast sums appropriated for Ukraine. While over $20 billion has been allocated for weapons, contracts to actually buy weapons for Ukraine and replace the ones sent there so far totaled only $2.7 billion by early November. 

“A Demand Signal” for Industry

So the expected arms sales bonanza had not yet materialized, and the weapons makers were getting impatient. With the increasingly calling for diplomatic negotiations, if Congress didn’t get moving, the war might be over before the arms makers’ much-anticipated jackpot ever arrived.

Mark Cancian to DefenseNews, “We’ve been hearing from industry, when we talk to them about this issue, that they want to see a demand signal.”

Business Insider Makes the Case for Nuclear War

READ MORE

When the Reed-Inhofe Amendment sailed through committee in mid-October, it was clearly the “demand signal” the merchants of death were looking for. The stock prices of Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics took off like anti-aircraft missiles, exploding to all-time highs by the end of the month.

Julia Gledhill, an analyst at the Project on Government Oversight, decried the wartime emergency provisions in the amendment, saying it “further deteriorates already weak guardrails in place to prevent corporate price gouging of the military.” 

Opening the doors to multi-year, non-competitive, multi-billion dollar military contracts shows how the American people are trapped in a vicious spiral of war and military spending. Each new war becomes a pretext for further increases in military spending, much of it unrelated to the current war that provides cover for the increase. Military budget analyst Carl Conetta demonstrated (see) in 2010, after years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, that “those operations account(ed) for only 52% of the surge” in US military spending during that period.

Andrew Lautz of the National Taxpayers’ Union now calculates that the base Pentagon budget will exceed by 2027, five years earlier than projected by the Congressional Budget Office. But if we factor in at least $230 billion per year in military-related costs in the budgets of other departments, like Energy (for nuclear weapons), Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, Justice (FBI cybersecurity), and State, national insecurity spending has already hit the trillion dollar per year mark, gobbling up of annual discretionary spending.

America’s exorbitant investment in each new generation of weapons makes it nearly impossible for politicians of either party to recognize, let alone admit to the public, that American weapons and wars have been the cause of many of the world’s problems, not the solution, and that they cannot solve the latest foreign policy crisis either. 

Senators Reed and Inhofe will defend their amendment as a prudent step to deter and prepare for a Russian escalation of the war, but the spiral of escalation we are locked into is not one-sided. It is the result of escalatory actions by both sides, and the huge arms build-up authorized by this amendment is a dangerously provocative escalation by the US side that will increase the danger of the world war that Biden has promised to avoid.

After the catastrophic wars and ballooning US military budgets of the past 25 years, we should be wise by now to the escalatory nature of the vicious spiral in which we are caught. And after flirting with Armageddon for 45 years in the last Cold War, we should also be wise to the existential danger of engaging in this kind of brinkmanship with nuclear-armed Russia. So, if we are wise, we will oppose the Reed/Inhofe Amendment.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post New Congressional Amendment Benefits War Profiteers, Risks World War III appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Apart from the question of why anyone in a democratic society should consider isolating a group of one’s own citizens who hold an opinion different from the state’s, even on such a critical issue as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a more serious question arises. Why did President Levits single out a certain ethno-linguistic group as an object of possible reprisals? The fact that the next day his tried to interpret the Latvian leader’s words in the sense that all residents of the country must comply with the law adds little clarity here. Most likely, the man, who is president of the EU and of a state that is a member of NATO, made the statement based on a simplistic association between Russian speaking and Russia.

Associative xenophobia is a form of bias directed against persons one associates with a particular state and its policies. It is an old problem in Europe. Until recently, it was routinely applied to discriminate against Jews. A “new anti-Semitism” has emerged, directed both against Jews, who by association with Israel are deemed responsible for the policies of this country, and directly against Israel as a Jewish state. It is no secret that in countries such as France, Belgium, Britain and a number of others, there has beena clear between outbreaks of violent anti-Semitism and the escalation of the Arab-Israeli conflict. 

Vladimir Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine Has Made Russia a Pariah for a Long, Long Time

READ MORE

This phenomenon appears widespread. For example, a CNN poll conducted in September 2018 in seven Western European countries found that more than a quarter of respondents (28%) said that anti-Semitism in their countries was a response to the actions of the state of Israel. A third of those surveyed believed Israel was using the Holocaust to justify its actions. And a third of Europeans said supporters of Israel were using accusations of anti-Semitism to stifle criticism of Israel. Only one in ten this was not true. 33% of the French in 2018 that “Israel is more important to Jews than France.” In a Friedrich Ebert Foundation in 2021 13% of Germans said that Jews are responsible for the actions and policies of the State of Israel, while in Britain14% that “association with Israel has made Jews less loyal to their country.”

Tracing the recent history of Russian xenophobia

After Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the beginning of the conflict in eastern Ukraine in 2014, associative xenophobia in Western countries, especially in Europe, has gradually spread to Russians and Russian speakers in general, regardless of their citizenship.

For example, European websites began to publish content presenting Russian speaking tourists as always drunk, noisy, thieving and behaving like  hooligans., This was actively promoted by the Ukrainian media, which built its policy of discrimination against Russians into a tool of psychological warfare.

At the same time, between 2015 and 2018, Ukraine and Latvia passed laws that sharply curtailed Russian-language education in national minority schools, causing sharp among Russian-speaking residents of those countries.

Making Sense of Vladimir Putin’s Long Game

READ MORE

However, after Russia began its invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, the situation changed fundamentally and took on a broader character, encompassing not only the domestic but also a diversity of public spheres. Unfortunately, no one has conducted a serious sociological research on the attitude of Europeans toward Russians and Russian-speakers. But there is a that this attitude is more negative than the attitude toward Jews. To a large extent, this was facilitated by the Russian invasion itself, which caused a sharp in trust in Russia among Europeans. 

This had a direct effect on members of the Russian diaspora in Europe. For example, in Germany there have been cases of denial of service to Russian-speaking people in catering establishments. There have been cases of arbitrary treatment of Russian-speaking students at European universities. For example, Professor Martin Dlougy, who teaches at the Higher School of Economics in Prague (VSE), kicked Russian students out of classes and wrote on his Facebook page that “he will not teach Russians.” These are his personal

Obstacles have been artificially created for the of business related to Russia and Russian citizens, regardless of whether this business is under European sanctions or not. There is information that waiters and receptionists in hotelsrefuse to Russian-speaking people or serve them below any level of service.

President Zelensky’s lobbying

In August – September 2022, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Estonia and a number of other countries announced the abolition of tourist visas for Russians, regardless of their political views. This effectively threatened the stay of oppositionists in these countries, including opposition journalists, as well as ordinary people in general holding a negative view of Putin’s regime. To a large extent, this practice has been encouraged by Ukrainian lobbying. President Volodymyr Zelensky his position in the following terms: 

“Whichever kind of Russian … make them go to Russia. They’ll understand then. They’ll say, ‘This [war] has nothing to do with us. The whole population can’t be held responsible, can it?’ It can. The population picked this government and they’re not fighting it, not arguing with it, not shouting at it. “Don’t you want this isolation?” Zelensky added, speaking as if he were addressing Russians directly. “You’re telling the whole world that it must live by your rules. Then go and live there. This is the only way to influence Putin,”” he told The Washington Post on August 8, 2022.

For Vladimir Putin, Survival Is All That Matters

READ MORE

Estonian Prime Minister tweeted on August 9: “Stop issuing tourist visas to Russians. Visiting Europe is a privilege, not a human right.”The theoretical dispute as to whether the ban on Russians entering Europe discriminates on the basis of citizenship, an action that runs counter to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or whether it is a normal practice, has not ceased until now. However, as early as August 2022, Estonian authorities began to practice of tourist Schengen visas for Russian citizens, including those issued in third countries.

Meanwhile, article 32(1)of the European Regulation No (Visa Code) states that neither the nationality nor ethnicity of a person can be a reason to refuse a Schengen visa. Moreover, if the refusal of a visa is motivated by a particular nationality, the court of any EU state is obliged to overturn the decision to refuse. However, the new reasons for visa refusal, not mentioned in the quoted document, require a full legislative cycle, including a qualified majority in the EU Council and the European Parliament. 

Nevertheless, a number of countries allowing Russians with Schengen visas to enter their territory on September 19. That means they are placing a collective responsibility on Russian citizens for the actions of their government. Moreover if we take into account repeated by the European media that elections in Russia have long been rigged, this decision becomes even more questionable. In Israel, for example, the responsibility of all citizens for the actions of the government of their country, despite free elections, is not assumed. Thanks  to secret ballots no one knows who has supported any particular candidate or party.

A massive injustice affecting millions of innocent people

However, this reasoning has had little effect on the position of many people in Europe regarding the responsibility of all Russian citizens for the actions of their government. And yet there are almost one million living in Europe. This attitude even affects other Russian-speaking people who are not citizens of the Russian Federation. These people already outnumber Russian citizens by a wide margin. The number of people included in the Russian-speaking diaspora in the world is estimated at Germany alone has about five million Russian speakers, a number significantly greater than the population of Jews in all of Europe. No one has inquired about their views on policies discriminating against Russians, but it is now evident that quite a large number of people in the world, including politicians, hold them responsible for Moscow’s actions.

In fact, we are dealing with the above-mentioned phenomenon of associative xenophobia, which is gradually spreading from eastern to western Europe and to all democratic countries. The so-called “new anti-Semitism” is now accompanied by the “new Russophobia”. Behind both is the desire to sweep people of certain origins “under one roof,” to make them in the eyes of public opinion responsible for the actions of the countries with which most Europeans associate them.

A look at the discussions in the Baltic, Finnish, or Polish segments of the Meta’s social network (Facebook)  gives a clear idea of how the “new Russophobia” is becoming increasingly popular in those countries. This trend is similar to  the phenomenon previously identified in Fance and the UK as the “new anti-Semitism,” link to the of aggravation of tensions in the Middle East. 

History has certainly seen other examples of the attribution of collective responsibility. Many of them ended in tragedy. People who try to revive these traditions today — no longer politicians only, but also ordinary European people — do not usually associate them with past events. It does not even occur to them that the new level of risk they are creating in Europe may be significantly higher than those they believe they are fighting today.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Associative Xenophobia in Europe: a New Old Trend appeared first on 51�Թ�.

As the Crimea attacks indicate, Ukraine has not been shy about launching operations inside Russian-occupied territory. Artillery provided by the United States—the HIMARS multiple rocket launcher—has seriously weakened Russian forces located dozens of miles behind the front line. Ukraine has also relied on operatives in enemy territory to provide the information necessary to destroy Russian infrastructure, like a base run by the Russian paramilitary outfit in Luhansk province. Partisan outfits like the Free Ukraine Resistance Movement have taken out arms depots and collaborators.

There’s a good reason why Russian recruits don’t want to to Ukraine and become cannon fodder.

Ukraine Adopts Offense

More controversially, Ukraine has expanded the war to the Russian mainland. In August and September, Ukrainian forces military installations in the Belgorod region just over the border in Russia. The US government that the Ukrainians were behind the August 20 assassination attempt on prominent Putin advisor Alexander Dugin that killed his daughter.

Chorus for Peace in Ukraine Sings Louder

READ MORE

Russia has retaliated even as it has fallen back. With the help of Iranian drones, it has launched aerial attacks throughout Ukraine, knocking out about of the country’s energy infrastructure. Russia, a petrostate dependent on its fossil fuel sales, has also managed to 90 percent of Ukraine’s wind power and half its solar energy generation, a grim reminder that this is a battle not just between two states but between two different visions of the future.

The latest risk, with Russian forces preparing to retreat from Kherson, is the destruction, partial or total, of the Kakhovka hydroelectric facility. Blowing up the dam, which is located about 45 miles north and east of Kherson, would deprive Ukraine of electricity. The release of all that stored water would complicate Ukraine’s efforts to recapture that territory. On the other hand, it would also disrupt water supply to Crimea via the North Crimean canal, which is certainly not in Russia’s interest. And it would compromise the functioning of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which is certainly not in anyone’s interest.

The ultimate risk is that Russia will use a nuclear weapon. Although such an escalation would bring little—and likely drive a wedge between the Kremlin and wavering allies like China—Vladimir Putin has shown a willingness in the past to cross red lines.

Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky was originally determined to repel Russian invaders and reestablish the pre-February territorial status quo. That objective has shifted after Ukraine’s successful counteroffensive, and now Zelensky and eject Russian forces from all of the Donbas region and Crimea as well. This more ambitious goal troubles about more aggressive Russian responses.

So, will Ukraine’s battlefield successes make Russian escalation more likely and an eventual peace agreement less so? In other words, should Ukraine “cut its wins” and negotiate with Russia now from a position of relative strength? And should the United States put pressure on Ukraine to make such a deal?

Getting to Compromise

Back in May, Henry Kissinger made the case that Ukraine should (a position I argued against ). John Marks, the founder of the venerable Search for Common Ground, made a similar case, but from a somewhat different starting point:

Despite the determination of Ukrainians and the assistance provided by NATO countries, continued fighting is likely to result in Ukraine ceasing to be a viable country. The only way out would seem to be a negotiated agreement in which Ukraine would retain its national independence and Russia would also achieve some of its aims. Otherwise, neither side would be likely to agree.

Continued fighting over the last six months, of course, has resulted in the opposite: Ukraine has preserved its viability as a country by fighting with redoubled determination. In theory, Ukraine could have traded territory for peace back in the spring. But theory plus a quarter will get you a gumdrop.

In reality, Russia wasn’t interested in negotiating because the Kremlin still harbored greater territorial ambitions. Meanwhile, on the other side of the imaginary negotiating table, there is no evidence that the United States or the UK pressured Ukraine to continue fighting rather than accept a supposed olive branch, despite claims to the . Indeed, the Zelensky government deeply distrusted the Kremlin. Russian war crimes and consolidation of rule in occupied territories fueled this , not anything Boris Johnson or the Biden administration might have said to him.

And yet, this notion that Ukraine must compromise—and the United States must effectively twist its arm to do so—remains a persistent theme among certain segments of the peace movement. Consider this from the Quincy Institute, which shows that Americans by a rather slim margin (49 percent to 37 percent) believe that the US government should do more diplomatically to end the war in Ukraine. A somewhat larger percentage of all voters (57 percent) strongly or somewhat strongly support the United States pursuing diplomatic negotiations even if Ukraine has to make compromises.

On the basis of these findings, Quincy concludes that “Americans want to see an end to this brutal and bloody war, and dread the potential costs and impacts a drawn-out conflict may have on Ukrainians, Americans, and the world.” Well, who doesn’t want to see an end to the war? And who doesn’t dread potential costs and impacts?

As for Washington doing more diplomatically, how feasible is such a suggestion? After all, the United States is an active party to the conflict and therefore not an honest broker. Of course, Washington should keep open channels of communication with the Kremlin. But other than warning the Russians not to escalate and outlining various deterrent measures, what can the Biden administration do without going behind the backs of the Ukrainians?

The challenge of urging diplomacy at this moment can be readily seen in this week’s kerfuffle involving the Progressive Caucus. After releasing urging the Biden administration to do more diplomatically to end the war, it had to turn around and the document after some signatories objected to its timing. They’d signed the letter back in June or July, and facts had meanwhile changed on the ground. Moreover, the letter risked becoming just another voice urging the Ukrainians to “compromise” in a chorus of disreputables that includes Elon Musk, Tulsi Gabbard, and Trumpists in the Republican Party.

To Save Ukraine, America Must Help Europe

READ MORE

The diplomatic overture suggested by both the retracted letter and the Quincy poll—not stated but strongly implied—would be that the United States persuade Ukraine to give up its recently expanded goal of retaking the Donbas and Crimea. In other words, behind this talk of compromise lurks the same quid pro quo raised by Kissinger: land for peace. In another context, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, progressives have urged a similar formula—but exactly in reverse. It is the aggressor country, Israel, that is expected to to the Palestinians in order to secure amicable relations.

Who among those urging more diplomacy and greater commitment to compromise is asking Russia to give up territory in order to achieve peace?

Avoiding Nuclear War

The use of nuclear weapons is a trump card. Putin supposedly is considering playing this card if backed into a corner. But it is also a card played by those urging Ukraine to compromise: it’s not worth blowing up the world just so that Ukraine can recover a few scraps of land.

This is a version of the “worst consequences” argument. Ukrainian battlefield successes will only bring greater suffering to the Ukrainian people because of Russian aerial retaliation. Such successes also put Europeans at greater risk because of Russian energy retaliation. And then there’s the suffering of the Global South because of Russian agricultural retaliation. This suffering is very real. But this formulation is also the geopolitical version of a shakedown: if you don’t kiss his ring and heed his threats, the mafioso don promises to rub out not only you but your entire extended family.

The Ukrainians have demonstrated that they’re willing to accept these consequences. According to in mid-September, a solid majority of 70 percent of Ukrainians prefer to fight until they win against Russia. Only 26 percent favor negotiations to end the war immediately. Europeans, meanwhile, have more mixed views with for military assistance to Ukraine and sanctions against Russia, but in Germany and France for a more immediate diplomatic solution. 

Russian Military Rout in Ukraine has Major Implications for the MENA Region

READ MORE

Significantly, French President Emmanuel Macron, who had previously been the greatest advocate of a deal that doesn’t humiliate Russia, that Ukraine must “choose the moment and the terms” of any peace deal. The successful Ukrainian counterattack has stiffened the backbone of its wavering defenders.

No one, of course, wants to deal with the consequences of nuclear war. It’s hard to rule out the possibility that Putin authorizes the use of tactical nuclear weapons, given the tensions in US-Russian relations and the tendency of the Russian president to “damn the torpedoes.” But it’s also hard to imagine that Russia would actively plan a nuclear option, even a limited one. The Kremlin has taken great pains to avoid a direct confrontation with NATO. For instance, although it has threatened to bomb the convoys of weapons coming from the West, Russia has .

The fact that Putin even considers the use of nuclear weapons is a great failure of US policy as well. Successive administrations have normalized nuclear weapons by developing various tactical variants. Although arms control agreements have limited and even reduced numbers of strategic—or long-range—nuclear weapons, so-called battlefield nukes have never been subject to any limitations (other than self-imposed ones). The United States 100 nuclear gravity bombs (out of 200 in the US arsenal) in five European countries. Fortunately, the Biden administration a Trump proposal to revive nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles, but these weapons could make a comeback in a future Republican administration.

The United States must plan for a post-war security order that takes real steps toward nuclear disarmament, with tactical nukes included in the negotiating process. It isn’t good enough any longer for a U.S. president to pledge, as Obama did, to get to zero nukes at some vague point in the future.

Going Too Far

Some administration officials are clearly uncomfortable with Ukrainian efforts to bring the war directly to Russian soil. That’s why they leaked their intel on Ukrainian involvement in the attempted assassination of Dugin. True, the United States is providing Ukraine with considerable information and technology to help with targeting Russian assets, for instance and to . But both the United States and Europe are trying to tread a fine line: inflict losses on Russia without triggering a direct confrontation. So, for instance, the West has refused to impose a no-fly zone above Ukraine. It has also not acceded to Ukrainian requests for longer-range artillery () and fighter jets, precisely the weapons Ukraine would need to attack deeper into Russian-occupied territory or into Russia itself.

Unfortunately, there is no such restraining hand on the Russian side. Putin can order as many punishing air strikes of Ukrainian cities and infrastructure as his arsenal allows. He can engage in as many war crimes as he deems necessary, since he doesn’t seem particularly bothered by international condemnation. There is no significant anti-war counterforce within Russia with which Putin has to negotiate. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. He faces hardline nationalists and more aggressive military bloggers who want him to prosecute the war more vigorously.

So, let’s be honest. The side that needs to compromise is Russia. So far, it shows no sign of such willingness. The annexation of the Donbas regions suggests a maximalist position. That annexation will not likely be reversed at the negotiation table—imagine Putin trying to sell such a loss to a population that thinks this war is a threat to its very existence—so Ukraine feels compelled to reclaim that territory by force.

Ideally the rule of law should prevail over the rule of force. But Russia blew a gaping hole through that principle by invading Ukraine in the first place. The few forays into Russian territory that Ukraine has made—the one assassination, the couple of attacks—do little to alter the fundamental asymmetry of this war whereby Russian soldiers kill Ukrainian civilians with impunity and Ukrainians are fighting for their very lives.

In other words, Ukraine has a long way to go before it has gone too far.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Is Ukraine Going too Far in its War? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

US President Joe Biden has boldly claimed that the war in Ukraine will last “as long as it takes,” clearly meaning that the US will do everything in its power to make it last. For the media, that means months, if not years of sensational war stories as well as continuous coverage of a talented Ukrainian actor in the role of president. But the idea of another forever war stretching out for years to come risks turning off a population weary of being told that growing domestic problems are less important than the sacred duty of fueling a conflict in Eastern Europe.

Fortunately, Vladimir Putin’s sometimes heated rhetoric has allowed Joe Biden to feed the media with some authentic fear by evoking the risk of Armageddon, a term that should certainly resonate with Christan fundamentalists. It also revives for those who are old enough to remember memories of the golden years of the real Cold War, when people were investing in bomb shelters. It was a time when, at any random moment, Americans might be spontaneously visited by the vision of a mushroom-shaped cloud suddenly appearing at the end of the road stretching out before them as they drove back home from work. By the mid-1960s, they could begin wondering whether the hippies hadn’t made the right decision of tuning in, turning on and dropping out. That was truly a period of nuclear optimism. Thanks to the hippies, American consumers felt they still had a choice. Even learned “to stop worrying and love the bomb.”

The hyperreal ocean of electronic media we bathe in today has changed our perception of the very real risks that surround us. No one under the age of 50 today can truly appreciate the deeper anguish that characterized the nuclear age during the original Cold War. A in Insider from last Saturday epitomizes the change of atmosphere:“Putin’s nuclear threats are pushing people like Trump and Elon Musk to press for a Ukraine peace deal. A nuclear expert warns that’s ‘dangerous.’”

Yes, peace has become dangerous. The first paragraph makes its case: “An understandable desire to avoid a nuclear war could actually make the world more dangerous if it means rushing to implement a ‘peace’ in Ukraine that serves Russian interests, an expert told Insider.”

�մǻ岹��’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Understandable desire:

A temptation whose attraction appears legitimate while recognizing that no virtuous person should succumb to it

Contextual note

The journal provides the author, Charles R. Davis, with the title, “Senior Reporter at Insider.” Senior clearly means experienced and well-paid. It does not mean over 50. Like many younger journalists, Davis believes his job starts with communicating his (and his journal’s) values to his readers even before reporting the news. He effectively does so by expressing his condescending judgment of weak-minded people who succumb to their “understandable” desires. The value he adheres to is the hallowed American ideal of assertiveness, or in this case, extreme assertiveness. The enemy of assertiveness is humility and a culpable preference for “peace” over war. It is usually referred to as appeasement.

Davis takes the astonishing step of accusing Donald Trump and Elon Musk of failing to be adequately assertive. But that is not all. They have failed in their civic duty for a specific reason: their unreasoned fear of nuclear war. They fail to understand that nuclear war is not something to fear. It is a useful concept real Americans must learn to enthusiastically embrace, not as a desired outcome of their actions, but as the trump card Americans play in the favorite game practiced by the daring minds on Wall Street:.

The reasoning of people like Davis – and the same may paradoxically be said of Joe Biden, though he is clearly over 50 – reposes on the belief that nuclear war is too surreal to ever become real. Davis clearly agrees with the man he interviewed, Pavel Podvig, “an expert on Russia’s nuclear doctrine and capabilities at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research.” As is common in today’s journalism, instead of challenging the “expert,” Davis prefers to record uncritically his assertions and denigrate the reasoning of his critics.

Davis begins subtly, by attempting to sound objective when describing what he holds to be the position of Tump, Musk  and other Kremlin apologists and spineless appeasers. “Some observers, in good or bad faith,” Davis writes, “have cited the possibility of the unthinkable as all the more reason to negotiate a ceasefire and have at times criticized the US administration they see as leading the world to the precipice of nuclear conflict with its steady stream of aid to Ukraine.”

By inserting “in good or bad faith” in the opening clause, Davis calls into question the sincerity of the critics. More significantly, by focusing on the fear of a nuclear holocaust, he consciously omits another complementary and more substantial argument: that extended wars spreading massive suffering locally and across the globe are in no one’s interest. They merit being resolved rather than prolonged “as long as it takes.”

The recent forever wars in Afghanistan and Iraq should offer convincing evidence of the validity of a futile course of action that has nothing to do with a nuclear threat. But Davis clearly assumes his mission of using the nuclear pretext to justify the White House’s adamant position that negotiations are out of the question. Davis dismisses that position as “capitulation, dressed up in a universal desire for peace.”

This is clearly not reporting. It is the language of bellicose propaganda.

Historical note

According to MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, Trump, as president, asked a foreign policy expert the, “if we have nuclear weapons, why can’t we use them?” Any moral philosopher would consider the question legitimate and probably necessary. Anyone with access to nuclear devices should seek to answer that question. But the anecdote served the virulently anti-Trump media agenda of mocking what they viewed as Trump’s failure to comprehend what everyone in Washington understands without ever having to ask or answer the question.

It’s not, after all, as if no ambiguity exists. Fifty years ago, in November 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis in a meeting with President John F Kennedy, General Curtis LeMay, a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advocated nuking Cuba. He had obviously framed his own answer to Trump’s future question. Historian David Coleman the scene. “LeMay had told Kennedy that the course the President had settled on – a naval blockade of Cuba – was a bad idea and was ‘almost as bad as the appeasement at Munich.’ And at another point of this November 16 meeting, he advocated “solving” the problem, by which he meant implementing CINCLANT OPLAN 312-62, the air attack plan for Cuba.”

It was only decades later that the world learned about Kennedy’s choice of negotiating directly with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev rather than risking nuclear war. What had to remain hidden from the public and even the Chiefs of Staff was the major concession Kennedy made to remove the nuclear arsenal the US had installed in Turkey targeting Russia.

Davis somewhat comically believes that by pursuing its belligerent goal of weakening Russia “the US and its allies could hold onto the moral high ground.” Does he really believe the global community perceives the US as being a moral actor? Countries representing the overwhelming majority of the world’s population have, alas, evinced what Davis should acknowledge as an “understandable desire” for peace and avoiding nuclear war.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Insider Makes the Case for Nuclear War appeared first on 51�Թ�.

It is widely acknowledged that US and NATO officers are now in Ukraine’s operational war planning, aided by a broad range of US and analysis to exploit Russia’s military vulnerabilities, while Ukrainian forces are armed with US and NATO weapons and trained up to the standards of other NATO countries.

On October 5, Nikolay Patrushev, the head of Russia’s Security Council, that Russia is now fighting NATO in Ukraine. Meanwhile, President Vladimir Putin has reminded the world that Russia has nuclear weapons and is prepared to use them “when the very existence of the state is put under threat,” as Russia’s official nuclear weapons doctrine declared in June 2020. 

It seems likely that, under that doctrine, Russia’s leaders would interpret losing a war to the United States and NATO on their own borders as meeting the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons.  

Constant escalation has created a no-win situation

Biden on October 6 that Putin is “not joking” and that it would be difficult for Russia to use a “tactical” nuclear weapon “and not end up with Armageddon.” Biden assessed the danger of a full-scale as higher than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. 

Yet despite voicing the possibility of an existential threat to our survival, Biden was not issuing a public warning to the American people and the world, nor announcing any change in US policy. Bizarrely, the president was instead discussing the prospect of nuclear war with his political party’s financial backers during an election fundraiser at the home of media mogul James Murdoch, with surprised corporate media reporters listening in.  

In an about the danger of nuclear war over Ukraine, Matthew Bunn, a nuclear weapons expert at Harvard University, estimated the chance of Russia using a nuclear weapon at 10 to 20%.

How have we gone from ruling out direct US and NATO involvement in the war to US involvement in all aspects of the war except for the bleeding and dying, with an estimated 10 to 20% chance of nuclear war? Bunn made that estimate shortly before the sabotage of the Kerch Strait Bridge to Crimea. What odds will he project a few months from now if both sides keep matching each other’s escalations with further escalation?    

The irresolvable dilemma facing Western leaders is that this is a no-win situation. How can they militarily defeat Russia, when it possesses 6,000 and its military doctrine explicitly states that it will use them before it will accept an existential military defeat? 

And yet that is what the intensifying Western role in Ukraine now explicitly aims to achieve. This leaves US and NATO policy, and thus our very existence, hanging by a thin thread: the hope that Putin is bluffing, despite explicit warnings that he is not. CIA Director , Director of National Intelligence and the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Lieutenant General, have all warned that we should not take this danger lightly.

The danger of relentless escalation toward Armageddon is what both sides faced throughout the Cold War, which is why, after the wake-up call of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, dangerous brinkmanship gave way to a framework of nuclear arms control agreements and safeguard mechanisms to prevent proxy wars and military alliances spiraling into a world-ending nuclear war. Even with those safeguards in place, there were still many close calls—but without them, we would probably not be here to write about it.

Mistakes by the West have escalated conflict

Today, the situation is made more dangerous by the dismantling of those nuclear arms treaties and safeguards. It is also exacerbated, whether either side intends it or not, by the imbalance between US and Russian military spending, which leaves Russia with more limited conventional military options and a greater reliance on nuclear ones.

But there have always been alternatives to the relentless escalation of this war by both sides that has brought us to this pass. In April, took a fateful step when they persuaded President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to abandon Turkish- and Israeli-brokered negotiations with Russia that had produced a promising for a ceasefire, a Russian withdrawal and a neutral future for Ukraine.

That agreement would have required Western countries to provide security guarantees to Ukraine, but they refused to be party to it and instead promised Ukraine military support for a long war to try to decisively defeat Russia and recover all the territory Ukraine had lost since 2014.   

US Defense Secretary Austin declared that the West’s goal in the war was now to to the point that it would no longer have the military power to invade Ukraine again. But if the United States and its allies ever came close to achieving that goal, Russia would surely see such a total military defeat as putting “the very existence of the state under threat,” triggering the use of nuclear weapons under its publicly stated nuclear doctrine.   

On May 23, the very day that Congress passed a $40 billion aid package for Ukraine, including $24 billion in new military spending, the contradictions and dangers of the new US-NATO war policy in Ukraine finally spurred a critical response from The New York Times (NYT) Editorial Board. A NYT , titled “The Ukraine War is Getting Complicated, and America Is Not Ready,” asked serious, probing questions about the new US policy:

“Is the United States, for example, trying to help bring an end to this conflict, through a settlement that would allow for a sovereign Ukraine and some kind of relationship between the United States and Russia? Or is the United States now trying to weaken Russia permanently? Has the administration’s goal shifted to destabilizing Putin or having him removed? Does the United States intend to hold Putin accountable as a war criminal? Or is the goal to try to avoid a wider war…? Without clarity on these questions, the White House…jeopardizes long-term peace and security on the European continent.”

The NYT editors went on to voice what many have thought but few have dared to say in such a politicized media environment, that the goal of recovering all the territory Ukraine has lost since 2014 is not realistic, and that a war to do so will “inflict untold destruction on Ukraine.” They called on Biden to talk honestly with Zelenskyy about “how much more destruction Ukraine can sustain” and the “limit to how far the United States and NATO will confront Russia.”

President Joe Biden leaves many questions unanswered

A week later, Biden to the NYT in an Op-Ed titled “What America Will and Will Not Do in Ukraine.” He quoted Zelenskyy saying that the war “will only definitively end through diplomacy,” and wrote that the United States was sending weapons and ammunition so that Ukraine “can fight on the battlefield and be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.” 

Biden wrote, “We do not seek a war between NATO and Russia.…the United States will not try to bring about [Putin’s] ouster in Moscow.” But he went on to pledge virtually unlimited US support for Ukraine, and he did not answer the more difficult questions the NYT asked about the US endgame in Ukraine, the limits to US involvement in the war or how much more devastation Ukraine could sustain.

As the war escalates and the danger of nuclear war increases, these questions remain unanswered. Calls for a speedy end to the war echoed around the UN General Assembly in New York in September, where, representing most of the world’s population, urgently called on all sides to restart peace talks.  

The greatest danger we face is that their calls will be ignored, and that the US military-industrial complex’s overpaid minions will keep finding ways to incrementally turn up the pressure on Russia, calling its bluff and ignoring its “red lines” as they have since 1991, until they cross the most critical “red line” of all.If the world’s calls for peace are heard before it is too late and we survive this crisis, the United States and Russia must renew their commitments to arms control and nuclear disarmament, and negotiate how they and other nuclear armed states their weapons of mass destruction and accede to the for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, so that we can finally lift this unthinkable and unacceptable danger hanging over our heads.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Big Danger After Biden’s Broken Promise on Russia appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The indirect talks – Iranian negotiators refuse to meet face-to-face with their American counterparts, forcing the two sides to work through EU intermediators – ceased back in August after 16 months of fitful, inconclusive meetings. The Iranians have claimed their willingness to return to the table once the US side adopts “reasonable” positions. For its part, the US has stated the Iranians need to accept a “realistic approach.”

Obstacles in the Road

The ostensible reasons for the hiatus, however, appear more rooted in a couple of sticky issues for which no compromise may be possible. First, Iran has sought a binding commitment from the US side that the US will not abrogate a new accord, as then President Donald Trump did in 2018. US negotiators have responded clearly and unambiguously that no such guarantee can be extended beyond the administration of current President Joe Biden. In fact, the closest offer that could be made would be to submit a new JCPOA to the US Senate for ratification. The Biden administration has no such intention. And with good reason. There is precisely zero chance that it would secure the two-thirds majority necessary for approval. Even Senators from the president’s own party might vote against it. Senate ratification of the JCPOA will not happen and the administration would be beyond foolish to even contemplate submitting it.

The second issue holding up an accords renewal is the matter of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards investigation of past Iranian nuclear activities. These investigations date back to Iran’s alleged early work on, and development of a nuclear weapons program starting in 2002. As part of a JCPOA renewal, Iran is insisting that the investigations be closed. The US, unlike in the 2015 agreement, asserts it has no authority to order the IAEA to halt the investigations. In 2015, when the IAEA was under different leadership, the US and other parties to the JCPOA prevailed upon the IAEA to close the investigations file. 

Following the US departure from the JCPOA and the change of leadership in the international organization, investigations resumed and still remain uncompleted. IAEA’s new Director General, Rafael Grossi, who assumed his position in December 2019, has made clear his intention to fulfill his organization’s mandate to complete the investigations and file a final report. It is very likely that his report will detail Iranian perfidy during the early 2000s to cover up its nuclear weapons development program, which would be a violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty to which Iran is a signatory.

So, these are the known gaps that remain before any new accord, or accord renewal, may be concluded. But there are also political concerns over a renewal on both the American and Iranian sides.

Procrastination Is Their Friend, for Now

The Iranians most certainly know that the Biden administration and its negotiators cannot agree to a forever agreement that binds future US administrations. Moreover, the Iranians also know that the administration would not send a newly negotiated accord to the US Senate where it would encounter certain defeat. Nor would such a move  would serve Iranian interests. What the Iranians would like to have, however, is some certainty that the new JCPOA would last long enough that key economic benefits accruing to them – for example, lifting of financial sanctions and resumption of oil exports – would last long enough to jump start an inescapably deteriorating Iranian economy. A renewed agreement would likely boost the government’s standing among the Iranian people whose incomes and standard of living have been declining steadily since 2012.

Enter American politics. The Iranians know full well that Mr. Biden’s Democratic Party faces a key test next month in America’s midterm elections, whose outcome will determine control of the US House of Representatives and Senate. Current polls indicate a slim Republican advantage in the House elections and a too-close-to-call result in the Senate. Of late, however, Democrats’ fortunes seem to be improving.

Therefore, the Iranian reasoning may be that continued Democratic control of the Congress could be an indicator – albeit a far from conclusive one – of Democratic fortunes in the 2024 elections. The prospect of a Democrat in the White House through 2028 might just represent enough time to persuade the Iranians that a five-six year window is enough to risk signing a renewed JCPOA, without a clause binding future administrations. Therefore, waiting until after the early November elections may appear to serve Iranian interests.

The suspension also serves the interests of the US administration. With signs that voters’ sympathies may be tipping his and his party’s way, Joe Biden would be foolish to insert what would inevitably become an at-best highly controversial national security issue into the elections debate. Had he done so, Democratic party candidates and serving members of Congress would run for the exits, ducking any possibility of having to defend it, whatever its contents. Republican candidates would revel in its inadequacies and browbeat Democratic opponents. So, tabling the discussions for now is plain common political sense.

And After America’s Congressional Elections?

What then becomes of the talks after the November 8 elections? The administration’s desire to conclude the talks and reach an agreement remains real. US positions on the forever binding pledge and IAEA investigations aren’t going to change. It’ll still be “take it or leave it;” that is, the current text as it read back in August.

But pressures on the Iranian regime are increasing daily. Witness the demonstrations gaining momentum across Iran following the regime’s killing of Mahsa Amini. Iranian women, and Iranian men, too, seek greater liberty under the current theocratic regime’s oppressive control. Many demonstrators also seek greater economic opportunity and an improved standard of living. A renewed JCPOA could potentially raise hopes for the latter aspirations and, in the minds of the mullahs, assuage demonstrators. But no JCPOA, whatever its guise, is going to induce the regime to relax political control.

So, domestic politics is undoubtedly playing an outsize role in the fortunes of the JCPOA. For now, that plays into the hands of both sides. Nevertheless, after November 8, the JCPOA faces a very uncertain future that even life support may not be able to sustain.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Iran Nuclear Deal is Dead: R.I.P. JCPOA? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In its lengthy and sometimes bloody confrontations with Azerbaijan, Armenia is backed by Moscow.  Azerbaijan is a of Ukraine. In Azerbaijan’s 2020 war with Armenia, Turkish proved decisive. The Russian defeat has severely tarnished President Vladimir Putin’s image as a bold and pragmatic warrior. Does this mean Türkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will grab opportunities to advance his influence in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region at the expense of the Russians?

Russia and Türkiye play the great game over Syria

Perhaps this question will most likely be answered in Syria. Russia and Türkiye pursued a “frenemy” approach to the civil war. In the early years of the war, Türkiye heavily backed efforts to overthrow the Hafez al-Assad regime. Indeed, untilRussia’s intervention in 2015, Türkiye seemed to be headed to success in that venture.

On Ukraine, Turkey Is Moving Cautiously Toward the West

READ MORE

Putin’s decision to support Assad was dictated by fears of losing a longstanding ally and therefore influence in a key MENA state. The Russians also wanted to ensure key military assets — the naval base at Tartus and Khmeimim Airbase southeast of Latakia — remained in their hands. Russian air power decisively turned the war in Assad’s favor. 

A motley coalition beat back the dreaded ISIS. A key player in that coalition was Yekîneyên Parastina Gel (YPG), a militia composed largely of Kurdish fighters. The Turks view the YPG as a front for Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan (PKK), a militant Kurdish political organization and guerrilla movement. Türkiye views the PKK as a terrorist organization and it has long been a thorn in Erdoğan’s side.

Erdoğan’s solution to the rising power of the Kurds was to combine cross-border attacks on the PKK with a deal with Putin. Türkiye allowed Russia to use its air force to pummel Aleppo into submission, giving Assad a key win. What followed was a series of agreements that established mechanisms of control and the acknowledgement of spheres of influence within Syria. Assad was forced to halt his efforts to subjugate the last rebel stronghold of Idlib, even though the Russian air force continued to carry out aerial attacks on civilian targets within the enclave. 

This was an important concession for Türkiye. The Turks were then striving to both prevent an influx of refugees from a besieged Idlib as well as move at least some of the refugees in Türkiye back to Syria.

The formalized the situation in Idlib with the creation of a de-escalation zone including a demilitarized sector 15-20 kilometers deep. The Russians agreed that the Turks could keep their observation posts in Idlib. They committed to maintaining the status quo. In 2020 when violence flared again, this time between Turkish troops and Assad’s forces, the Russians and the Turks signed a ceasefire that included both of them jointly patrolling the M4 highway that runs East-West across Idlib.

Advantage Erdoğan 

With Putin in a weakened position, Erdoğan may choose to step up the tempo of attacks on the PKK while reinforcing the Turkish presence in its along Syria’s northern border. Earlier in the summer, he was Russia and Iran to back Türkiye’s further incursions into northwestern Syria. The Turkish president said:  “What we expect from Iran and Russia is to support Türkiye in its fight against terrorist organisations.” Erdoğan may step up Turkish operations in Syria but knows that the Russians remain significant players and the steps Türkiye takes in Syria will have to keep the Russians in mind.

Sultan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Erdonomics is Driving Turkey to Disaster

READ MORE

Elsewhere in MENA, the Ukrainian offensive and the unfolding Russian catastrophe will give pause for thought among authoritarian leaders who have been fence-sitting about Putin’s invasion of a neighboring country. Authoritarians in the Gulf viewed the Russian president as a tough warrior. As Christopher Davidson said in our April 1 , they saw Putin as “prepared to act upon a red line he’s already drawn…willing to act militarily when needed.” In contrast, these autocrats saw Western liberal democracies as weak. They saw the West’s efforts to employ economic sanctions and supply the Ukrainians with weapons to do the fighting, instead of intervening themselves, as a sign of fading power. The startling victories that Ukraine is achieving with Western-supplied weaponry turns this perception on its head.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi who has to maintain warm relations with Putin. Right now, he might be asking himself what happens if Putin falls. Libyan warlord might be asking himself the same question. He has profited from Russian mercenaries of the Wagner Group supporting him. Meanwhile the Turks, who backed the internationally recognized government in Tripoli against Haftar will be toting up their gains and weighing up their next steps as the rout of the Russian army continues and the crisis for Putin deepens.

[ first published this article and is a partner of 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Russian Military Rout in Ukraine has Major Implications for the MENA Region appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Since then, the people of Ukraine have been paying a price for this war that few of their supporters in the West can possibly imagine. Wars do not follow scripts, and Russia, Ukraine, the US, NATO and the EU have all encountered unexpected setbacks.

Western sanctions have had mixed results, inflicting severe economic damage on Europe as well as on Russia, while the invasion and the West’s response to it have combined to trigger a food crisis across the Global South. As winter approaches, the prospect of another six months of war and sanctions threatens to plunge Europe into a serious energy crisis and poorer countries into famine. So it is in the interest of all involved to urgently reassess the possibilities of ending this protracted conflict.

Russia-Ukraine Negotiations Almost Succeeded

For those who say negotiations are impossible, we have only to look at the talks that took place during the first month after the Russian invasion, when Russia and Ukraine tentatively agreed to a plan in talks mediated by Turkey. Details still had to be worked out, but the framework and the political will were there.

Russia was ready to withdraw from all of Ukraine, except for Crimea and the self-declared republics in Donbas. Ukraine was ready to renounce future membership in NATO and adopt a position of neutrality between Russia and NATO.

Vladimir Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine Has Made Russia a Pariah for a Long, Long Time

READ MORE

The agreed framework provided for political transitions in Crimea and Donbas that both sides would accept and recognize, based on self-determination for the people of those regions. The future security of Ukraine was to be guaranteed by a group of other countries, but Ukraine would not host foreign military bases on its territory.

On March 27, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told a national , “Our goal is obvious—peace and the restoration of normal life in our native state as soon as possible.” He laid out his “red lines” for the negotiations on TV to reassure his people he would not concede too much, and he promised them a referendum on the neutrality agreement before it would take effect.

Such early success for a peace initiative was to conflict resolution specialists. The best chance for a negotiated peace settlement is generally during the first months of a war. Each month that a war rages on offers reduced chances for peace, as each side highlights the atrocities of the other, hostility becomes entrenched and positions harden.

The US and UK Torpedoed Chances of Peace

The abandonment of that early peace initiative stands as one of the great tragedies of this conflict, and the full scale of that tragedy will only become clear over time as the war rages on and its dreadful consequences accumulate.

Ukrainian and Turkish sources have revealed that the UK and US governments played decisive roles in torpedoing those early prospects for peace. During the then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s “surprise visit” to Kyiv on April 9th, he reportedly Zelenskyy that the UK was “in it for the long run,” that it would not be party to any agreement between Russia and Ukraine, and that the “collective West” saw a chance to “press” Russia and was determined to make the most of it.

Making Sense of Vladimir Putin’s Long Game

READ MORE

The same message was reiterated by US Defense Secretary Austin, who followed Johnson to Kyiv on April 25th and made it clear that the US and NATO were no longer just trying to help Ukraine defend itself but were now committed to using the war to “weaken” Russia. Turkish diplomats told retired British diplomat Craig Murray that these messages from the United States and United Kingdom killed their otherwise promising efforts to mediate a ceasefire and a diplomatic resolution.

In response to the invasion, much of the public in Western countries accepted the moral imperative of supporting Ukraine as a victim of Russian aggression. But the decision by the US and UK governments to kill peace talks and prolong the war, with all the horror, pain and misery that entails for the people of Ukraine, has neither been explained to the public, nor endorsed by a consensus of NATO countries. Johnson claimed to be speaking for the “collective West,” but in May, the leaders of France, Germany and Italy all made public statements that contradicted his claim.

Addressing the European Parliament on May 9, French President Emmanuel Macron , “We are not at war with Russia,” and that Europe’s duty was “to stand with Ukraine to achieve the ceasefire, then build peace.”

Meeting with US President Joe Biden at the White House on May 10, Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi , “People… want to think about the possibility of bringing a ceasefire and starting again some credible negotiations. That’s the situation right now. I think that we have to think deeply about how to address this.”

After speaking by phone with President Vladimir Putin on May 13, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz tweeted that he , “There must be a ceasefire in Ukraine as quickly as possible.”

But American and British officials continued to pour cold water on talk of renewed peace negotiations. The policy shift in April appears to have involved a commitment by Zelenskyy that Ukraine, like the UK and US, was “in it for the long run” and would fight on, possibly for many years, in exchange for the promise of tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons shipments, military training, satellite intelligence and Western covert operations.

Misgivings About the War Increase in the US

As the implications of this fateful agreement became clearer, dissent began to emerge, even within the US business and media establishment. On May 19, the very day that Congress appropriated $40 billion for Ukraine, including $19 billion for new weapons shipments, with not a single dissenting Democratic vote, The New York Times (NYT) editorial board penned a titled, “The war in Ukraine is getting complicated, and America isn’t ready.”

The NYT asked serious unanswered questions about US goals in Ukraine, and tried to reel back unrealistic expectations built up by three months of one-sided Western propaganda, not least from its own pages. The board acknowledged, “A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal.… Unrealistic expectations could draw [the United States and NATO] ever deeper into a costly, drawn-out war.”

The Russia-Ukraine War Proves That We Must Define National Security Differently

READ MORE

More recently, warhawk Henry Kissinger, of all people, publicly questioned the entire US policy of reviving its Cold War with Russia and China and the absence of a clear purpose or endgame short of World War III. “We are at the edge of war with Russia and China on issues which we partly created, without any concept of how this is going to end or what it’s supposed to lead to,” Kissinger The Wall Street Journal.

US leaders have inflated the danger that Russia poses to its neighbors and the West, deliberately treating it as an enemy with whom diplomacy or cooperation would be futile, rather than as a neighbor raising understandable defensive concerns over NATO expansion and its gradual encirclement by US and allied military forces.

Far from aiming to deter Russia from dangerous or destabilizing actions, successive administrations of both parties have sought every means available to “” Russia, all the while misleading the American public into supporting an ever-escalating and unthinkably dangerous conflict between our two countries, which together possess more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons.

After six months of a US and NATO proxy war with Russia in Ukraine, we are at a crossroads. Further escalation should be unthinkable, but so should a long war of endless crushing artillery barrages and brutal urban and trench warfare that slowly and agonizingly destroys Ukraine, killing hundreds of Ukrainians with each day that passes.

The only realistic alternative to this endless slaughter is a return to peace talks to bring the fighting to an end, find reasonable political solutions to Ukraine’s political divisions, and seek a peaceful framework for the underlying geopolitical competition between the United States, Russia and China.

Campaigns to demonize, threaten and pressure our enemies can only serve to cement hostility and set the stage for war. People of good will can bridge even the most entrenched divisions and overcome existential dangers, as long as they are willing to talk — and listen — to their adversaries.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Peace Talks Essential as War Rages on in Ukraine appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The DRC, a territory 76 times bigger than Belgium, is the second largest country after Algeria in Africa and the 11^th largest in the world. Today, it is torn by between armed groups that recruit children as soldiers. To make matters worse, DRC’s security forces operate with impunity. They continue harassing, threatening, attacking, arresting and murdering human rights defenders, journalists and members of the political opposition. Civilians are arbitrarily killed and abducted. Women and girls are systematically raped and subjected to other forms of violence. Communal violence and ethnic cleansing are widespread. Most minorities including Hutu, Tutsi, Hema, Lendu, Lunda, Luba, Mbororo, and Batwa live under continuous threat. The country remains the source and destination point for trafficking in children and women for prostitution. The country desperately needs humanitarian assistance.

The DRC’s problems are not entirely the fault of the Congolese people. Their roots can be traced back to Belgian King Leopold II and successive Belgian governments.

The Belgian King belatedly expresses regrets

Before his recent admission, Philippe denied Belgian atrocities and made excuses for Leopold II and Belgium for years. Despite pressure from his own country’s people along with that of the international community who were inspired by the (BLM) movement, Philippe hesitated to take any action other than offer excuses for the last two years.

On May 27, 2021, Emmanuel Macron spoke at the genocide memorial in Rwanda’s capital Kigali where many victims were buried. He Rwandans to forgive France for its role in the 1994 genocide. On May 28, 2021, apologized for its genocide against Herero and Nema tribal people in Namibia and offered to launch “projects over a billion euros” as compensation. Even those apologies did not inspire Philippe to admit Belgian atrocities in the Congo.

For Emmanuel Macron, Is Africa Just PR?

READ MORE

Over a year later, increased Belgian and international pressures finally forced to face reality. When he finally spoke out, the Belgian king just expressed regrets. Philippe stopped short of formally apologizing for Belgian atrocities during the colonial period. “This [Belgian] regime was one of unequal relations, unjustifiable in itself, marked by paternalism, discrimination and racism,” he said before a joint session of parliament in the DNC capital Kinshasa, He want to state: “I wish to reaffirm my deepest regrets for those wounds of the past.”

The toxic legacy of the past

was a tyrant who pursued a brutal pogrom that resulted in the deaths of millions. His policies also led to the destruction of the livelihoods and cultures of the people of the Congo. Leopold II came to power in 1865 and was determined to build an empire. Authorized by the 1885, he formed the Congo Free State, separate from Belgium but privately owned and controlled by himself. Leopold II knew evangelization was the most effective way to dominate people. He took the view that, if the Congolese converted to Christianity, they would become more subservient. This would allow Leopold II to plunder Congo’s valuable resources. So, this ruthless Belgian king brought in missionaries to convert the Congolese people to Christianity. He issued and enforced inhumane decrees that not only caused misery and death but also pushed the Congolese to convert to and practice Christianity.

To extract ivory, rubber, and minerals, Leopold’s men viciously used whipping, wounding, enslaving, beheading and severing body parts, including the penis. They routinely resorted to sexual violence against the Congolese people. They treated the Congolese as animals, exhibiting them in their in Belgium. Their atrocities are estimated to have caused the deaths of around 10 million, then 50% of the Congolese population. This led to international scandal and outrage, forcing the Belgian government to take over the colony.

In 1908, under immense international pressure the Belgian government took over Leopold II’s private estate and made it a Belgian colony, christening it. After 23 years of Leopold II’s rule, the Belgian government ruled Belgian Congo for another 52 years. The colony only gained its independence in 1960.

Under Belgian rule, genocidal actions reduced in number and severity but persecution and forced labor continued. The racism initiated by Leopold II continued though. Africans were excluded from education, employment and other opportunities. Children of mixed race were abducted and sent to orphanages in Belgium.

After World War I, European and US companies moved in and used the Congolese as indentured laborers to produce cotton, coffee, cacao, palm oil, rubber, copper, gold, diamond, cobalt, tin, zinc, uranium and other raw materials. They used forced labor to develop roads, railroads, utility stations, and other public facilities in Belgian Congo. During World War II, the US was heavily involved in mining uranium in the Congo. When postwar decolonization began, Belgium insisted that the Congolese were not mature enough to run their own country. So, Belgium stood firm on retaining its Belgian Colony, forgetting that the Belgians had wanted freedom from Nazi Germany themselves.

Under Belgian annexation, Congolese undermined critical thinking and ripped up the social fabric. Only a very few were allowed to get basic education by the government-paid Christian missionaries whose primary goal was to advance colonization and conversion to Christianity. Only in 1954, a Congolese was first admitted to a Belgian university to study a subject other than Christian religion. To this day, the DRC is hobbled by its toxic colonial legacy.

Independence is snuffed out, exploitation continues

Starting from 1919, the Congolese began fighting for their independence. Their revolts were regularly suppressed by the Belgian authorities. In 1958, the Congolese formed their first political party. Riots broke out in 1959 with mobs demanding independence. A year later, Belgium capitulated, granting its huge colony independence. On June 30, 1960, the nationalist leader became the prime minister and president. They put Colonel in charge of the defense. Backed by Colonel Joseph Mobutu, Kasa-Vubu soon removed Lumumba. In January 1961, the US and Belgium backed a military coup. Mobutu murdered Lumumba. Mobutu went on to take over the presidency from Kasavubu in 1965. Backed by the US, he ran the DRC as a brutal dictator for 32 years, embezzling government funds at a gargantuan scale.

In 1997 backed by Rwanda and Uganda, Laurent Kabila took over the presidency and ruled for 4 years, causing over 3 million deaths. In 2001, he was killed and his son Joseph Kabila took over the presidency and ruled until late 2018 when opposition leader supposedly won an election that did not meet international expectations and was contested by the country’s dominant Catholic Church. He has remained in power as president to the present time.

In the 1880s, the US was becoming a world power. Leopold II used the services of an American to survey the Congo. He also sought American recognition of his personal rule over Congo. Some Americans were fearful of the power of American blacks who were demanding equality and liberty. They saw Leopold II’s  request as an opportunity to cleanse the US of its black population by sending them to the Congo. In exchange for the favor, Leopold assured the US that its citizens could buy lands in Congo and US imports would be exempt from all customs duties. Leopold received recognition of his rule in Congo by the US, paving the way for him to earn recognition from European powers. Leopold II’s deal with Uncle Sam also opened the gate for the US to plunder Congo”s wealth.

The US emulated Leopold II’s egregious abuses in minute detail, including displaying Congolese people in in numerous cities across the country. As late as 1906, New Yorkers would rush to see a Congolese in the at Bronx Zoo. This led to protests by American blacks and became a national scandal.

Suffice to say, the US has been exploiting Congo since Leopold II’s days. In particular, the US has been extracting uranium from mine since the 1930s. This small mine in the southern province of Katanga provided most of the uranium used in the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today, US mining companies backed by the American military continue taking cobalt, copper, zinc and other minerals from the DRC, giving the country peanuts in return.��

The Belgian role in the Rwandan genocide

After World War I, the transferred Rwanda and Burundi from Germany to Belgium. Taking a leaf out of its Congo playbook. Belgium yet again resorted to Christian evangelization and appointed white agents to dominate and control the new colonies. It also implemented a, decreeing the minority Tutsis, a cattle-herding people, as superior to the majority Hutus, a farming people, and the native Twa, a pygmy people.������

In Rwanda, the Hutu king was removed for refusing to convert to Christianity. Then, the religion was forcefully imposed on the masses. Imana, the local monotheistic religion, was wiped out. For centuries, it had been the cultural force unifying the community. To dominate Rwanda, Belgium offered the Tutsis access to education and designated them as superior to others. The Tutsis became subordinate agents of Belgian colonial administration.

Those Responsible for the 1994 Rwandan Genocide Must Be Brought to Justice

READ MORE

Belgium authorized the Tutsis to impose forced labor and punishments on other communities. Belgian policies imposed by Tutsis caused several famines. Later, Belgian colonial authorities took the administrative step of issuing identification cards for each ethnicity. That racial segregation policy along with the removal of their king angered the majority Hutus. To the Hutus, the Tutsis became known as “invaders”. In the late 1950s, the Hutu movement began to organize to oppose the Tutsis and expel Belgium. The Hutus also finally  began to earn some sympathy from Belgians.

When Rwanda won independence in 1962, a Hutu campaign to incinerate Tutsi huts sent many Tutsis fleeing into exile. The Hutu president Juvénal Habyarimana, known for his anti-Tutsi rhetoric, maintained a good relationship with Belgian King Baudouin. On April 6, 1994, a plane carrying , Burundian President Cyprien Ntarvamira, and other high-ranking officials was shot down, killing all on board. Blaming the rebel Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), Hutu extremists began the slaughter of Tutsis and their Hutu sympathizers. On April 7, 1994, killed 10 Belgian officers. They threatened Belgium not intervene in the ongoing genocide against the Tutsis. Belgium dutifully abandoned Rwanda to the Hutu killers. In April 2000,, the Belgian prime minister, went to Rwanda and said, “In the name of my country and of my people, I beg your forgiveness.”

French forces were also present in Rwanda during the genocide. They watched the massacres, but did nothing. The French government persistently denied this until recently. After 27 years of denial, France was finally forced by its own government commission to officially admit its complicity in the 1994 Rwanda genocide. As stated earlier, Macron asked Rwandans for forgiveness in May this year. He said, “Only those who went through that night can perhaps forgive, and in doing so give the gift of forgiveness.”.��

As in Rwanda, Belgium divided into Tutsis and Hutus, which led to ethnic conflicts and civil war, causing the deaths of 300,000 people. In 2009, Belgium officially apologized for its atrocities.��

Imperial powers must compensate their victims

In 2022, the time for reparations has come. So far, the UN proved impotent in the face of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The oppressed people of the Congo are still waiting for justice and reparations for Belgian atrocities that still haunt them. It is for good reason that observed, “Belgium cannot undo its colonial past but it’s not too late to redress its contemporary fallouts to build a future based on justice and equality.”

Fortunately, many Belgians today recognize that apology must be accompanied by reparations., the speaker of the Belgian federal parliament, said: “apart from any apologies or excuses … anyone who makes a mistake, says our legal code, must compensate for the damage.” In 2001, the found the nation morally responsible for the assassination of Lumumba and apologized for its role. Belgium has yet to make any reparations though.

The “” commission, founded in 2020, is still working on issues related to the pre-independence history of the country’s three former colonies: Belgian Congo, Burundi, and Rwanda. To address the crimes of the past, Belgium must take these actions:

1. Acknowledge all the past abuses that include genoide and crimes against human rights.
2. Bring to justice all those individuals, living and dead, who perpetrated those egregious abuses.
3. Make reparations to all three former colonies based on the harm done to the Congolese people from Leopold II’s personal rule as well as Belgian colonial exploitation. The reparations must meet the following criteria:
   
   • correlate directly with all the economic profits Belgium earned from Congo, and
   • ensure that reparations do not go to the coffers of DRC’s corrupt government but are spent to improve education and infrastructure, bringing them to Belgian standards within 10 years.

As we have seen above, the US was Belgium’s accomplice in colonization of the Congolese people. Therefore, the US must take the following actions.

1. Acknowledge its collaboration with the Belgian authorities in the Congo regarding human rights abuses, including violence and genocide, and economic exploitation..
2. Form a committee that brings to justice US officials, living or dead, who abetted Belgian atrocities in the Congo.
3. Make reparations to remedy the harms done to the Congolese people. The reparations must meet the following criteria:
   • include a bipartisan committee to evaluate all the economic profits earned by the US from the Congo, starting 1885 to today, and
   • ensure that reparations do not go to the coffers of DRC’s corrupt government but are spent to improve education and infrastructure, bringing them to Belgian standards within 10 years.
4. Emulate Belgium and apologize for assassinating the nationalist leader,

None of these actions can destroy the hurt and pain from the past but they will make our world a kinder, gentler and more just place.

*[Dr. Mehdi Alavi is the founder and president of , a non-religious, non-partisan and charitable organization in the United States that promotes freedom and peace for all. It recently released its Civility Report 2022, which can be downloaded .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Belgium’s Regrets Not Enough: Congo Deserves Apology and Reparations for War Crimes appeared first on 51�Թ�.

How do Rome and Tagliacozzo come into the picture in an article on Afghanistan?

Well, both places are relevant because my friend Tonino Bettanini is a philosopher, a politician and a Renaissance man with much expertise on Afghanistan. He was presenting his latest book, Bruxelles, Les Pelouses des Anglais (Brussels, the Lawns of the English) at the prestigious 38^th mid-summer international festival of Tagliacozzo. Fortuitously, , a noted Italian diplomat and author was also presenting his book at the same time. Pontecorvo was  NATO’s last senior civilian representative to Afghanistan and served as Italy’s ambassador to Pakistan.

Furthermore, Pontecorvo spent his childhood in the 1960s in Kabul and Islamabad, where his father also served as a diplomat. The  good ambassador was presenting his book, L’ultimo aereo da Kabul (The Last Flight from Kabul), which describes the last few days of NATO’s hurried withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 and his own departure on one of the last flights out from Kabul. 

Going to Tagliacozzo did not only give me an hour with one of Italy’s most talented and colorful diplomats, it also gave me Pontecorvo’s point of view on the current situation in Afghanistan. This was a godsend because the US had just killed Ayman al-Zawahiri on July 31. Obviously, Italy’s star diplomat had a lot to say and I have done a lot more thinking on the matter since.

Why kill al-Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahiri?

The killing of , the lackluster, pedantic idealogue of Al-Qaeda, brings a strange closure to the US “War on Terror,” which began with 9/11.  Egyptian-born al-Zawahiri, was known to be a confidant of Saudi Osama bin Laden, who was America’s public enemy number one, until he was found and killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan, over 10 years ago.

The Taliban-Occupied Afghanistan Threatens Global Security

READ MORE

The world had all but forgotten about al-Zawahiri and al-Qaeda. This organization had declined dramatically since the days of bin Laden and was no longer the most dangerous global Islamic terrorist organization. More deadly organizations such as ISIS have taken its place. Islamic terrorism has evolved extensively since bin Laden and al-Zawahiri masterminded the attacks on New York and, before 9/11, on several other US targets. The aging al-Zawahiri neither had the finances nor the sophistication to upgrade to “,” a concept popularized by Adewunmi J. Falode in 2018. Falode argues this terrorism “has two basic and definable characteristics: it is fratricidal and genocidal in nature.”

The killing of al-Zawahiri marks the end of a chapter for the US. However, its timing, significance and collateral results open uncomfortable questions. Since the killing of Osama bin Laden by the Obama administration in which Biden was vice president, al-Zawahiri’s role and importance has been downgraded by intelligence and political analysts. After bin Laden’s death, al-Zawahiri was proclaimed the leader of al-Qaeda. Under his leadership, the organization was unable to launch any significant attack on the West.

After hurriedly abandoning Afghanistan less than a year ago, the Biden administration has steered clear of South Asia. This has allowed China and Russia to increase their influence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The region is now literally in flames. Myanmar is being ruled by a pro-China military junta that executes democracy activists arbitrarily. The Taliban control Afghanistan. The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) are at war with the Pakistani establishment despite Pakistan’s close relationship with the Afghan Taliban and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) exercising much control over the Haqqani network. Both Pakistan and Sri Lanka are facing unprecedented economic catastrophes.

As if the mess in South Asia and Ukraine was not enough, Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to fly to Taiwan to fan flames in East Asia too. Curiously, this is precisely the time that the Biden administration authorized a drone strike to kill the most famous face in the US after bin Laden. That al-Zawahiri might never have been that relevant or important an operative is immaterial. It made Americans feel good and took Pelosi as well as Ukraine off the headlines for a day or two.

Not only Indian analysts but also South Asia expert Michael Kugelman, Pakistan might have had a role to play in al-Zawahiri’s killing. The army and the ISI need US support. So does the ragtag coalition government led by who is dealing with “an ailing economy amid political turmoil.” To ride out the crisis, Pakistani bigwigs have done what they always do: go with a begging bowl to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). With US support, Pakistan could get the latest installment of funds from the IMF and avoid defaulting on its debt a la Sri Lanka.

Other analysts that “Mullah Yaqoob, Afghanistan’s defense minister and son of the late Taliban founder Mullah Omar, disclosed al-Zawahiri’s location during his recent visit to Qatar.” Who enabled the killing of al-Zawahiri is neither here nor there. The key question here is simple: what does it achieve?

Justice, Revenge or Convenient Distraction?

One argument for killing al-Zawahiri is it brings this terrorist to justice. A reason to kill is America’s emotional need for revenge, which curiously might not be that different from the Pashtun tradition of . As this author mentioned earlier, the killing might just have been a convenient distraction at an inconvenient time.

America’s Afghanistan Fiasco: The Buck Stops With Biden

READ MORE

The Russia-Ukraine War is not going terribly well. Boris Johnson and Mario Draghi, two great proponents of war, have been defenestrated. The Russians are making slow but steady and bloody progress. Inflation has ripped through the global economy, putting hundreds of millions at risk of starvation. Biden, Pelosi and their fellow Democrats are increasingly nervous about November’s midterm elections. The word on the street in Washington is that Democrat staffers are now gunning for lobbying positions in anticipation of the defeat of their bosses.

The youthful-looking 82-year-old Pelosi has flown to Taiwan arguably to boost Democrat poll prospects and burnish her legacy. This visit has been an unmitigated disaster. has opined that her “trip to Taiwan highlights America’s incoherent strategy” and that the Biden administration’s foreign policy is a mess.

After al-Zawahiri’s killing, the farce of the has been formalized. The Taliban never observed this agreement. It is fair to say that it paved the way for the Taliban’s takeover of Kabul. After all, al-Zawahiri was living in a building owned by the Haqqanis in a posh Kabul neighborhood. The are infamous and powerful. They hold key positions in the Taliban government. As per the BBC, the Haqqani network is “one of the region’s most powerful and feared militant groups.” With al-Zawahiri’s killing, the US has joined the Taliban in signaling that the Doha agreement is dead and buried six feet under.

The Consequences of Killing an Aging Has-Been

The Biden administration might have scored a big point at home by killing al-Zawahiri. However, this killing will not go down well with the Haqqani network. As per the honor code of the Pashtuns, which is known as Pashtunwali, they are now duty bound to avenge the killing of a guest. After all, al-Zawahiri was under the protection of the Haqqanis and they have now lost face. Honor dictates that they act against the US.

As and when the Haqqani network strikes, Pakistan will find itself in a tight spot. Pakistani elites need to keep Uncle Sam in good humor. Inflation is rising, unemployment is skyrocketing and the state’s coffers are empty. For the 23^rd time since 1958, Pakistan needs from the Washington-based IMF. This is only possible with US blessing. If the ISI-backed Haqqani network strikes American targets, any politician in Washington will find it hard to make a case for Pakistan getting more IMF cash.

There is another fly in the ointment. Pakistan is not only suffering from economic meltdown but also political turmoil. The Afghan Taliban brokered talks between Pakistan and the outlawed TTP. They have ended in . A spike in cross-border terrorist attacks by the TTP have followed. In retaliation, Pakistan has launched airstrikes in Afghanistan targeting the TTP. This has led to a dangerous deterioration in the internal security situation in Pakistan.

The jihadist groups that the still somewhat secular Pakistani military backed to dominate Afghanistan and undermine India are now turning against their masters. It is yet another case of Dr. Victor Frankenstein not being able to control his monster. In Islamabad’s case, it has to deal with too many monsters.

Pakistan’s turn to violence is also because the state has become completely dysfunctional. The populist Imran Khan has been turfed out by Pakistan’s traditional dynasties. Military rule failed the country and now democracy is not delivering either. Kleptocratic elites are packing off their children abroad in droves. It is an open secret that property prices in Dubai go up when IMF money comes into Pakistan. The people are fed up with the system and are turning to jihadis for recourse.

Pakistan’s colonial state has been unable to deliver basic services to its people. This includes elementary education. Religious schools termed madrassas have stepped in to fill the void. These madrassas teach millions of male children the Quran and the teachings of the prophet. Numerous by various intelligence agencies and think tanks chronicle how these schools have increased fanaticism and become breeding grounds for terror. The Taliban are their most illustrious alumni. Even China’s CCTV News, generally not known for its worldliness, has now started making documentaries on .

Reports that Pakistan provided the information that led to al-Zawahiri’s killing will cause many, if not all, of radical Islamist Frankenstein’s monsters to turn on their master. Terror incidents are likely to increase in the country. Even if Pakistan is absolved of blame, the blame may land on Yaqoob. This will pit the faction led by Yaqoob and against the Haqqani network, creating conditions for yet another civil war in Afghanistan.

As Pontecorvo aptly summed up, “When Osama bin Laden flew to Afghanistan in the early 1990s as a guest of Mullah Omar, he started marrying Arab fighters to local women and vice versa. This created over 300 mixed Arab-Pashtun families who were part of bin Laden’s al-Qaeda entourage. Now, many of them are senior members of the Haqqani network, including himself. These families have both Arab and Pashtun blood, making it improbable that al-Qaeda and the faction of the Haqqani network will ever separate.” The killing of al-Zawahiri might set off the Loya Paktia and the Loy Kandahar factions of the Taliban against each other.

The Caliph v The Emir al-Mu’minin: Which Islamic Model of Statehood Will the Taliban Adopt?

READ MORE

Apart from triggering fratricidal fighting within the Taliban, al-Zawahiri’s killing will cause an upheaval in al-Qaeda itself. A new leadership will take over and might be leaner, meaner, younger, hungrier and bloodier than bin Laden’s sidekick. In fact, the killing might lead to just the sort of CEO change that al-Qaeda needed.

The Biden administration has clearly not thought beyond its nose while killing al-Zawahiri. This White House is proving to be fractious, overstretched and incompetent in its foreign policy decisions. Instead of closure to the trauma of 9/11, al-Zawahiri’s killing has opened a Pandora’s box in one of the most dangerous times since 1945.

This is not only my thinking but also those of my eminent Italian friends with whom I enjoyed an aperitivo in the glorious piazza of Tagliacozzo before driving back home.

(In an era of a global pandemic, social media wars and explosively evolving geopolitics, the human spirit and its expression have suffered the most. With apologies to Edward Morgan Forster, “Rome, with a View” is a view of humanity from an interesting perspective. The author, a third culture kid, gathers from his various perches in the eternal city of Rome — Caput Mundi,  the capital of the ancient world — the whispers of wisdom through the ages imperfectly and perhaps even unwisely.)

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Al-Zawahiri’s Killing Will Increase Global Chaos and Insecurity appeared first on 51�Թ�.

All this mutually beneficial bonhomie came to an abrupt end with Russian President Vladimir on 23 February 2022 of a so-called “special military operation” against Ukraine, which turned out to be an attempt to annex at least part, if not the whole, of Ukraine into Russia. At best, Ukraine as a sovereign territory would be a reduced rump, at worst its existence as an independent sovereign state would cease. Although Putin has had to make major revisions in the face of military setbacks and stiff Ukrainian resistance, his overall expansionist vision of crushing Ukraine to the point of non-viability as an independent nation remains intact. His military annihilation of Ukraine will just take longer and will involve ruthless deployment of more powerful weapons of near-mass destruction against urban centers. In addition, widespread terror tactics and atrocities against the civilian population, as by the UN, the International Criminal Court and other official investigators will almost certainly continue. have been characteristic and apparently tolerated by Russian military commanders and political leaders. War crimes trials of individual perpetrators and the chains of command above them seem inevitable, even if such trials may often be in absentia and convicted individuals may evade apprehension and punishment for considerable periods of time.

Russian Antecedents

Putin’s stated arguments for the “special operation” against Ukraine entail several. For example, he considers that historically, Ukraine was always part of Russia and has no right to independent sovereignty which, in any event, only came about as a result of Russian mistakes during the late Soviet period and the dissolution of the Soviet bloc.

Putin also claims that the existence of Ukraine as an independent nation threatens Russia’s national security, because of its close ties with the EU and its stated potential membership of NATO. He adds the accusation that Ukraine is infested with fascists and Nazis, especially in the government, the organs of state, and the armed forces, and that this presents both an overall existential threat of aggression against Russia and actual mistreatment of ethnic Russians who are present in large numbers in the local population of the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine.

History will judge whether these assertions in the form of threats that inspire fear are genuinely felt, or are simply fake hyperbole to somehow justify a preemptive conquest of a smaller non-aggressive neighbor. Nevertheless, Putin does have a track record of broadly similar invasions since coming to power in 2000: Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014, Eastern Ukraine in 2014. He also carried out mass destruction bombardments of towns and cities and terrorization of civilians in Chechnya (e.g. Grozny 1999-2000) and Syria (e.g. Aleppo 2015-2016). 

Moreover, Putin has copied a lot of earlier Russian leaders’ terror tactics from Afghanistan (1979-1989) and from Stalin’s advance westwards through Eastern Europe and into the Third Reich against Hitler in 1944 and 1945. There is a long history of Russian leaders using rape, murder and looting as to terrorize and subdue civilian populations. Anyone doubting the facts should read chilling history ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’, and The Fall of Berlin 1945, both of which chronicle the savage depravity inflicted by Soviet troops on the German population and other nationalities as they swept towards Berlin and beyond. An estimated more than 1 million females of all ages were raped in Berlin alone. When challenged by Allied leaders to stop this, Stalin refused.

Creating a Nazi-Free Greater Russia

In summary, Putin’s stated argument is that Ukraine has no right to exist as a sovereign nation, that Ukrainians are really unentitled occupiers of territory that was always Russian and they should be grateful to be considered Russian vassals. Putin himself may not see the issue in racial terms, but when evaluated in conjunction with the overtly racist exhortations of one of his ideological gurus, the far-right polemicist�� Alexandr Dugin, it begins to�� sounds remarkably like Hitler’s Untermenschen and Lebensraum justifications for invading all lands to the east of Germany and for subjugating or expelling their native populations. Hitler annexed Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia in 1938 on the pretext of protecting the Sudeten Germans, and invaded Poland in 1939 on the pretext of saving ethnic Germans in Danzig (Gdansk), Stettin (Szczecin) and elsewhere, but with the ulterior motive of vastly extending the Third Reich. Similarly, the Russians have already announced that beyond Ukraine they intend to ‘protect’ militarily the within Moldova, yet another pretext for extending Greater Russia. Further pretexts for invasions may well involve the sizable ethnic Russian populations of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.

Fascists and far-right groups exist in all countries but, despite Putin’s insistence, there is no convincing evidence that they have any dominant or pivotal influence on government or society in present-day Ukraine. Indeed, it is ironic that far-right and neo-Nazi groups have flourished inside Russia under Putin’s rule. The 51�Թ� article by Atul Singh and Glen Carle – prior to the Ukraine invasion – details the extensive backdrop to Putin’s worldview. For example, Putin claims to be a fervent anti-Nazi yet is known to have been heavily influenced by, the far-right Russian ultra-nationalist ideologue, whose books e.g. The Fourth Political Theory (2012) and The Great Awakening vs. The Great Reset (2021) include both rabidly racist rants that many would judge as neo-Nazi and exhortations for Russia to annex vast territories to the south and west. Putin appears to have heeded Dugin. He was also well disposed towards the late, leader of the far-right Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) party. In 2019, Zhirinovsky’s LDPR hosted a special roundtable session in Moscow of far-right and neo-Nazi political delegations from across the globe and held in the. Such a conference in the Duma would have required Kremlin approval and authorization.

Global Response and Russian Reality

As the civilized world recoiled in horror and revulsion at the relentless bombardment of cities and the atrocities by Russian forces across the northern, eastern and southern areas of Ukraine, an overwhelming vote at the confirmed global condemnation of Russia. Putin, his Kremlin henchmen, his military commanders, and his troops on the ground are accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Increasingly severe sanctions continue to be applied to Russia, which are likely to endure possibly for years to come. Even say that Putin’s Ukraine adventure has already set the Russian economy back to its 1990 level, and continued sanctions may set it back further.

Nevertheless, show that two-thirds or more of Russians back Putin’s Ukraine policy. Some may be brainwashed, but others are likely to hold pre-existing beliefs of Russian superiority and entitlement. This�� situation is little different to the German population’s adulation of Hitler and pride in supposed German national superiority that lasted from the early 1930s and well into 1944, when major military reversals began to deflate popular confidence in the Fuehrer. In Russia’s case, it may be that its global isolation and economic decline over the coming years, resulting from Putin’s Ukraine and Greater Russia projects, will deflate his stature among Russians.

Putin’s boast of a Russian national rebirth and new economic miracle, while happily cut off from the West inside a new Iron Curtain, sounds like delusional bravado. Most Western brands and major corporations have already quit Russia indefinitely and, as 2022 progresses,sales of to European countries will fall dramatically, further crippling the Russian economy. The embargo of on the London insurance market will virtually stop Russian oil supplies to foreign customers by sea, thus adding to Putin’s woes. Modern Russians will hate a return to Soviet-era empty supermarkets, long queues for basic goods, high prices, a subsistence lifestyle, poor quality apparel, few luxury goods, and limited foreign travel.

Putin himself, at age 70, is likely to remain in power for some time by virtue of his totalitarian methods and his ‘removal’ of potential political challengers. He will never accept accountability for his Greater Russia invasions. International isolation and sanctions will therefore remain in place. When he finally leaves office, there is no guarantee that a new Russian president would be any better than him and maybe even worse. Russia’s pariah status may well last for decades, unless and until a ‘clean skin’ regime takes over in the Kremlin. After World War II, it took at least 50 years, including an Allies-imposed denazification program, before the “all Germans are Nazis” perception outside Germany had waned. Any de-Putinization program would have to be driven from within and would take decades against much opposition from vested interests.

Meanwhile, Putin dismisses foreign reactions as being inconsequential – that somehow his fake news and propaganda will bamboozle and convince Western populations of the justness of his Greater Russia project and the essential purity of his ideology, the goodness and humanity of his armed forces, and the benevolence of his governance inside Russia and its conquered territories. He does not recognize the old public relations witticism that no matter how hard one tries to polish horse manure, it remains horse manure. He has created the mother of all image-and-credibility disasters for himself and for Russia. He imagines that his fake news and propaganda narrative, which either dupes the Russian population or reinforces their ultra-nationalist beliefs and prejudices, will also be successful outside Russia. The strict state control of the media he enjoys in Russia is rare outside his country, and the immediacy of smartphone videos and social media demolishes his attempts to cast Russian atrocities as humanitarian work. Putin really does believe that, despite its economy about to implode, its, and its pariah status, Russia is destined to thrive and enjoy greater and greater glories in its own little domain ‘beyond the Pale’, disconnected from the normal international world. He craves to be another Peter the Great, yet history may remember him only as Vlad the Mad-and-Bad or Putin the Psycho.

Dilemma for Russian Investment and Tourism Destinations

Despite a reputation for often being stern and straight-faced, and not caring about what foreigners think of them, in reality Russians typically very much want to be liked. They want to be respected and even feared, but also liked. However,  in the wake of Putin’s disastrous Ukraine adventure in which the quest for Russian hegemony has been exposed in all its ghastly manifestations, the rather narcissistic mix of Putin’s personal desires has now set Russians at odds with how the outside world actually sees them. The stigma, international pariah status and sanctions now affect all Russians to some degree. Foreign doors remain closed, and access and inclusion are denied. 

Two areas immediately impacted are Russian overseas investment and Russian tourists. The former has been hit by international sanctions against Russian companies, and individual oligarchs and executives. Sanctions also cover foreign travel, financial transactions, money movements, and tax status. Russian tourists in Western countries are now scarce, owing to travel sanctions. For Russians who have become used to foreign holidays and being ‘liked’ by their hosts, the new situation is both a shock and an indignation. However, the loss of Russians also impacts foreign destinations.

With EU sanctions against Russia and its client state Belarus, most foreign destinations are forced to adjust to a ‘new normal’ in which huge numbers of Russian tourists have disappeared suddenly and possibly permanently. Cyprus, for example, has lost typically over Russian tourists (782,000 in 2019), some 20% of its total annual figure. It would be tempting for such countries to fantasize that this is just a temporary setback and that Russian tourists, settlers and business people will soon be flooding back. For Russians, the ‘Skolko zim, skolko lyet?’ greeting between old friends – literally how many winters, how many summers [since we last met]? – may well be answered ‘a lifetime’s worth’ in relation to foreign destinations.

For a start, the incomes and savings of most Russians will be vastly depleted in hard currency terms for years to come. For them, foreign travel and holidays abroad will become unaffordable. Even Russia-friendly Turkey might eventually prove too expensive for Russian tourists. Even in the most optimistic scenario where sanctions are lifted, Russians recover from their financial losses and Russian tourists return to foreign destinations in 10-15 years, is it a certainty that they will be welcomed unequivocally? For the Russians, the opportunity to travel again might be joyous, but their hosts might have mixed feelings about their return. These hosts might find it hard to forget the imagery of Russian aggression and atrocities in Ukraine. Will increased revenue warm their hearts for returning Russians?

As Dr. Anton Shekhovtsov, the director of the Vienna-based Centre for Democratic Integrity, noted recently, “history will judge mercilessly” the Western countries that fail to support Ukraine. This will also apply to those who in any way deny, ignore, downplay or trivialize Russian war crimes and crimes against humanity, especially if their motive is to secure revenues from Russian customers while Russia has not relinquished Ukrainian sovereign territory or paid war reparations to Ukraine.

Consider also human nature in tourist economies. Imagine Western tourists finding themselves in the same place as Russian tourists. How will they know that the latter had not been involved in or still support the atrocities in Ukraine? If only to shield their children from unwelcome contact, the former may well boycott the offending venues hosting Russian tourists, if not the entire country itself. 

Of course, some – perhaps many – Russians may be perfectly innocent and, in an ideal world, people would not rush to such sweeping negative judgements. But, in, that is precisely what they do. It took 50 years after World War II for Germans not to be automatically cast as Nazis by far too many around the world. All the great contributions of Russia to civilization in all spheres are now unfairly relegated by many to the dustbin of history. This is one of Putin’s unintended legacies: the false perception that all Russians are hideous thugs and war criminals. Moreover, those in the West who may seek a too rapid rehabilitation of Russian tourists and visitors may be accused of sympathy, if not support, for Russian war crimes. A fast and easy way back for Russia from its current pariah image predicament is hard to envisage.��

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Vladimir Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine Has Made Russia a Pariah for a Long, Long Time appeared first on 51�Թ�.

INT. NEIGHBORHOOD CAFE, MANHATTAN, NYC – DAY

Lester Holt is NBC’s celebrated anchor of “Nightly News with Lester Holt “, as well as the two-year old hit, “Nightly News with Lester Holt: The Kids Edition”.

As one reviewer opines, “Even when the world seems to have been taken over by insanity, Lester is calm, delivering the news with honesty and integrity.”

Mr. Holt has agreed to an interview with with Bill Smedley, an independent journalist who is intrigued about the historical research that underpinned a segment for kids on the background to the Ukraine war.

Quiet at this hour. SMEDLEY and LESTER HOLT seated in a booth in the back of the cafe.

SMEDLEY

Thanks for giving me the time here, I really appreciate it.

HOLT

No problem.

SMEDLEY

Okay, so we spoke earlier in the week about the topic, so I guess we can get right into it.

HOLT

Sure.

SMEDLEY

“‘The Nightly News with Lester Holt: The Kids Edition”. It’s such a great idea, and it was your brainchild, right?

HOLT

No, not at all. A few of us — production people, writers, we were sitting around after a broadcast and just out of the blue we’re talking about how great it would be if kids had their own news show. That’s how it started, and from there it was like — Well, there’s this whole big world out there that don’t know anything about and we can introduce them to it, we can excite them, help them to understand and think about the world… make it less confusing, we hope, and obviously show how much fun it can be, how inspiring. And the great thing, the great thing is that everything we cover, most of it anyway, comes from kids submitting video questions.

SMEDLEY

Lots of animals.

HOLT

Oh God, yes, a very popular feature with the kids.

SMEDLEY

Whales, sharks, dogs, cats–

HOLT

Yeah, yeah…

SMEDLEY

— Horses, baby elephants, hippos, kangaroos…

HOLT

amused)Yeah, well, the requests keep pouring in from the kids, so maybe we’ll get around to covering everything that walks, swims, crawls, slithers… The A to Z.

SMEDLEY

Great, great. And the Kids Edition premiered when?

HOLT

2020. April. And it’s been a great two years, very gratifying.

SMEDLEY

You know, I’ve always had this thing about flamingos, and I noticed that a kid, I think a boy, submitted a video question: Why are flamingos pink and white? Well, I didn’t know, and I wanted to know because I love flamingos but never wondered about it myself as a kid…

HOLT

Yeah..

SMEDLEY

And it was in the episode about the Ukraine War, which I looked at closely — and I missed the part about the flamingos.

HOLT

Monkey, not a flamingo.

SMEDLEY

Monkey?

HOLT

A cotton-eared marmalot from Brazil. They’re very small and something very special about them, their faces, very human. Got a great response from the kids. But yeah, it was the monkey and the Ukraine War, not the flamingo and why they’re pink and white. Eight-year-old girl’s question, actually. I’m pretty sure, not a boy. And then the topic of the day was, What is a midterm election?

SMEDLEY

Ah, okay, I got them confused.

HOLT

(Smiles). You probably want to talk about the monkey — I mean, the Ukraine War.

SMEDLEY

Right. Yes.

HOLT

Well, that was a hard one to tackle — How to get into something this terrible with kids. But we felt we had an obligation because it’s inevitable, right? They hear bits and pieces of it and it’s scary, so the least we could do on the Kids Edition, we decided, is to give them a basic understanding of what’s going on and how the U.S is trying to help the people of Ukraine. And if the kids knew that,the basic facts, then maybe the whole thing would seem a little less confusing and not so scary.

SMEDLEY

That’s great, so you have Michael Beschloss, MSNBC’s– what, official historian, I guess, right?

HOLT

Michael’s a great guy and one of America’s most popular historians. We’re very lucky to have him here at MSNBC.

SMEDLEY

Sure. And before he comes on– I mean, before you introduce him — you explain a couple things they should know about Ukraine, like it’s a neighbor to Russia, they share a long past, not so good, and it’s smaller than Texas.

HOLT

Ukraine is smaller than Texas.

SMEDLEY

Right, smaller than Texas, but a lot of countries are smaller than Texas.

HOLT

(laughs) Right, right. But it’s important for kids to know where it is, that they can find it on a map, or find any country on the map, it’s just important to know, to open their eyes up to the world.

SMEDLEY

Absolutely.

HOLT

And it was very important for kids to know how hard we’ve tried — the U.S. has– and Michael explains this beautifully– to convince the Russians that they should work out whatever differences they have with Ukraine peacefully, because peace is always better than war. But Russia’s never been interested in peace or dialogue or diplomacy, and certainly not when it comes to Ukraine.

SMEDLEY

Well, there are political scientists, scholars, internationally known and respected — like John Mearsheimer, hell, even Henry Kissinger — who disagree with Mr. Beschloss on that point, and I’m assuming your views reflect those of Mr. Beschloss. Am I — I mean is that fair to say? Assuming too much?

HOLT

Well, I’m a journalist and as a journalist I deal with facts, and Michael is one of America’s most popular, well known historians, and yes, he’s MSNBC’s historian, so —

SMEDLEY

He’s your go-to historian.

HOLT

I don’t know if I’d put it that way, but yes.

SMEDLEY

Great, so quoting him here, if I can, “The leader of Russia, Vladimer Putin, has always been uncomfortable with the fact that Ukraine split off from him, and he worries that Ukraine is very hostile to him, and he would like to create a grand Russia that is very powerful, and Ukraine to be a part of it.”

HOLT

And without NATO, what would Europe do, what would the world do, because if he takes Ukraine, he’ll just keep going, moving across Europe?

SMEDLEY

Sure, sure, that’s a point you make in the segment. So, uh.. “One of the things we always try to–” — I’m continuing here with Mr. Beshloss, if that’s okay.

HOLT

Please do.

SMEDLEY

“So one of the things we always try to do is to keep the world out of war if we possibly can, and that’s what President Biden is trying to do now.”

HOLT

Well, was trying to do. The Kids Edition aired before Putin invaded on — well, the same night, actually, but we’d shot the segment the day before.

SMEDLEY

Wow.

HOLT

Wow is right.

SMEDLEY

Okay, so, um,, so Beschloss goes on to say that we… “We Americans obey certain moral values, and one of the more principled ones is, when we see a strong country trying to take over a weak country by force, we try to prevent that from happening.”

HOLT

Absolutely.

SMEDLEY

Absolutely, yes, so how does, for instance, Iraq and Afghanistan fit into this whole thing, because it raises some questions, don’t you think, about–

HOLT

Not at all. No. I mean, yeah, they proved to be terrible mistakes, terrible, in so many ways, and I think that– well, at the very least, they’re tactical blunders we regret having made.

SMEDLEY

Sure, okay, but still we’re talking about a couple of invasions, you could call them violations of national sovereignty, with a lot of… a lot of consequences. So should they be considered terrible mistakes or tactical blunders, or both?

HOLT

(checks his watch) We were talking about The Kids Edition, the Ukraine War, The Russians– and we’re getting off track a little, don’t you think?

SMEDLEY

Sorry. So back to Beschloss, and what I think is — yes, his last comment, “If we saw that Ukraine was being invaded and that the Russians were trying to conquer them, our attitude would be that a big country should not oppress a small country next door, and we should do something about it.”

HOLT

Well, we are. It’s going to be a long struggle, a very, very painful one.

SMEDLEY

Right. So about eight years ago, Putin looks next door to his neighbor, Ukraine, and he sees NATO troops training soldiers, year after year, and weapons pouring in, and he’s not too happy about it because he sees this as an existential threat, the way we looked at Cuba in 1962. And since 1997, NATO keeps moving closer and closer to Russia’s border, and for just as long he’s been warning, “This is our red line, This is our red line, This is our –,” year after year, over two decades, but we don’t listen or don’t want to listen, we don’t care about his concerns, we don’t care if he’s —

HOLT

I have to interrupt here, I’m sorry, please don’t take it personally, but you’re making Putin’s case for him, you know that?

SMEDLEY

Right.

HOLT

Right?

SMEDLEY

If this is how Putin sees it, or how he claims to see it, then it’s a narrative, or a piece of it, that historians have to consider and weigh against other facts before they formulate their own, one that they think makes sense, that’s all I was trying —

HOLT

Well, the country’s had this debate about what the facts are. We’ve had it.

SMEDLEY

We have?

HOLT

Every night on the news.

SMEDLEY

I guess… I missed it.

HOLT

(checks his watch again) I think…

SMEDLEY

Sure, the time. The point is just that the kids didn’t get much to think about, did they? That was one of the main motives behind the Kids Edition, you said. To open the world up for them to see and think about. But with Ukraine, not that much. It was explained to them — like a Marmalot monkey has a human face and lives in Brazil or why a flamingo is–

HOLT

Mr. Smedley, please, these are kids. Teach them to understand things, to think — yes. But we’re talking about Ukraine, which is far too complicated for kids, so we have to simplify it for them, bring it down to basics.

SMEDLEY

Well, again, that’s what you mean by basics — not giving them anything to think about.

HOLT

(growing more annoyed) They’re KIDS!

SMEDLEY

And Ukraine is very complicated, but by “uncomplicating” it, you’re not inviting them to think — you’re just telling them — in this case, Mr. Beschloss is: “this is enough, kids, this is all you need to know about Ukraine”… which is pretty much what he tells your Nightly News audience as well, isn’t it?

HOLT

That would include me.

SMEDLEY

Include you in…?

HOLT

What you’re suggesting is — it amounts to indoctrination.

SMEDLEY

Propaganda?

HOLT

I think we’re done here.

SMEDLEY

Mr. Holt, I’m sorry if you think — If we could end the interview on, I guess, a pleasant note? A very quick question, a very quick two-parter that has to do mostly with animals.

HOLT

Try me.

SMEDLEY

It’s the flamingo — I still don’t know why it’s pink and white… And the second part of the question is, what do you think about the 2014 US-backed coup in Kiev?

HOLT

This time we’re done.

SMEDLEY

Thank you.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Fly on the Wall: A Monkey, A Flamingo and the Ukraine War appeared first on 51�Թ�.

There is also another important overlooked fact about wars of the 19^th century. They amplify the four horsemen of the apocalypse of the 21^st century: global warming, nuclear war, food insecurity and pandemics.

It is clear that we need a new definition of national security.  This new definition needs to focus on what actually makes individuals more secure in their daily lives. Competition between nations will continue in the realm of technologies, economics and trade but we need international cooperation to confront the four horsemen — this new phenomenon could be termed coopetition.  In a way, we have stumbled into this transition already with such organizations as the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization, the United Nations, etc. 

However, we still think about national security in a 19^th century way. By changing our definition, we can hasten the transition to better policies both nationally and globally. The need for such a change is highlighted by the Russia-Ukraine war.  From a 19^th century point of view, Russian leaders feel they need a buffer zone to protect Russia. In turn, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) feels compelled to avoid appeasement of an aggressive dictator that in their view led to World War II. From a 21^st century national security point of view, the Russia-Ukraine war is making each of the horsemen more dangerous.

Global Warming

Greenhouse gases are released every time a gun is fired, a bomb goes off, a building catches fire, an armored vehicle burns and so on and so forth. The transportation systems that bring all the military personnel and equipment to the battlefield release more greenhouse gases. The manufacture of weapons releases greenhouse gases as well. Finally, when the war is over and reconstruction starts, there will be an increase in greenhouse gases because of reconstruction.

Now, it can be argued that the Russia-Ukraine war may hasten Europe’s move away from fossil fuels and lead to reliance on sustainable forms of energy.  It can also be argued that the rise in fossil fuel costs around the world will lead to a reduction in consumption. But, so far, we are not seeing that transpire. Instead, the fossil fuel industry is adapting to the new situation.

Nuclear War

We have two nuclear-armed groups separated by several hundred miles talking of tactical nuclear weapons. We have soldiers firing at nuclear power plants. Emotions are running high. Egos are involved. Casualty rates appear to be quite high. It appears that soldiers are taking drastic actions, either out of frustration or under direct orders or a mix of the two. There are reports on Russian-controlled media for national . Individual Russian civilians have called for the use of nuclear weapons. It doesn’t take much to imagine something going wrong: a nuclear accident, a rogue officer ordering a launch or even the top leadership ordering a tactical low-grade nuclear strike.

Since the end of World War II, nuclear weapons have not been used. Even the use of tactical nuclear weapons has been unthinkable. That is, unthinkable till now. Political leaders are talking about being prepared for such an eventuality. If tactical nuclear weapons become thinkable, what happens to strategic nuclear weapons? If tactical nuclear weapons are used a few miles on the other side of your border, what are the radiation effects on you? Does all this make the people in your nation more secure?

Food Insecurity

The United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres,has , “We all see the tragedy unfolding in Ukraine. But beyond its borders, the war has launched a silent assault on the developing world. The crisis could plunge up to 1.7 billion people, more than a fifth of humanity, into poverty and hunger on a scale not seen in decades.”

If you are a well-off individual in a country where food prices go up, but there is plenty of supply. Would you care if 20% of humanity falls into poverty, hunger and despair? Even in a Hobbesian worldview, the answer has to be yes. Despair among 20% of the global population is bound to breed trouble for all. Desperate people do desperate things: crime, corruption, terrorism and illegal immigration are just the tip of the iceberg.

In short, if my neighbor’s house catches fire, my house is at risk as well. If I want to ensure my security, I need to make sure my neighbor’s house doesn’t catch fire. And right now 20% of humanity is soon going to have their house on fire. This isn’t good for my security or anybody’s security. 

Pandemics

We are still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, we might be entering a new era of pandemics. Some authors have been arguing that “environmental devastation threatens to unleash new zoonotic diseases as well as long-dormant bacteria and viruses to deadly effect.”

The Russia-Ukraine war is adding to the risk of pandemics. Refugees are now living in close proximity even as wartime conditions undermine their immune systems. We could do well to remember that the end of World War I led to an influenza pandemic. It killed more people than the war itself. That could happen again.

The Right Tools for the Right Problems

A screwdriver and a hammer are both good tools, but using a screwdriver to hammer in a nail is suboptimal, if not stupid. In the US, both the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon have been examining the four horsemen’s risks to national security. Intelligence and defense Institutions in other countries have been doing the same.

Yet there is an argument to be made that the DNA of these institutions equips them for 19^th century challenges. They are unable to really think through the risks of global warming, nuclear war, food insecurity and pandemics. They do not know how to manage the 21^st century horsemen of the apocalypse. These institutions were designed for conflict, not cooperation or coopetition. Yet they command top of mindshare and the lion’s share of funding.

The time has come to define national security differently. We must examine what enhances the security of an individual and work towards achieving it. This will require people, processes, organizations and technologies focused on cooperation rather than conflict. We will have to build upon previous attempts at cooperation and collaboration as well as engage in new thinking, new development and new research to tackle the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Russia-Ukraine War Proves That We Must Define National Security Differently appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Unlike President Harry Truman, who in December 1963 expressed his with the CIA’s acquired taste for skulduggery, Biden sees all virtue and no vice in the history of an agency created under Truman’s watch. Weeks after the assassination of President John F Kennedy, Truman had the temerity to pen an op-ed column for The Washington Post decrying the CIA’s betrayal of the mission with which he had endowed it: to gather facts and inform the president as transparently as possible. That presumably also implied refraining from acts such as fabricating facts or assassinating a sitting president.

Biden wants today’s CIA to understand that he feels none of Truman’s exasperation. He asserted to the faces of a new generation of operatives that for three quarters of a century “our nation’s intelligence professionals have worked unceasingly and sacrificed willingly to make our country safer.  And that’s not hyperbole.  That’s a simple, straightforward fact.”

�մǻ岹��’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Hyperbole:

A deliberate exaggeration of the truth, the preferred figure of speech of politicians who depend on it to put to sleep the public’s capacity for critical thinking and reduce every issue to a binary opposition.

Contextual note

One thing it would be fair to say about Joe Biden is that he never gives up. His persistence in supporting the war in Ukraine to the last Ukrainian is a testament to his perseverance. As are the rhetorical devices Biden uses and abuses, over and over again. In last week’s speech to the CIA, the president insisted on three occasions that hyperbole is not hyperbole. “And again, not hyperbole, you are clearly the best in the whole world,” he insisted. Later in the speech, he offered a second example of non-hyperbole: “We’re the most unique nation in the history of the world.  That’s not hyperbole.” Whether it is or isn’t, some people would complain that there is no such thing as degrees of uniqueness. One can be unique but not the “most unique.” Which is one indication that what Biden claims is simply hyperbole!

At another point in the speech, after praising “the quiet bravery of the women and men of this agency” that has resulted “in lives saved, in crises averted, in truths revealed, in decisions of the 75 years of American presidents made better because of the insights you’ve provided,” he asserts “that’s not exaggeration.” Truman might have responded: “Of course it isn’t exaggeration, it’s a downright lie.”

On his trip to Poland at the end of March to bolster NATO and congratulate himself on his courageous decision to impose US drastic sanctions on Russia, Biden did an equally convincing of his skill of using the word hyperbole three times in the same speech.

“The fact of the matter is that you are the finest — this is not hyperbole. You’re the finest fighting force in the history of the world.”

He later added:

“Thank you very, very much for all you do. And it’s not hyperbole to suggest you’re the finest fighting force, not in the world — in the world (sic). That’s not hyperbole.”

Any expression of value, formulated in absolute terms, such as “the finest fighting force in the history of the world,” is likely to be hyperbole. Biden’s formulation can be nothing other than a hyperbole, which means, it is not to be taken literally. So why take the trouble to deny it, and no less than three times?

Biden’s trope belongs to a category of rhetorical figures called apophasis. Like most tropes it can be used cleverly (comically) and produce a strong effect. When a politician asserts: “I refuse to discuss the rumor that my opponent is a drunk” or when the candidate Donald Trump said of his rival, Carly Fiorina, “I promised I would not say that she ran Hewlett-Packard into the ground, that she laid off tens of thousands of people and she got viciously fired. I said I will not say it, so I will not say it.” Trump knew his audience would receive that self-contradiction as high comedy and an effective blow to his opponent.

Most masters of rhetoric style will point out that hyperbole should be used sparingly. It carries a serious risk of sounding phony. They also presume that a good politician will try to avoid sounding phony for fear of losing credibility with voters. So why does Biden constantly return to phony-sounding talk?

Biden’s addiction to hyperbole that he denies is hyperbole highlights a feature of linguistic practice that lies at the core of US culture. Most professional rhetoricians in the US understand that people recognize hyperbole and do not take it literally. It serves to make a strong point that can subsequently be nuanced.

Biden is different. In denying that his hyperboles are hyperboles, he is denying nuance. Like any carnival barker or conman, his rhetoric reflects a belief that Americans crave flattery, even hyperbolic flattery. When people feel flattered they are vulnerable to any other insincere message you propose, especially when convincing them to buy something. Perhaps he learned this from his father, who was a successful car salesman.

In US culture, so heavily influenced by the pragmatism of PT Barnum, it is considered a form of primordial wisdom to “give people what they want to hear.” It is much easier and far more effective than bothering about establishing the truth. US culture uncritically celebrates success, rarely questioning how it was achieved. The ethically suspect idea of “anything that works” has achieved the status of “common sense” in US culture. It is a softer version of “the ends justify the means.”

The problem for society and politics is that such a success-oriented and salesman-defined culture upends the value of sincerity in human relations. It encourages lying. This culture is what guides most US media in crafting their reporting to the perceived desires—rather than the needs—of their target audiences. What “works” doesn’t have to be true.

Historical note

Biden is known for tirelessly repeating the same formulation on multiple occasions. If it works once, the logic is, it will work every time. He isn’t alone. It’s a trick skillful politicians have used throughout history, from Cato’s Carthago delenda est (“Carthage must be destroyed”) to presidential candidate Kennedy’s standard phrase to introduce any discussion of foreign policy: “We live in a world that is half-slave and half-free.”

It would hardly be hyperbole, however, to suggest that Biden may be in a category of his own, so frequent is his practice. How many times have we heard Biden say, “we lead not by the example of our power, but by the power of our example” as if it was an original thought and a deeply moral realization that had just popped into his head? He pulls the rabbit out of his rhetorical hat once again in his speech to the CIA. Back in January 2021, we commented that when he included it in his inauguration speech with this friendly advice: “a witty rhetorical figure loses its quality of wit when parroted over and over again.”

Biden has a litany of other examples, such as when he insists that “we can define America in one word: Possibilities.” And then there’s his favorite, “there has never been anything we haven’t been able to do when we’ve done it together,” which, on occasion, he mangles to mean its opposite (“There’s never been anything we’ve been able to accomplish when we’ve done it together,” spoken at the Democratic convention that nominated him in 2020).

Critics may conclude that mindless repetition occurs when the rational content of discourse vanishes. In Biden’s case one may wonder if it was ever there. At 79 going on 80, Biden, apparently seeking to run again in 2024, is already the “most unique” president, if age is the criterion. And that is most certainly not hyperbole.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Biden’s Hyperbolic Fawning Before the CIA appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In the past, Europeans often appeared reluctant to coordinate their national foreign, security and defense policies. Instead, they preferred to “go it alone”. The Ukraine crisis, however, has elicited a strong, unified response from the European Union (EU), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and their member states as never before. To put pressure on the Kremlin and bring the war to an end as soon as possible, the EU, in close coordination with its North American allies, has adopted unprecedented measures. In June, EU member states agreed upon a sixth package of sanctions, which included an embargo on Russian oil imports (currently 90%) and the removal of three Russian banks from the international SWIFT payment platform. They also granted Ukraine and Moldova EU candidate status. This would have been unthinkable only a few months ago.

In addition, the EU activated for the first time the European Peace Facility (EPF), a newly established off-budget fund that replaced, merged and expanded the scope of the Athena Mechanism and the African Peace Facility, and introduced the possibility for the EU to deliver lethal weapons to third countries. Through the EPF, the bloc has already provided $1.5 billion (€1.5 billion) in financial support to Ukraine’s military, with anadditional $500 million () announced on May 24. The next day, the European Commission (EC) adopted the second annual work program of the European Defence Fund (EDF), through which it has been scaling up funding for collaborative research in innovative defense products and technologies. The EC also introduced some new measures to promote defense innovation under a new umbrella: the EU Defence Innovation Scheme (EUDIS). In , EU leaders had agreed on the need for more effective defense spending. This $2 billion (€2 billion) investment will spur defense innovation while reducing industrial fragmentation wherever possible in coordination with NATO’s Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA) and the freshly launched . 

Meanwhile, NATO has been progressively bolstering defense along its eastern flank in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In February, the Alliance activated the NATO Response Force (NRF), a high-readiness multinational force of 40,000 troops that can be deployed quickly in response to an emerging crisis. The NRF was activated for the first time for the purpose of deterrence and defense instead of crisis management. More recently at the NATO Summit in Madrid, US President Joe Biden that the United States would establish a permanent US Army headquarters in Poland and further expand US military presence in Europe, which currently stands at around 100,000 troops.

Furthermore, the raging war has reignited defense spending debates at the member state level, not only in the “Big Three”—Germany, France, and Italy—but also among non-NATO EU member states with a long tradition of neutrality such as Finland, Sweden and even Ireland.   

The public debates in Germany, France and Italy

Germany has lifted restrictions on sending German weapons to conflict zones by third parties and promised to arm Ukraine. This is a major foreign policy shift. Chancellor Olaf Scholz also pledged to create a special $100 billion (€100 billion) fund for military procurement and committed to spending 2% of the GDP on defense by 2024, in line with the goal for NATO members. However, Scholz has been heavily criticized both at home and abroad for his Ukraine policy. According to polls, while 69% of Germans support boosting defense spending, public opinion is , with 45% in favor and 55% against, over the supply of heavy weapons to Ukraine. The day after the Bundestag voted to provide heavy artillery to Kyiv on April 28, an signed by 28 German intellectuals advising Scholz against this policy gained support online. A week later, signed by twice as many German intellectuals called on Scholz to provide heavy weapons to Ukraine. 

Some, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy who recently the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany, have criticized Scholz for repeated delays and overall reluctance to send arms to Ukraine. Zelenskyy has even called into question Germany’s leadership role in Europe. A deal on the special fund was eventually reached by the German “traffic-light” coalition government and conservative opposition parties in late May and approved by the Bundestag in early June. In terms of arms supplies, however, Germany has directly only Panzerhaubitze 2000 self-propelled howitzers to Ukraine. The rest of the military aid by the German government, which is supposed to include Gepard anti-aircraft vehicles, IRIS-T SLM anti-aircraft and MARS II multiple-launch rocket , is only likely to reach Ukrainian soldiers by late summer or even early autumn.  

In Italy, the political willingness of the executive branch to arm Ukraine has inflamed discussions on defense investments and increases to the defense budget. On June 21, Italy’s Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio with the Five-Star Movement and formed a new parliamentary group. The casus belli was precisely the party’s opposition to Italy supplying arms to Ukraine and insufficient support for NATO and EU decisions.

Earlier this spring, a heated took place in Rome. The populist party currently led by former prime minister Giuseppe Conte clashed with the other parties supporting the technocratic government led by the former president of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi. The prime minister seemed particularly appalled by Conte’s arguments against increasing the defense budget when the country is still grappling with the health crisis and socio-economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. The two have been on a collision course ever since.

As a result, Italian defense expenditure will not hit the NATO 2% GDP target until 2028, lagging behind other allies. However, unlike Germany, Italy has not shied away from sending heavy weapons, such asStinger surface-to-air missiles and M2 Browning heavy , to Ukraine. Despite the topic of arms supplies being classified information, Corriere della Sera reported that the third decree (note that a is in the making) of the Italian government in May aimed to provide Ukraine with even heavier weaponry, includinghowitzers 155/39 FH-70 . At the end of June, three Panzerhaubitze 2000 self-propelled howitzers, officially on their way to Germany for a joint military exercise, were in Southern Italy for lacking the necessary authorizations. Given the secrecy that surrounds the country’s arms deliveries to Kyiv, it cannot be excluded that Ukraine was their final destination. 

In contrast to Germany and Italy, increasing defense spending in France has not caused much debate. This could perhaps be because of the reelection of President Emmanuel Macron. However, it is important to note that France has been increasing military spending for quite some time now. Last year, the country around $57 billion (€57 billion) on defense (around of its GDP) and, in March, even before securing his second term, Macron that the defense budget would be increased further in response to the ongoing war. French defense spending is due to reach the NATO 2% goal no later than 2025, only one year behind schedule.

Minister of the Armed Forces Sébastien Lecornu recently a $3 billion (€3 billion) defense budget increase compared to 2022, bringing the total for 2023 to $44 billion (€44 billion). When it comes to arms deliveries though the Elysée Palace has so far only sentMilan anti-tank missiles, Mistral anti-aircraft and Caesar self-propelled to Ukraine. Since his joint visit to Kyiv with Scholz and Draghi, Macron has been pledging additional Caesar howitzers and has even asked the French arm manufacturer Nexter to increase its production. The French president might be doing so to diffuse tensions over his statement about not “” Russia over Ukraine.

Macron’s centrist alliance suffered a severe blow in June’s parliamentary elections. However, this should not affect French foreign and defense policy because these traditionally are the domain of the president. 

And in Finland, Sweden, and Ireland

Meanwhile in Northern Europe, Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin and Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson made history. Breaking with longstanding policies of not supplying arms to war zones, the two Nordic countries were the first to announce that they would provide weapons to Ukraine. Since the war started, Sweden has provided 10,000 anti-tank weapons (5,000 in February and another 5,000 in March) and other military equipment (helmets, body armors, rifles etc), of which more deliveries were at the end of June. Likewise, in early May Finland announced its of weapons to Ukraine, although details regarding the content of this as well as previous shipments have not been disclosed.

Furthermore, despite Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threats, the two female leaders formally reversed decades of neutral foreign and security policies by formally applying for NATO membership on May 18. The move has been backed by the majority of and, who have also supported the significant increase in defense spending. This will allow defense spending in both countries to reach and, in the case of Finland, even the NATO 2% GDP goal. 

Following the signing of a trilateral memorandum with Turkey, which had initially objected to Finland and Sweden joining NATO, both Nordic countries can now become full members of NATO once all Allied nations ratify their bid. At the NATO Summit in Madrid, all 30 members signed the accession protocols. However, the ratification process for the NATO membership of the two Scandinavian countries is still ongoing and might take up to a year to conclude. While Germany has ratified the membership of Finland and Sweden, Italy and France are yet to do so.

At present, Finland and Sweden can participate in NATO meetings and possibly benefit from greater intelligence sharing. However, they are not yet protected by the Article 5 guarantee. This might explain why Finland just recently passed a that allows it to build barriers on its border with Russia. There is in fact a very high risk that the Kremlin might engage in hybrid tactics in retaliation for Finland’s NATO membership bid.

Even Ireland, a neutral island with no proximity either geographical or commercial to Russia, isdoubling its relatively low . Currently, Dublin spends a mere 0.3% of its GDP on defense. Unlike Finland and Sweden, Ireland is not sending military supplies to Ukraine though and does not plan on NATO “any time soon.” Still, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is changing the debate in the country and forcing Ireland to rethink its security and defense policy. In March, the three coalition government parties—Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Green Party—all against a bill that called for a referendum about writing neutrality into the Irish constitution. 

Taoiseach Micheál Martin recently met with Zelenskyy in Kyiv and reiterated his support for Ukraine’s EU membership and sanctions on Russia. Much like Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Defence Simon Coveney, Martin is of the view that the Irish concept of neutrality should “” and “.” Ireland might not be vulnerable to conventional military attacks, but it is extremely vulnerable to cyber threats and attacks.

Barry Andrews, the leader of the Fianna Fáil in the European Parliament, observed that “75% of transatlantic underwater internet cables flow through or near Ireland’s exclusive economic zone.” Dublin also hosts the European headquarters of big-tech giants of the likes of Google and Facebook. This is probably why Ireland joined the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Center of Excellence in 2019, despite not being a NATO member. Ireland is only a member of the Partnership for Peace. Since 2017, the country has also participated in EU Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) projects as an Observer. This participation is expected to become more in the near future.

An Important Opportunity

In conclusion, it is our belief that the war in Ukraine represents an important opportunity for Europe to strengthen its common security and address defense capability shortfalls. A new security architecture is emerging from this crisis in which the EU and NATO should seek not only to complement, but also to mutually reinforce one another. They must also keep working together to protect the common values and principles both organizations stand for. The real challenge going forward for the EU is how not to lose momentum and maintain the same level of consultation and cooperation with NATO allies, especially with the US. This momentum could be lost quickly once the war is over and it is then that member states have to continue to invest in defense, when threats are no longer direct nor immediate to their lands.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Is Russia’s War in Ukraine Creating a New European Security Architecture? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

According to the Peace Worldwide Organization’s , Ukraine has a population of about 44 million. It has a reputation for being racist and widely corrupt. It faces internal armed conflict for suppressing the people of Donbas (Donetsk and Luhansk regions), a fact that has resulted in many civilian injuries, deaths, and displacements. Torture and other forms of human rights abuses are widely used. Human rights defenders and independent journalists risk being attacked. Harassment and suppression of non-Slavic ethnic minorities, especially the Roma, Tartars, Jews, and political asylum seekers continue. Violence against women and girls remains widespread. 

Ukraine has a short history relative to its powerful neighbor Russia. Although people lived there for centuries, as Ali Rogin, a foreign affairs producer at the PBS , explains, the region was often ruled by Austria-Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, or Russia. The end of World War I inspired an independence movement that led to the birth of the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic in 1922. Ukrainians nevertheless remained divided. Some favored Nazi occupation before World War II. 

The territory we now know as Ukraine was finalized when the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev took Crimea away from Russia and gave it to Ukraine. In 1991 when the Soviet Union fell, Ukraine declared independence. In 2004, Ukrainians elected Vikto Yanukovych, a pro-Russian prime-minister, to lead the country, though the election failed to meet international standards.   

A Free Election, Status of Russian and Crimea

In 2010 in a fair and free election in Ukraine, was elected president of Ukraine. The new president favored better relations with neighboring Russia. In 2013, a pro-European Union uprising broke out in Ukraine. Ukrainian security forces over-reacted, shooting and killing numerous people, which led to much wider protests against Yanukovych. Instead of an official impeachment, the Verkhovna Rada Committee, composed of experts advising the Ukrainian parliament, declared that Mr. Yanukovych should be removed from office on February 22, 2014. The large Russian ethnic minority in Ukraine rejected that declaration and generally remained loyal to Mr. Yanukovych.  

On February 23, the Ukrainian parliament passed a bill that repealed Russian language as an official status. That further angered the pro-Russians in Ukraine. Their protests intensified causing a rebellion to emerge against the Ukrainian forces. Russians formed about 90 cent of Crimea’s population and overwhelmingly in a referendum to leave Ukraine and become a part of Russia. Days later, In March 2014, the War began with Russia lending its support to pro-Russian separatist forces in Crimea. 

Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, a territory that Russia had previously received from the Ottomans in the 1774 of Kucuk Kaynarca, at a time when it was fully inhabited by ethnic Tatars. Crimea remained a part of Russia for 180 years until 1954 when Soviet leader assigned it to Ukraine. Prior to 1954, Crimea had been inhabited by Russians and persecuted Tatars. 

It was only on May 25 of that year that President Yanukovych was officially and removed from office by the Ukrainian Parliament.

A History of Cold War and More

have deep cultural, economic, familial, and political ties, going back for centuries. Millions of Russians live in Ukraine and have family ties with other Ukrainians. Furthermore, Russia and Ukraine were the two original members of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that was formed in 1922, eventually consisting of 15 republics, including Russia and Ukraine.

The US, the Soviet Union, and a number of other countries allied to defeat the Nazi Germany in the Second World War that was followed by the, a political rivalry began between the US and the Soviet Union. They emerged as the world’s two superpowers, competing for political influence and access to resources. They proxy wars throughout the world, producing many bloody conflicts across the globe.

In 1949, the US led the move to create the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (), specifically designed to resist Soviet aggression. Paradoxically, the US-led NATO has been amongst the first to violate its commitments to the UN, leading to its perception by some  as the world’s leading troublemaker since its inception. According to the previously cited Civility Report 2022, NATO has continued “stockpiling as offensive; conventional, biological, radiological, chemical, and nuclear weaponry as well as arming other nations or groups, having a military presence in other nations, giving military aid to belligerent nations, participating in military alliances,” actions that “would increase tension worldwide and violate the commitments to the UN for working towards peace and security.” NATO countries are responsible for over 75% of global arms exports. Among  the recipients are some of the world’s most repressive regimes, such as “Egypt, Israel, Kuwait, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and UAE.”

In 1955, the Soviet Union led the formation of the Warsaw Treaty Organization (), also known as the Warsaw Pact, as a balance of power to NATO to resist NATO’s aggression. The Korean War and the Vietnam War are just two examples where the two fought proxy wars, wasting millions of lives.

In 1990, after the of the Berlin wall in 1989, the US and Russia that NATO would not expand beyond East Germany after its reunion with Germany. This was confirmed by NATO’s secretary. That set the stage for the of East Germany and West Germany later that year.

In 1991, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact . However, NATO did not dissolve, but continued. Despite the assurances from the US and the NATO’s Secretary that NATO would not go beyond the former East Germany into the former republics of the Soviet Union, they did not live up to their promises. On the initiative of the US,  NATO moved eastward, taking in former Soviet republics. In 1994 as a response to NATO, Russia persuaded  Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan to sign a defense – the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), similar to the NATO – stipulating that aggression against any signatory is to be seen as aggression against all. 

Russian Invasion a Reaction to NATO Expansion

After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has persistently expressed its disapproval of NATO expansion into the former Soviet states. The last official to NATO was given in December 2021. The US has consistently ignored those warnings, including the latest one. In its 2021 draft agreements with NATO, Russia demanded, among other things, that NATO bar any military activity in Ukraine. NATO ignored the warnings.

To stop the NATO aggression, Russia deemed itself forced to invade Ukraine. The invasion kicked off on February 24, 2022. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine could be seen as an escalation of the 2014 Russo-Ukrainian War.

For Americans to understand why Russia believes that Ukraine must not be a member of NATO they might see a parallel with the 1962 Cuban Missile when the Soviets installed some of their offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba. If the Soviets had not  withdrawn those missiles, it could have resulted in another world war. If Ukraine joins NATO, Russia could have the US offensive nuclear missiles at its borders. 

It has now become apparent that most nations representing a of the world’s population do not support the US-led NATO’s action against Russia and reject the US effort to isolate Russia.

The US political leaders should learn lessons from their past mistakes. Sanctions are counterproductive. The US has imposed particularly hard sanctions on Iran with no effect on the Iranian government’s behavior. Rather, Iran turned to developing its own military capabilities and becoming a far stronger adversary to the US hegemony in the region. US sanctions have caused price increases on many goods and services across the world, resulting in more poverty and destruction worldwide. If US sanctions against Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and other countries continue, it may have the effect of leading the world into a deep recession, where the American people themselves would be among the victims..

Negotiating Peace Is the Right Thing to Do

“We seek peace, knowing that peace is the climate of freedom,” said Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States. Instead of pouring fuel on fire by arming Ukraine in the war, the US should take the lead negotiating with Russia. If the war continues, both the US and Russia will lose.

Just as in the Cuban Missile Crisis, negotiation is the only path for resolving the issues. Escalation may ultimately lead to a nuclear war, threatening the existence not only of the US and Russia, but the entire world. 

Most of the world’s population is sympathetic to Russian security concerns and fears NATO’s aggression. Regional powers like China, India, and Iran would like to see a ceasefire and negotiations to address the Russian issues. Former U.S. secretary of state , who has blood on his hands for the US interventions in other countries, has come to the realization that NATO’s aggressive stance is counterproductive. Kissinger has urged NATO to negotiate and give up territory to Russia to stop the war.

It is now time for the US to act. On behalf of NATO, the US should negotiate directly with Russia, addressing its security concerns. The US must be willing to let Ukraine remain a neutral country. If that does not mitigate the Russian security concerns, the US may have to consider letting Estonia’s, Latvia’s and Lithuania’s membership be withdrawn from NATO to become neutral countries as well. Once the negotiation is completed, the UN Security Council would have to guarantee the neutrality of those countries.

Yet, far better would be an initiative of the US to prepare the  dissolution of NATO, an organization  that has brought about so much pain and suffering across the world. This would be the first step in working towards a world free from armaments.

As for Russia, it should make reparations for the loss of lives, injuries, human displacement, and property destruction inflicted on Tatars and Native Crimeans, since taking over from the Ottomans in 1774.

The path to peace can only be achieved by everyone coming to the negotiating table, giving up something they want and atoning for past wrongs. With 250 million people on the verge of starvation, that time has come.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Negotiate With Russia and Let Ukraine Have Peace appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Governments in the West have begun using the war in Ukraine to explain away inflation as a consequence of Russia’s invasion, but, as Fed Chairman Jerome Powell admitted during last week’s Senate hearings, the aggravating effect of the war on inflation has been marginal. Inflation was already endemic before the war.

The Ukraine war has produced effects far worse than the inflation of consumer prices. It has disrupted the global economy to the point of threatening famine in Africa, the Middle East and Asia and making businesses across the globe unprofitable. But prices are not the only example of inflation. The inflation of propaganda and particularly the rhetoric of politicians concerning the war may produce consequences far worse than consumer price inflation. Every day, political rhetoric brings us closer to accidental nuclear conflagration.

This aggravation appears to have begun influencing at least some political and military leaders to think beyond the dogmas of official rhetoric. Recently the first hints have appeared that the propaganda war may be loosening up to the point of permitting thought, if not action, evoking a possible negotiated settlement of the war.

Jens Stoltenberg has provided one of those hints. Most people would expect the Secretary General of NATO should have significant influence on decision-making in NATO affairs, even while admitting that, like any good secretary, he knows how to take dictation from his bosses in Washington DC and Arlington, Virginia. Speaking in Finland earlier this month, he appeared to acknowledge a divergent view pointing towards resolution rather than indefinite prolongation of the war. “Peace is possible,” he. “The only question is what price are you willing to pay for peace? How much territory, how much independence, how much sovereignty… are you willing to sacrifice for peace?”

He hints that Ukraine’s price for peace –  just like gas, wheat or fertilizer –  is also subject to inflation. As even some Ukrainians close to the government are beginning to recognize, Russia has overpowered them and things are not likely to get better, let alone evolve towards the kind of fantasized Ukrainian victory Western media has evoked as inevitable. The Washington Post Oleksandr V. Danylyuk, an adviser to the Ukrainian government on defense and intelligence issues: “There’s much less space for optimism right now.”

Stoltenberg clearly understands that real decisions are made not in Ukraine, but on the other side of the Atlantic. But he acknowledged a basic moral truth when he said that “it’s for those who are paying the highest price to make that judgment.” Alas, a judgment is not always a decision.

�մǻ岹��’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Pay the highest price:

What consumers are expected to do in the consumer society, especially when the model for industrial and now geopolitical organization is a monopoly in the marketplace and a monopoly on global power.

Contextual note

The United States Institute of Peace earlier this month the mood in Washington. “Skeptics of any near-term negotiation fear that a cease-fire and talks would represent appeasement of Russia, letting it keep the 20 percent of Ukraine that it has seized militarily. This view holds that talks should be postponed until Russia is weakened or ideally defeated.”

From the beginning of the conflict, the Biden administration announced its expectation that the massive sanctions it imposed on Russia, and especially cutting it off from the global payments system based on the dollar, would rapidly weaken Russia and thus strengthen Ukraine’s negotiating position. That hasn’t happened. The ruble – which Biden claimed last March would be transformed into “rubble” – has grown stronger. More significantly, outside of Europe, Japan, South Korea and Australia, the other countries of the world have refused to join Biden’s attempt at a remake of George Bush’s ultimately futile, disastrous and technically “coalition of the willing.”  

This is downright embarrassing for the US, a nation still committed to affirming a unipolar world under its leadership, but suddenly discovering that its hitherto captive vassals across the globe – the other nations that have over the past half century integrated the globalized economy dominated by the dollar – are no longer taking the master’s requests to be orders.

Historical note

The leaders of the West find themselves at one of those “inflection points” Joe Biden on various occasions last year in his to be seen as a “transformative president.” That was a time when Americans could be both troubled and impressed by Biden’s bold move to end a war in Afghanistan that had endured for nearly 20 years. Against the protests of many of his own domestic and foreign allies, he he calculated that the price of continuing the US presence in Afghanistan was too high to continue. He dared to end a forever war and usher in a new golden age of peace.

Biden could have prevented the Russian invasion by negotiating and acknowledging the seriousness of Russia’s security concerns. But his administration preferred to engage in the game of predicting the exact date of the invasion rather than preventing it. His administration was busy calculating the high price Russia would have to pay for its mistake as it was destined to become a “pariah” of the international community.

Now that the war is raging, Jens Stoltenberg has dared to take a different look at war-related prices. He acknowledges that if it’s the Ukrainians who are paying the price, they should be the ones to assess whether they can afford it. With Russia’s continuing success in the east, not only is the price of an eventual peace rising, but the cumulative costs of war keep piling up. There is little indication, however, that the true decision-makers in the West are encouraging the Ukrainians to make that call. They prefer to remain indifferent to the stiff price Ukrainians are paying.

What could better illustrate this fact that the limpid reflections British Prime Minister Boris Johnson with the press on Sunday, Reuters from Bavaria at the G7 summit in Bavaria? “World leaders,” Johnson asserted, “must recognise the price of supporting Ukraine, including the surge in energy and food costs, but must also acknowledge that the price of allowing Russia to win would be far higher.”

The price the always jovial Boris is referring to is not the price the Ukrainians are paying as they watch their nation’s cities ravaged, their soldiers dying and much the population displaced. No, the British PM is referring to the price of Western politicians’ pride, a far more consequent inflationary factor and the one that ultimately determines which decisions will finally be made.

Boris merits our attention as he is known for his clairvoyance on political issues. Though currently abroad, in the past few days he has record-breaking decibels of commentary at home thanks to his admission that he is now “thinking actively about the third term.” This means that, much like Vladimir Putin, he clearly sees himself as the anointed leader ready to assume the arduous task of ruling Britannia for decades.

From his perch in Bavaria, Boris droned on about prices, insisting that ” the price of backing down, the price of allowing Putin to succeed, to hack off huge parts of Ukraine, to continue with his programme of conquest, that price will be far, far higher. Everybody here understands that.” Stoltenberg clearly spoke out of order when he designated the Ukrainians as those having “the highest price to pay.”

If Johnson’s wisdom is followed, the even higher price that all of humanity may have to pay could well be nuclear holocaust. But for Johnson, that’s OK. For a committed rhetorical inflationist like Johnson, who speaks for “everybody” present at the G7 summit, the highest price to pay would be electoral defeat at home, a fate far worse for such enlightened leaders than the annihilation of humanity.

The ideology of the West’s capitalism relies on the belief that everything has a price, followed by its corollary, that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. The Ukraine crisis has demonstrated that politicians excel at putting an arbitrary price tag on everything – including their next election – but rarely seek to understand the value of anything… especially when there’s always a lobbyist to hand to pay for their free lunch.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Who Can Put a Price on the Ukraine War? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Those two events symbolized, prolonged and accelerated a civilizational trend: the polarization of everything. The great advantage of polarization, especially in the consumer society, is that unlike the quandary of selecting a flavor of ice cream or a pair of shoes when the choice appears to be infinite, decision-making is simplified. With polarization you can simply decide what you want to reject, even if you are not convinced by what you choose.

In the culture wars that have been raging in the US, people simply have to decide which side they are on, even in issues of life and death. On the question of abortion, they must be either pro-choice or pro-life. There’s nothing to think about other than which camp one must identify with. The same applies to gun control or choosing one’s pronouns. In all cases, you will be on one side or the other. As Larry Beck has maintained in his columns, you have the simple choice of deciding whether the second amendment is about the rights of individual (originally white) citizens or the responsibility of states to organize militias. Once you have chosen your side, you know who your enemies are.

When simplistically contradictory debate replaces nuanced discussion or even argument, as the Monty Python decades ago, the news media themselves are transformed into platforms for propaganda. Now that polarization has become the official political religion, the narrow opening that once existed giving access to information and contributing to decision-making has closed. Why waste time weighing the facts or assessing their consequences when the conclusion is ready-made?

If 2016 got the momentum going, 2022 may be remembered as the year when, thanks to a polarizing war in a faraway land, facts and assessment of their consequences were officially banished from even the West’s supposedly “serious” media. With news itself slinking away into the wings, propaganda could take center stage.

The Guardian is a serious newspaper that covers many non-controversial topics where the play of creative thinking is still allowed. But when it comes to the war in Ukraine, it has aligned with the Washington thesis, that humanity should be neatly divided into those who support Ukraine and those who support the Kremlin. We knew that would be true of The New York Times and The Washington Post, whose geopolitical lifeline is connected directly to the US intelligence community. But The Guardian appears too respectable not to follow suit and support the same narrative.

Last week The Guardian featured an presenting as news the opinion of Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, head of the UK’s armed forces. Sir Tony made the claim that Russia has ‘strategically lost’ the war in Ukraine. This assertion does not merit the title of “news.” It is the statement of someone who has an obvious interest in promoting a particular official narrative.

At one point the article quotes Radakin’s words: “This is a dreadful mistake by Russia. Russia will never take control of Ukraine.”

�մǻ岹��’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Take control:

A flexible verb collocation that suggests a spectrum of meanings that spans the extremes between mastering (good) and oppressing (bad), making it ideal for tendentious use in political contexts.

Contextual note

Summarizing the admiral’s reasoning The Guardian explains that “the Russian president Vladimir Putin, had lost 25% of Russia’s land power for only ‘tiny’ gains and it would emerge a ‘more diminished power’ while strengthening Nato.” Since the beginning of the war, with precious little evidence, Western media have relentlessly developed the thesis that Russia was losing the war and Ukraine was winning. Almost every expert not involved in producing and disseminating propaganda – and never quoted in the corporate media – has been saying, “Not so fast!” Russia may in fact be slowly achieving its objectives.

Propaganda is the art of taking very real facts and citing other imaginary facts or intentions to create an emotionally explosive linguistic cocktail. That is what The Guardian has done here with Radakin’s narrative. The newspaper’s account begins with a simple, though not necessarily verified fact, that “the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, had lost 25% of Russia’s land power.”

A Russian-American Game of Mirrors

READ MORE

The Guardian draws this seemingly logical conclusion: that Russia “would emerge a ‘more diminished power.’” This correlates precisely with Washington’s narrative about the West’s real goal in the conflict, as by US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Washington wants “to see Russia weakened.” There is a surreptitious semantic shift in both Radakin’s and The Guardian’s reasoning based precisely on the goal stated by Austin. Describing Russia’s material losses as implying that Russia is “a diminished power” is baseless.

Radakin cites a  figure of 50,000 Russian casualties, which is impressive. It appears to derive from Ukrainian claims repeated by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. On June 3, Le Monde a more serious evaluation of the current state of knowledge. “Nobody really knows,” it wrote, “how many combatants or civilians have died, and claims of casualties by government officials — who may sometimes be exaggerating or lowballing their figures for public relations reasons — are all but impossible to verify.”

But Radakin went further, claiming that “Russia has strategically lost already.” He cited Finland and Sweden “looking to join” NATO as proof. The average reader may take away the idea that Russia has already literally “lost” the war, which supposes the corollary: that Ukraine has won. But Radakin’s assertion can only work if we assume (i.e. speculate) that Russia was seeking to control Ukraine and neutralize NATO rather than “liberate” the Donbas in what it continues to claim is a “special military operation.”

Radakin avoids acknowledging that a country can strategically lose at various points and ultimately win a war. Assessing strategic success or failure requires knowing the enemy’s actual intentions. But propaganda is always about distorting the intentions on both sides. This includes one’s own intentions, which may be far less noble than announced, and the adversary’s intentions, which may be less evil than claimed.

Historical note

As far as propaganda goes, the Ukraine war may occupy a unique place in history. War always and inevitably generates propaganda among the warring parties. But this may be the first time an overseas war with a complex historical background has produced such intensively developed propaganda in nations that have no direct stake in the issues behind the war. Unless, of course, they actually do have an unavowed stake in the war.

Propaganda in times of war can be described as the art of writing history before historians have the time or the means to understand its components. It sets in place a frame of reference that serves both a short-term and long-term objective. In the short term, it fixes a population’s attention on a single and generally simplistic reading of responsibilities: who is to blame. With the liberty of a writer of creative fiction, it also describes the intentions on both sides, noble at home and devious on the enemy’s side. This is designed to prevent the local population from critiquing its government or suspecting any real or imaginary ulterior motives. The public can also be counted on to accept any sacrifice that is demanded.

In so doing, for the long term, it prepares the account that will appear in future history books. This is important for the continuity of the emotion we call patriotism. Patriotism is essential to the future security of the state. History will thus be prewritten in a way that promotes the idea that the nation has always looked after the interests of its people and defended their shared ideals.

The New York Times’ Anti-Russian Inquisition Cancels History (again)

READ MORE

One unanswered question for the West will depend on the duration and ultimate outcome of the Ukraine war. Given the tenuousness of the connection with Ukraine, will the populations of the West continue to perceive the war as serving their interests and ideals? That perception is beginning to erode in Europe as well as in the US. Whether it accelerates and intensifies or not, we can nevertheless be sure that the propaganda will still be there to “take control” of the people’s emotions.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How It Took Six Years to Achieve the Victory of Polarization appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The advent of the new order, as the offspring of the modern para-ideology of liberal democracy, by its nature implies cohesion and solidarity on the world stage. The doctrines of liberal democracy are claimed to be universal and nation states are required to implement them to provide equality of opportunities, equity, in a context of freedom, individualism, and pluralism, all of which make up the infrastructural concept of human rights on the global stage. 

Citizens of the states are deemed to have signed the social contract, transferring their right to rule in their mother territory to the central government as the legitimate organ empowered to implement its sovereignty to uphold the nation’s rights and freedom. In this context, democracy is meaningless if plurality is suppressed since the concept of democracy includes at its roots the acceptance of pluralism. Any act that serves to deprive any human beings of their universal rights violates the principle of plurality.. 

For this reason, as well as for the maintenance of the global order, international institutions such as the ICC, United Nations, and IAEA were created. But apparently, no element of the new order has been perceived in the interest of the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. Authoritarian regimes like Russia, the People’s Republic of China, Iran’s Islamic Republic, and the last totalitarian Stalinist regime in North Korea are calling into question the liberal-democratic order across the globe. Russia’s invasion of  Ukraine lit its flame.

Strategic Goals of Russia in the Ukraine War

The vertical propaganda machine of the Russian Federation justifies the invasion of Ukraine as a anti-Nazi special Operation. Its stated ultimate is de-Nazifying and demilitarizing Ukraine, and preventing Ukraine from joining NATO. However, it is not all the aspects of the iceberg. 

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, has been the industrial center of independent Ukraine, due to the fact that the land contains a large reserve of coal. Historically, Donbas has played a crucial role in the industrialization of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union.  On the other hand, the flocking of people of Russia to Donbas during the late 19th century created a strong cultural tie between the people of Russia, and the Ukrainians in the Donbas. Furthermore, throughout the history of the Russian Empire, since 1654, Ukrainians were prone to being systematically assimilated into the Russian Empire. The educational system followed the Russian model and Russian became the official language under the policies known as . 

Hence the concentration of Russians and Russian culture in Donbas is multifaceted, with a historical, socio-cultural and economic dimension. The eventual annexation of the Donbas by Russia promises not only to enrich Russia economically but also to create a strategic dependence of Ukraine with regard to Russia. This is an important factor in the logic that underlies the Russian claims of historical and socio-cultural ties between the Donbas and the motherland of Russia. 

The Cold War began as the Second World War ended. The international arena found itself confronted with the bipolar pitting of the Western block against the Eastern bloc. The Western bloc was formed by the collective defense agreement of NATO. After the integration of West Germany into NATO, the Soviet-backed collective defense agreement known as the Warsaw Pact was signed in Warsaw, Poland. The Warsaw pact disbanded in 1991 as, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the communist structure had lost all legitimacy in Eastern Europe. 

NATO, however, experienced eight periods of enlargement since its establishment in 1949. The Russian Federation considers NATO a threat to its national security. They see it as an . Thus the Kremlin feels it cannot sit idly by and watch the expansion of NATO to Eastern European countries, which they see as being part of their “historical land.” Therefore, one objective behind the invasion of Ukraine is Russia’s desire to forbid the expansion of NATO. 

The 20th century is known as the age of emerging ideologies. The map of the globe experienced revolutions, risings, significant wear and tear and a confusion of political ideologies. The fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 changed the trajectory of history, apparently in the direction of the interests of liberal democracy and free-market capitalism. That year stands as the starting point of a unipolar world. Democracy in line with the rule of law, individualism, freedom, the right to vote, equality of opportunities, equity and pluralism are the stated core values of the new order, which the democracies across the globe aspire to achieve. 

This order, led by the Western block, is now being challenged by authoritarian and totalitarian regimes seeking to establish and feed a multipolar order and a Russia’s invasion of Ukraine took place in the context of a global movement away from the unipolar world of 1991. Some believe it signifies that Russia is striving for the revival of the Russian Empire’s hegemony over Eurasia, Eastern Europe, and the Central Asia Countries. The People’s Republic of China is vying to become an economic hegemon under the Xi doctrine. It has engaged in a subtle cultural hegemonic war in its challenge to the dominance of Western culture. It is now taken for granted that Western liberal-based countries backed by the United States of America constitute one pillar of the emerging multipolar world order that may form a triangle with the Russian Federation and China in international relations. However, this triangle holds the potential of becoming a square, with the rising influence of political Islam. Nevertheless, the question concerning which among a trio of countries – Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia – may end up leading such an Islamic coalition and whether such a coalition can maintain a viable level of cohesion is far from settled. 

The Atrocities in Ukraine and the Banality of Evil

Hannah Arendt, the German political philosopher who coined the “the banality of evil” after the trial of Eichmann for his role in the Holocaust, argued that in our age, the age of genocide, extreme evil is done when the perpetrator renounces the power human beings have of discerning between good and evil. For Arendt, the banality of evil is “thought-defying.” The perpetrator is only obeying bureaucratic orders, rather than being driven by ideological motivations or personal resentment.

The atrocities perpetrated by Russian forces in Chernihiv, Kharkiv, and Kyiv Ukraine can be seen as the repetition of the banality of evil in our era. There are no ideological incentives behind this war, and there is no personal resentment of the Russian military forces toward the innocent civilians of Ukraine. 

Plurality is a feature of all human societies. No one can deny the existence of others, and their interests as nations or ethnical groups. Any act that implies ignoring identities, assimilation, war crimes, and genocides violates the principle of pluralism, and can thus be considered an act of dehumanization. Every evidence of war crimes and atrocities in the ongoing catastrophe in Ukraine is yet another act of dehumanization that points to  the reemergence of the banality of evil at this age.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Banality of Evil, the Ukraine War and Russia’s Strategic Goals appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Everyone nevertheless seems to agree that Putin badly miscalculated. One of the reasons they cite is the unexpected scope and intensity of the Ukrainian resistance. Another is of course the massive and largely unexpected support provided by the West, notably in the form of military equipment.

Various statements from authoritative voices in Washington indicate not only that the war is likely to drag on, but that a forever war is what the American strategists have been hoping to see. On his visit to Poland in March, US President Joe Biden his faithful followers “to steel ourselves for a long fight ahead…” Three months later, his prediction that the “battle will not be won in days or months” appears to be accurate. Less accurate, however, was his claim that the Russian ruble would be reduced to rubble and that the back of the Russian economy was about to be broken. In April the ruble bounced back to “the strongest currency in the world this year.” Despite the massive sanctions imposed on Russia and the constraints of war, its economy is still ticking over.

If the pundits, politicians and military elite in Washington, sitting 5,000 miles away, seem more than comfortable with a war that will keep Russia occupied for many months or even years to come, it may be that the people on whose behalf they are stoking the war, standing on the front line of Russian aggression, will become less euphoric as time goes by. So could most Europeans facing the prospect of a dire winter with rationed heating and exploding gas prices. So indeed could Americans themselves, who are already beginning to complain.

The most pitiable victims are obviously the Ukrainians. Even when conducted with an endless supply of modern weapons, the heroism of resistance offers cold comfort to the heroes themselves when as many as 100 Ukrainians die every  day and cities are leveled in a war announced as never-ending. Still, the Ukrainians seem committed. But they increasingly worry their allies may cave. Al Jazeera that “officials in Kyiv have expressed fears that the specter of ‘war fatigue’ could erode the West’s resolve to help the country push back Moscow’s aggression.”

�մǻ岹��’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

War fatigue:

Not to be confused with the military apparel known as battle fatigues, a psychological state provoked by enduring wars with no defined goals and afflicting individuals and sometimes entire populations, with the exception of politicians, lobbyists and administration officials working in and around the Beltway.

Contextual note

In recent days, Biden himself no longer sounds quite as triumphal as he did during his speech in Warsaw last March. But US policy has not changed, nor is it likely to change. Losing face is too costly to any politician’s historical legacy. Nevertheless, Edward Luce in the Financial Times that “tedium is beginning to creep in” even in Washington, where “Joe Biden’s recent utterances show awareness of the problem.”

Military realism may also be slowly creeping in after months of romanticizing the Ukrainian resistance and self-celebrating the financial support provided by the US and its European allies. “Many of the defects in today’s Russian military — low morale, shoddy equipment, lack of initiative and brutality within its ranks — were also true of Stalin’s Red Army, which eventually defeated the German Wehrmacht,” Luce pertinently notes.

Then there’s Europe, a continent of illusion, where an economically powerful union perennially demonstrates the fact that it is still a collection of culturally and linguistically disparate populations. As a formal union, some things do appear to take collective form but there are no solid structures designed to maintain the coherence of the European Union in the face of ever-present centrifugal forces. At the beginning of this war, the political class, followed by the media, succeeded in stirring a spontaneous identification with the Ukrainian resistance. After all, in the past century, Europeans had finally learned that war on one’s own terrain was always a lose-lose proposition. Invaders should be reviled and automatically punished.

Unlike Americans, however, Europeans do not equate condign punishment with endlessly prosecuted war. They know war induces fatigue. They also tend to be less trusting of the wisdom of their politicians. The average European has no reason to feel proud of NATO or identify with the institution. European politicians, on the other hand, appreciate NATO as a symbolic presence, overseen by Washington, that seems to guarantee that peace, at least among European nations, will endure. Europeans may react instinctively against Russian aggression towards a bordering nation, but they are far less convinced that NATO and the US military umbrella is the permanent key to peaceful relations.

The Ukraine war has revealed a newfound taste among European governments for militarization. And though NATO is at the core of the common security framework, the shock of this war has pushed European governments to think more seriously about an autonomous military collaboration that no longer depends on the US for leadership. That will be complicated to achieve and will take time. But, for various reasons, it may be inevitable.

Democracy and France’s Theater of the Absurd

READ MORE

Few commentators noticed that in the first round of the French presidential election in April, a clear majority voted for candidates that were openly hostile to NATO, on both the left and the extreme right. That may have less to do with war fatigue than NATO fatigue. The monumental damage already being wrought on the European economy as a result of Washington’s insistence on integrating Ukraine into NATO will leave increasingly evident traces in the months and years to come. 

Historical note

Less than a week after the Russian invasion, Hillary Clinton appeared on MSNBC to what appeared to be the geopolitical reasoning already current in the corridors of power in Washington. She not only forecast a prolonged war, supported by the United States, but she also appeared to relish the idea. She felt it would have an effect similar to that of Russia’s decade-long war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, considered one of the factors that precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Clinton even described this plan to trap Russia in a quagmire as “the model people are looking toward.” By “people” she was obviously referring to the Washington elite, especially the State Department, which she headed for four years under President Barack Obama. Clinton’s description of this model may have seemed to some observers to be a random thought in her head. But subsequent events indicate that, even on March 1, five days after the launch of Russia’s “special operation,” it was in all likelihood a strategy already fully elaborated, months before Russia’s invasion. This would help to explain the bizarre sequence of events in which the news cycle was dominated by the US announcing the date on which Russia would start its war.

Both Clinton and Biden in their public discourse following the outbreak of the Ukraine war have savored the idea of Russia agonizing on its own without any direct American military presence in the war zone. Washington’s military strategists adhere to the historical model of Russia in Afghanistan that played out in the 1980s. They are now seeking to repeat the pattern in 2022. When Biden’s Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin a “weakened” Russia that no longer has “the capacity to invade its neighbors,” he echoes his president with both seeing a hoped-for parallel between the collapse of the Soviet Union. Biden’s own is that “this man [Putin] cannot remain in power.” US  defense strategy is rarely about defending the nation from aggression and almost always about regime change somewhere else in the world.

In May, Le Monde’s Washington correspondent “an undeniable euphoria that has gripped part of the ‘blob,’ as Washington’s foreign policy establishment often informally called. This euphoria may even last for a while but not forever. Even the hippie generation, after turning on, tuning in and dropping out, at one point realized that euphoria has its own expiration date. Many of them experienced drug fatigue and communal living fatigue. In the following decades quite a few of them also ended up in the blob, seeking another kind of euphoria.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Will Europe Continue to Support the US Taste for Endless War? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

With Russian forces, so far, unable to take the city, they have resorted to both indiscriminate and targeted attacks on civilians, including apartment blocks, schools, hospitals and government buildings. This has caused significant civilian , with the city’s mayor claiming last week that almost 5,000 people have so far been killed and that 90 %of the city’s buildings had been damaged, with 40% destroyed. The now famous image of a woman in labor, who has tragically since died, being stretchered out of a now destroyed maternity hospital is testament to the barbarity of these attacks.

The targeting of civilians has caused tens of thousands of people to west to Kyiv and Lviv and then into neighboring countries. For those who remain, attacks by Russian forces have made it increasingly difficult to escape, with reports of civilians killed while attempting to leave the city by vehicle or foot. While Russia has recently called for a ceasefire and a humanitarian corridor, previous attempts at negotiating the safe passage of civilians have quickly , with Russia the culprit in continuing to target people taking escape routes.

Making matters worse, damaged civilian infrastructure has meant that crucial services, including water, food, power and heating have become unavailable, creating a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian that threatens to cost the lives of more innocent people. There are reports that residents have resorted to melting snow for drinking water and that a significant number of the estimated 160,000 who remain are facing acute food shortages and hunger. With a lack of power and hospitals targeted, this has also meant that those unable to escape, such as the elderly and people with a disability, are unable to access vital medical care.

The siege of Mariupol, the denial of humanitarian corridors and the targeting of civilians have been condemned as war crimes by Amnesty International and the international community more broadly. The President of the United States, Joe Biden, has publicly that Vladimir Putin is a war criminal and the actions of his armed forces in Ukraine, particularly Mariupol, have been called out by the European Union, the United Kingdom and Australia.

Russia’s history of war crimes

Russia has a reputation here, with a history of , hospitals and schools and targeting humanitarian corridors. Tactics of killing, injuring and terrorizing civilians were used to a horrific effect against rebel forces in Syria from 2015 onwards. Russia, in partnership with Syrian government forces, besieged, starved and combed civilian areas, including schools and hospitals, in order to demoralize the population and crush any resistance. This included the use of cluster and ‘barrel’ bombs, and chemical weapons, all of which are outlawed under international law.

Current events in Mariupol have frightening parallels to , a once thriving Syrian city, that is now completely destroyed. Russian fighter jets bombed schools, hospitals and markets, particularly those full of people while the city was besieged by Syrian ground forces. Negotiated humanitarian corridors were also bombed, causing further civilian casualties when people attempted to flee. Like Mariupol, Aleppo quickly descended into a humanitarian catastrophe, with the cutting of rebel supply lines preventing vital supplies like food, water and medicine from reaching innocent civilians.

The tactics used by Russia, in Syria and now Ukraine, reflects a brutality that in no way respects the lives of civilians and is a rejection of the principles of human rights and international law.

The international community, to their discredit, largely stood by and watched innocent Syrians being killed in Aleppo, it cannot allow the same to occur in Mariupol.

What is to be done?

While Russia is notorious for not adhering to international law, there are steps the international community can take to make it clear that the wholesale destruction of cities, and the targeting of civilians, will not be tolerated. Put simply, an enforceable red line needs to be drawn.

In a positive step, the International Criminal Court has an investigation over war crimes committed by Russian forces. While neither Ukraine nor Russia are parties to the ICC, the court does have authority in this instance as Ukraine granted jurisdiction to the court after Russia’s involvement in the Donbas in 2014. While the likelihood of Putin or his inner circle being successfully prosecuted is unlikely, it is an important precedent nonetheless if they are found guilty.

Outside of the ICC process, the international community needs to make it clear to Russia that international law needs to be followed to avoid a repeat of Aleppo. Implementing harsher economic sanctions and providing vital military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine is a direct way of doing this. Broadly speaking, the international community is already taking these steps, which is welcome. But more needs to be done, and quickly.

With a direct military confrontation unlikely, harsher sanctions on Russian business, particularly in the energy sector, will isolate the regime economically, and sanctions on prominent individuals will pressure the regime from within. 

The international community should also use the power for the United Nations General Assembly to vote Russia off influential bodies. This can be and has been done. Russia’s from the United Nations Human Rights Council is testament to this. 

Through these steps, the international community can show Russia that international law is still a powerful tool, and one that should be respected, in order to partake in world affairs.

It’s time for the international community to make it clear that the inhumanity seen in Aleppo and Mariupol will no longer be tolerated. Only a strong response will ensure that civilian lives are saved.

(Senior Editor Francesca Julia Zucchelli edited this article.)

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The International Community cannot allow Mariupol to be the next Aleppo appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Experts are arguing as to what lies around the corner for Russia after a so-far disastrous war. In western capitals like London and Washington, many believe that the Vladimir Putin regime could fall. They believe that Russia could disintegrate. In places like India and China, many take the view that most of the news about the war is western propaganda that has to be taken with a handful, not a pinch, of salt. They believe that Russia will overcome its initial setbacks, take over the Ukrainian coast and leave Ukraine as a landlocked rump state.

Atul Singh on the Political Consequences of Russia-Ukraine War

In this episode of FO° Insights, Atul Singh makes sense of what is going on. You can watch the video above and/or read what he has to say below. The transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

Is this the second round of the 1991 Soviet collapse?

Atul Singh: Zhou Enlai once reportedly said of the influence of the French Revolution — he said it for 1968 but it was construed to be 1789 — that it was too early to tell. I think it’s too early to tell.

The Russian Empire was a hastily-built contraption. Russia expanded east to the Pacific just as America went west to reach the same ocean. But the American Empire was built on sturdier grounds, while the Russian one was a helter-skelter, disorganized affair.

The Soviet Union that emerged in 1917 collapsed in 1991. Now you could have places like Dagestan, Chechnya and other regions secede. If and this is the big if if the military defeat is catastrophic. If the casualties are too high, which so far they are, but they are not yet too too high, and if people start losing the shirts off their backs and start suffering for food and basic services, then Russia could fall apart.

Furthermore, Russia is ruled by a kleptocratic regime. It is not one built on ideology. Unlike Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Putin is not delivering economic growth or tremendous industrialization. In fact, Russian factories are reliant on spare parts from around the world. Russians do not make silicon chips, so they can’t do much advanced stuff without help from others. So yes, Russia could collapse, but the jury is still out whether it would. 

Has Vladimir Putin run out of rope?

Atul Singh: My personal feeling is eventually Vladimir Putin is bound to go because most dictators lose touch and dictators who end up in wars that end badly don’t seem to stick to the saddle for too long. This war isn’t going very well for Putin, so he may have run out of rope, and the reason may not necessarily be just the war. The reason really might be the fact that he has presided over a regime that has engaged in massive theft. And there is no real moral or ideological underpinning to his regime. 

Putin’s regime is a fake tsarism, it’s tsarism without the tsar with its private properties, with its fancy castles, with oligarchs and an absolute concentration of power. At the end of the day, Putin’s regime is not like the Soviet regime which had true believers. It is all built around a nostalgia for past grandeur and that might end in defeat in Ukraine, or let’s say a pyrrhic victory, which is often not much better. 

Can Russia still export its military equipment?

Russia has made its name as a mighty military power, exporting its T-90 tanks, S-400 missiles, Sukhoi Su-30s and whatnot to many countries around the world, including China and India. Now, Russian factories will have to work overtime to supply their own military. Also many of the engines for Russian military equipment came from Ukraine. In fact, that is what the Indians are finding out and Russia will find it very difficult to ramp up its production and supply other countries.

Russia’s strength as a defense exporter is going to weaken. The country is certainly going to be on its back, if not its knees, and should things go very badly. Of course, Russian kit now has a bad reputation, given the mauling it has had, but should the war go even more badly, the days of Russia as a top arms exporter might be in doubt. The Chinese might be looking at Russia, or the Russian disaster, a bit more cheerily than the West. They could step in to supply the gap. 

Will Russia fall under China’s thumb?

Well, that is the nightmare for a lot of my friends in the Pentagon. I have heard so many arguments that the real enemy is China and Russia is a distraction. Some of these ladies and gentlemen believe China is supporting Russia through back channels and shady deals are propping up Vladimir Putin. 

Bit by bit, a giant pipeline that is being built to supply Chinese energy needs. This will supply Russia with much of the cash to keep going over a period of time. Russia is increasingly too beholden to China. If Beijing emerges triumphal or triumphant, we could get something like a Germany and Austro-Hungarian Empire alliance before World War I.

This could then take on the West. In fact, this Eurasian alliance could emerge as a challenger to Washington and European capitals. Of course, Russia and China have thorny border issues. They have a long border. They also have geopolitical rivalry in Central Asia.They have had tiffs, even under communism when they were supposedly under the same ideology. But pressure from the West might be pushing them together, certainly right now. The Russians need the Chinese more than the Chinese need the Russians. So Russia is certainly going to be under China’s thumb.

What lies ahead for Russia?

A bleak winter, I suppose, after a tough summer. Russia is not in the best shape. Yes, its ruble is not falling to the same degree anymore — they have backed it with gold. Yes, Russia has a fortress economy. Yes, it can grow wheat. Yes, it has bread and oil. But at the end of the day, Russians have not really invested in their own country and manufactured stuff. The ability of a country to fight a war and win a war depends on its ability to make things, and that was what Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union was good at for all its catastrophic loss of life and the killing of millions. 

Under Vladimir Putin, Russian oligarchs have bought yachts, properties in London and beautiful villas in Monaco and elsewhere. And Russians don’t make stuff anymore. They export commodities. So Russia can certainly cause a giant crash of the global economy. It can send inflation ricocheting around the world. It can cause collapse of regimes such as in Egypt and even countries such as Lebanon.

However, Russia does not make anything advanced anymore and it doesn’t produce silicon chips, which is important for the next generation of manufacturing. So, the future for Russia is bleak, and there is certainly going to be a massive shakeup in the way Russia is run and perhaps even the way Russian borders are drawn when the dust settles.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Making Sense of the Political Consequences of the Russia-Ukraine War appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Recent developments seem undesirable for the Pakistani establishment, which had high hopes for a negotiated settlement between Islamabad and the TTP. After two rounds of official negotiations, Pakistan seems to be opting for a military solution. In April 2022, the Pakistani military carried out a against TTP hideouts in the eastern provinces of Afghanistan. As per the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) representative, these killed 20 children and 47 civilians. Tweets by the UNICEF representative caused in western capitals because sleeping children died.

It seems that what appeared a victory last year is turning out to be a strategic blunder. Pakistan has empowered the Afghan Taliban and, in the process, the TTP as well. Now, how can Islamabad protect its security interests threatened by the TTP? Can Pakistan counter the strategic insecurity emanating from its western client state led by its protégé, the Taliban?

Peace Talks Do Not Promise Long Term Peace

As per Atul Singh and Tabish Forugh, “the Taliban provide inspiration, ideology, organization, support, and expertise to Islamic fundamentalists from around the world and especially in South Asia.” The TTP is a more extreme version of the Taliban. Inspired by their cousins in Afghanistan, the TTP wants to establish a similar fundamentalist Islamist form of governance in the tribal areas across the border in Pakistan. Recently, it has unleashed attacks on Pakistani cities and towns.

The Taliban-Occupied Afghanistan Threatens Global Security

READ MORE

This was to be expected. The TTP has the support of the Taliban. The two organizations share the same extremist ideology and have similar long term goals. The TTP has become very active this year. On April 2, it kicked off , an offensive that will include “martyrdom attacks, ambushes, bombings, counter-attacks, targeted attacks, laser and sniper attacks.”

Pakistan has responded both militarily and diplomatically. On May 9, a Pakistani arrived in Kabul to have talks with the TTP leadership. It was the third attempt by Pakistan’s leadership to negotiate with the TTP. The Pakistani side was led by Lieutenant General Faiz Hameed who spoke directly with Noor Wali Mehsood, the TTP chief. These talks were mediated by Sirajuddin Haqqani, the Taliban’s Acting Interior Minister and the leader of the Haqqani Network. Haqqani has long been a close Pakistani ally.

The talks were a protracted affair. The parties took a break and reconvened. On May 18, they announced a ceasefire. The TTP promised to halt its attacks on Pakistani soil while Islamabad released 30 high-level TTP from its prisons. 

For all these tangible results, most analysts take the view that these talks are unlikely to lead to long term peace. Both sides have such contradictory long term goals that it is just a matter of time before dissolve into conflict.

Implications for the US and India

The US is now focused on Ukraine. It has abandoned Afghanistan and taken its eye off the security situation in South Asia. The Taliban is now supporting terror groups with similar extremist Islamist ideology. One of them is its old ally, . As per the UN Sanction Monitoring Team Report, al-Qaeda operatives have already found safe havens and have started bases in Afghanistan.

The US must recalibrate its Afghanistan policy given the increased terror activity in the region. The TTP and al-Qaeda represent the tip of the iceberg. The Taliban is likely to export terror first to Central and South Asia, and then to Europe and the US itself. 

As a non-Muslim nation, India ranks high as a target for Islamists. A nation of kafirs is always a good target for jihad. For centuries, Pashtun tribesmen swept down from their mountain strongholds to raid the plains for gold and women in wave after wave of jihad. Therefore, India has to form a more robust policy vis-à-vis Afghanistan. Already, there have been in Kabul but India needs to have clarity about its long term strategic goals.

Pakistan now has a client regime in Afghanistan. However, it faces a TTP problem. Also, the Taliban itself is divided. Islamabad does not have it all its own way. Furthermore, the Hazaras face violent persecution, if not ethnic cleansing and genocide. The Tajiks are also being hunted down. Both the US and India can play a major role in supporting persecuted groups and containing the Taliban as well as its extremist jihadi allies.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Has Pakistan Made a Strategic Blunder By Backing The Taliban in Afghanistan? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Rwanda has a tragic past. For 100 days in 1994, around 800,000 Rwandans were massacred in Rwanda by the ethnic Hutus in what has become known as the. Once, the country was run by the ethnic minority Tutsis. In 1959, they were overthrown by the ethnic majority Hutus. Thousands of Tutsis escaped to neighboring countries. Some of the Tutsis in exile united to set up the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), which began fighting against the Hutu government until a peace treaty was signed in 1993. In April 1994, a plane carrying Rwanda’s Hutu president and high-ranking officials was shot down, killing all on board. Blaming the RPF, Hutu extremists began the slaughters of the Tutsis and their Hutu sympathizers. 

The RPF maintained that the plane was shot by the Hutu extremists in order to blame the RPF and rationalize genocide. Meanwhile, French forces present in Rwanda watched the massacres, but did nothing. The French government has denied this persistently until recently. After 27 years of denial, France was finally forced by its own government commission to officially admit its complicity in the 1994 Rwanda genocide. In May 2021, French President Emmanuel Macron, spoke at the genocide memorial in Rwanda’s capital Kigali, where many of the victims were buried. He Rwandans to forgive France for its role in the 1994 genocide. “Only those who went through that night can perhaps forgive, and in doing so give the gift of forgiveness,” Macron said. 

United Nations Measures to Prevent Genocide

TheUnited Nations (UN) clearly states that the countries are bound to suppress “acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means,” a “settlement of international disputes” or resolution of situations that could lead to violence. In 1946, the UN General Assembly in its defined genocide and considered it an international crime. 

In 1948, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the, defined genocide as, “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.” In the case of disputes, the convention made the International Court of Justice (ICJ) the final legal authority on genocide. In 1949, the prohibited willful killings, torture, property destruction, unlawful deportation or confinement, and the taking of civilians as hostages.

More recently, international law has sought to prevent genocide. In May 1993, a Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal for the former (ICTY) was established. The ICTY indicted a number of the perpetrators of the Bosnian genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Those indicted include Radovan Karadzic and Slobodan Milosevic for crimes against humanity.

In August 1993, the Rwanda government signed a peace treaty with RPF, known as “Arusha Accords.” In October, the UN Security Council (UNSC) established the UN Assistance Mission for Rwanda () to assist the parties executing the peace agreement. The UNAMIR was supposed to monitor the progress in the peace process and help form the transitional government.

As mentioned earlier, the plane carrying the Rwandan Hutu President was shot down in 1994 and the Hutu government blamed the RPF. The next day, on April 7, 1994, government forces and Hutu militia began killing Tutsis, moderate Hutus and the UNAMIR peacekeepers who were among their first victims.

On June 22, 1994, after two and a half months of killings, the UN finally authorized a French-led multinational operation, “Operation Turquoise”, which set a protection zone in Rwanda to help victims and refugees. On July 15, 1994, RPF took over the country and stopped the 100 days of killings. In August 1994, whatever was left of the UNAMIR took over the French-led multinational operation and provided shelter to thousands of refugees.

In November 1994, the International Criminal Tribunal for (ICTR) was established. Headquartered in Arusha, Tanzania, the ICTR was supposed to “prosecute persons responsible for genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of Rwanda and neighboring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994.” So far, ICTR has brought to justice 93 persons “responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in Rwanda in 1994.” 

French Support of Genocidal Hutu-led Regime

In April 2019, the US law firm Levy Firestone Muse released A Foreseeable Genocide, a based on million pages of documents after years of interviews and investigation. The report found France to be a “collaborator” of the Hutu government in the genocide. The French were aware that the regime planned to exterminate the Tutsis. 

As per the report, the “French government was unwavering in its support for its Rwandan allies even when their genocidal intentions became clear, and only the French government was an indispensable collaborator in building the institutions that would become instruments of the Genocide.” The report concluded that “the Government of France bears significant responsibility for having enabled a foreseeable genocide.”

In March 2021, a French commission that France bore “heavy and overwhelming responsibility” for the Rwanda genocide. After this finding, the French government could no longer deny its involvement in the genocide. Under international pressure, the French president was finally forced to apologize for supporting the Hutu-led genocidal regime in Rwanda in 1994.

US Support for RPF

Even as the French backed a genocidal regime, the US supported the rebel RPF. Helen C Epstein, a visiting professor at Bard College, chronicled the secret role of the US in the Rwandan genocide in a tour de force in . Rwandan President Paul Kagame was “then a senior officer in both the Ugandan army and the RPF, was in Kansas at the United States Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, studying field tactics and psyops, propaganda techniques to win hearts and minds.” He flew back to lead Uganda-backed RPF against the genocidal Hutu regime.

Kagame and the RPF were not blameless either. Epstein tells us that Robert Flaten, the then US ambassador to Rwanda, witnessed the terror caused by the RPF invasion of Rwanda. Apparently, “hundreds of thousands of mostly Hutu villagers fled RPF-held areas, saying they had seen abductions and killings.” Flaten urged the George Herbert Walker Bush (Bush Senior) administration “to impose sanctions on Uganda, as it had on Iraq after the Kuwait invasion earlier that year.” Instead, the US and its allies doubled aid to Yoweri Museveni’s government. Uganda’s defense spending ballooned to 48% of the budget. Strongman Museveni allocated a mere 13% for education and 5% for health, even as AIDS was ravaging the country and killing thousands.

In 2022, Museveni continues to rule Uganda while Kagame is the big boss of Rwanda. There has been relative peace in the region but both regimes are based on the barrel of the gun. Under the Belgians, the Tutsis “formed an elite minority caste in Rwanda” and “treated the Hutu peasants like serfs, forcing them to work on their land and sometimes beating them like donkeys.” Today, the Tutsis continue to occupy the top echelons of the Rwandan state. The Hutus may be better treated than a few decades ago but they are clearly second class citizens in their own land.

Time for Action

Like many other countries, Rwanda is still waiting for justice. It is another example of the failure of the UN to stop genocide, save victims, and bring to justice all guilty parties. In 1994, the UN only acted after 75 days of killings. Even then, it chose France, a biased party, to lead the operation. The UN has acted belatedly, inadequately and irresponsibly repeatedly. Genocides in Cambodia, the Balkans and other places are proof of that fact.

The UN usually serves the interests of the powerful and ignores the poor. Thus, we cannot rely on the UN to prevent genocides, crimes against humanity and other atrocities. It is we the people who must assume responsibility and support political leaders who strive for global peace and harmony.

In the hope of avoiding another genocide, we must demand that our political leaders take the following actions:

First, ICTR must continue its work until all individuals, Rwandan or not, are brought to justice. Its mandate must be expanded to include the forces of other countries who watched but chose not to take any action to stop the ongoing killings.

Second, France, which has already appointed a commission, must now form a criminal tribunal to investigate those who collaborated with the genocidal Hutu government in 1994. French troops who watched the killings, but chose not to act, should also be brought to justice. The French cannot be tried by the ICTR because France is a permanent member of the UNSC and will veto any such proposal. So, we must put pressure on France to bring its citizens to justice.

Third, France must make reparations for the loss of lives, injuries, human displacements, and property destruction caused by its illegal collaboration and complicity with the Hutu government. has a GDP of over $2.7 trillion compared with Rwanda’s $10.4 billion. France must put its money where its mouth is and allocate at least $20 billion, amounting to less than 1% of its GDP, to compensate the victims of the genocide.

Fourth, the US must form a bipartisan committee to investigate its officials who played a dubious role in Rwanda or Uganda in the 1990s. Those who knew about killings and did nothing to prevent them must be brought to justice just like their French counterparts. Like France, the US is a member of the UNSC and its citizens cannot be tried by ICTR. So, it is up to American citizens to demand a reckoning of the dark days of the 1990s.

Fifth, the US must also pay reparations for the loss of lives, injuries, people displacements, and property destruction that occurred during the genocide. The US GDP is much larger than France and the US could easily give Rwanda $20 billion, about 1% of its GDP.  If the bipartisan committee discovers systemic support of genocide, then this amount should be higher. This money should be spent to build infrastructure, educate people, improve healthcare, create means of production and much more.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Those Responsible for the 1994 Rwandan Genocide Must Be Brought to Justice appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Even as is writing about “the coming food catastrophe,” the Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey is admitting to be unable to stop UK inflation hitting 10%, and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics is recording 8.3% inflation for April, Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh looks under the surface and around the corner to make sense of what to expect in the global economy.

Atul Singh on the Economic Consequences of Russia-Ukraine War

In this episode of FO° Insights, Atul Singh makes sense of what is going on. You can watch the video above and/or read what he has to say below. The transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

What are the economic consequences of the Russia-Ukraine war?

Atul Singh: The consequences are disastrous. The war could not have come at a worse time. We had a global financial crisis in 2007-08. After that, central banks followed loose monetary policy with quantitative easing. And then of course governments had to be fiscally loose to combat a pandemic.

Now, the war gives a supply-side shock, which means energy economics is back, food economics is back, and of course, commodities economics is back. 

Energy economics? Very simply, the price of oil and gas has shot up. Inflation is ripping through the world and even rich countries are suffering. 

Food? Well, we read in The Economist, no less, about an impending food catastrophe — 250 million people are at risk of famine.

Commodities? Russia is the biggest exporter of natural gas, the second biggest of oil and the third biggest of coal. About 25% of battery-grade nickel comes from Russia. In fact, 50% of USA’s uranium imports come from Russia and this is not to mention copper and palladium and whatnot. 

So, there’s a real supply-side shock of monumental proportions. Add to that ships not leaving the Black Sea, and you can see this is going to end very badly. 

Who will suffer most?

Atul Singh: It will be people who need food who will suffer the most. The first requirement to live is of course water and then it is food. It is important to remember that Russia and Ukraine supply 28% of the world’s wheat, 29% of the world’s barley, a lot of the maize and, of course, 75% of sunflower oil. 

Egypt relies for 86% of its imports on Russian and Ukrainian wheat and 30% of Egypt’s caloric intake is bread. So it’s a case of bread and oil. With oil prices rising, food prices get a double kicker because costs of production in places like the US, India and China goes up.

India is having an exceptionally hot summer, so its supply is going to go down. China has had delayed rains. So, we have falling harvests combined with rising food and oil prices to make a perfect storm.

And of course, let’s not forget Sub-Saharan Africa where 40% of the family budget goes on food. Everyone will suffer and the big victims are going to be Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, of course, I’ve mentioned them before, and Lebanon, which after the explosion in 2020 can just store a month of food. So rocky times ahead.

What are the results of sanctions?

Atul Singh: Well, the obvious results of sanctions are really-damaged Russian economy. Russia has been shut out of the global financial system. Russian factories are finding it difficult to find spares to keep running. Big brands have pulled out of Russia. Law firms have left Russia. Coca Cola is out, McDonald’s is out and so on and so forth now. 

The damage to the Russian economy is obvious. Damage to the Ukrainian economy is obvious too. There are many, many, many reports talking about how the Ukrainian economy is teetering on the brink of collapse, and perhaps could not sustain a longer war. But apart from Russian and Ukraine there are second order and third order effects.

The results of sanctions are loss of profits for a lot of European companies. German companies are suffering. Obviously, French ones are suffering. And then of course, Chinese companies that operate in the West cannot operate in Russia, at least with the same freedom as they did before. So can’t Indian companies. 

There is, of course, the threat of counter sanctions. What if Russia says this is a game two can play? We switch off the supply of nickel. Goodbye to your green economics. Goodbye to your clean cars. The results of sanctions are manifold.

Then there is the question of the global financial system. Assets of Russia’s central bank have been frozen and Russia has been shut out of SWIFT. What do the other countries such as Saudi Arabia and China do in response?

Could there be a blowback from sanctions?

Atul Singh: Of course, there could and would be blowback. There are always unintended consequences to these things. Now. Russia could shut off supplies at nickel, palladium etc. Sanctions are a game two can play. 

Saudi Arabia is worried. Not too long ago, a certain journalist was chopped up in Istanbul and sanctions against Russia could very well be used against the Saudis. It’s a good precedent. China isn’t too popular either in Washington or in European capitals these days. So talk of a petrol-yuan trade has emerged which challenges the dollar, talk of rupee-ruble trade has emerged and talk of renminbi-ruble trade has emerged. 

With all these different countries starting to trade in their own correct currencies, this is possibly a challenge to the dollar. Also remember Russia has been kicked out of SWIFT, the global financial transactions and payments network.  SWIFT is expensive. Certainly it’s secure, but this could push for the development of an alternative system that is cheaper and works around SWIFT. The world might be about to get very interesting. 

Will the Russian economy hold or will the dollar dominate?

Atul Singh: Well, one view is it’s curtains for Russia. Inflation is going to cause the collapse of the regime, just as a combination of economic meltdown and military defeat ended the Tsars in 1917. Another view is Russia as a fortress economy. It has food, it has energy and it’ll survive.

If you take the latter point of view, you can say that the ruble has recovered. The Russians have linked it to gold. Russia has the fifth highest gold reserves, and the Russian economy is doing better than expected.

The jury is still out as to what will transpire but Russia is under acute stress and the test of the pudding is in the eating. Let’s see how Russia fares by the end of this year.

Will the dollar dominate? The answer is yes, but the dollar will weaken because sanctions have made big economies like India and China very nervous and these are economies with high growth rates. These are economies that want cut-price oil as oil prices go up. These countries don’t have natural energy resources. So increasingly they are going to try and work around western sanctions through backroom deals.

Also, some sort of a parallel financial system will emerge. We will be seeing a more fragmented world, economically, at the end of this conflict, thanks to the pressures, the inflationary pressures, that the conflict has unleashed around the world.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Making Sense of the Economic Consequences of the Russia-Ukraine War appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In March 2022, the two leaders met for the first time in Kandahar, the traditional hub for the Taliban. Today, the Haqqanis and Kandaharis are jostling for pole position. Unknown to most outside Afghanistan, these two factions have irreconcilable political agendas rooted in two mutually exclusive interpretations of Islamic governance. Both timeworn interpretations have their fanatical adherents, which makes not only compromise but also dialogue difficult.

The Haqqanis see their leader as a caliph. Hence they have given him the title of khalifa. The Kandaharis refer to their boss as the leader of the faithful. Hence, he goes by the title amir al-mu’minin. This seemingly minor difference in their titles is a big deal. The Haqqanis are universalists who see their big boss as a potential, if not real, leader of all Muslims. The Kandaharis are satisfied with creating a pure Islamic emirate in their region and do not have pretensions to world domination.

What Is the Significance of the Haqqani-Kandahari Meeting?

The meeting in Kandahar revealed that the Taliban’s factional politics had reached the point of no return. Unable to agree upon sharing power, a civil war between the Taliban factions is inevitable. Both camps are powerful enough to challenge the other’s ambition of dominating the national scene completely.

Interestingly, as the group continues to disappoint its regional backers, the chances of a foreign mediator settling the Taliban’s internal division are slim. Last September, Pakistan’s chief of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency traveled to Kabul to force Haqqanis and the Kandaharis to come to a power-sharing caretaker administration. Notably, the mediation of the ISI chief produced more division than harmony.

For now, it seems that the Taliban lacks political maturity and capacity to avert prolonged internal division. Given the structural and political differences of the caliphate and the emirate,  the future of Taliban governance depends on how the fight between the Kandahari and Haqqanis plays out.

What is an Emirate, What is a Caliphate and Why is it a Big Deal?

In Islamic political litreature amir al-mu’minin is a nominal title given to persons in command of particular aspects of Muslim affairs.  The caliph, however, is the title given to the Prophet’s successors. This leader is in control of the Islamic ummah’s political structure.

The amir al-mu’minin was first used to refer to the second Islamic caliph, Omar ibn al-Khattab. Prophet Mohammad’s successor and first caliph, Abu Bakr As-Siddiq, was not called amir al-mu’minin. The term caliph, khalifa in Arabic, is used to describe someone who is authorized by the majority of the Muslims as the successor of the Prophet and the four rightly guided caliphs: Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, and Ali. Many Muslims believe that the administratiive and governance model in Medina under the first four successors of Prophet Mohammad, known as the Rashidun caliphs, put  Islam on the path to greatness and purity.

Historically, restoring the caliphate gained momentum among various Islamic movements in the early 20^th century following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In retrospect,  the nostalgia for reestablishing the caliphate emerged in response to political decay and civilizational degeneration in the Islamic world. Like any other Islamic religious concept, the difference between the amir and the caliph dates back to early periods of Islam.

Since the collapse of the Durrani Empire and the emergence of the modern state of Afghanistan in the late 19^th century, Pashtun tribal leaders and the monarchs have titled themselves as amirs. Amir Dost Mohammad Khan (1826–63), Amir Shir Ali Khan (1863 to 1879) and Amir Abdul Rahman Khan (1880–1901) are three famous examples.

Since the caliphate has a universal political and ideological implication, none of the rulers of Afghanistan dared to call themselves khalifa because the title would have implied being in charge of Muslim affairs across the Islamic world.When the Ottomans were around, this claim would have been challenged because the sultans in Istanbul were regarded as the rightful caliphs. In recent years, Saudi Arabia saw itself as the rightful leader of the Sunni Muslim world and Afghanistan’s leaders shied away from taking their patrons on.

What Lies Ahead for the Taliban?

According to Islamic historical references, the caliphate is a dynastic governing entity. The Haqqanis are aware of the historical connotations and political implications of calling their leader the khalifa or the caliph. In the Emirate of the Kandahari Taliban, power and leadership can be passed from one individual to another who satisfies their specifications. The Haqqanis do not meet them.

Given the history of rivalry between southern and eastern tribes of Afghanistan’s Pashtuns, the Haqqanis would never become amir al-mu’minins. The Kandahari Taliban rightly consider themselves as the founders of the emirate, leaving the Haqqanis with no option but to go rogue, declare a caliphate and claim the leadership of Islamic ummah.

As the Haqqanis consolidate power in Kabul, the structural and organizational distinctions between emirate and caliphate are useful to understand how the two factions of the Taliban will conduct themselves in Afghanistan, the region, and the world. They also help anticipate the different threats the world faces from various factions of the Taliban. 

The Kandahari-led Taliban are orthodox Hanafi Muslims with a tribal mentality whose ultimate aim is to establish an Islamic state in Afghanistan, dominated and governed by Pashtuns. The Haqqani group, on the other hand, follow a  transnational jihadist ideology. Its ultimate aim is to unify all Islamic movements under a single Islamic caliphate, a goal previously pursued by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant under Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

The Haqqanis’ aspiration of establishing a caliphate is based on the resources and network they built during the anti-Soviet jihad project. Their base lies in the largely ungoverned territories on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. While the Haqqanis maintained symbiotic relations with the Kandahari Taliban throughout the so-called “Global War on Terror,” they used this time to build and deepen relationships with other Islamic militant groups in South Asia. Since the Haqqanis are in a position of power, the support they command in the region provides them with a comparative advantage vis-à-vis the Kandahari-led Taliban.

The pace at which Haqqanis are consolidating their power in Afghanistan makes it a matter of time before they become the dominant faction within the Taliban. Once that mission is accomplished, the Haqqanis will establish the Islamic Caliphate by Afghanistan as the capital and become the patron of all terrorist organizations worldwide. If history can tell us anything, any form of a Taliban-led and dominated government in Afghanistan threatens regional and global peace, and a caliphate led by the Haqqanis even more so.

(This article was edited by Contributing Editor Tabish Forugh.)

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Caliph v The Emir al-Mu’minin: Which Islamic Model of Statehood Will the Taliban Adopt? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The top priority of Russian airstrikes in Ukraine has been to as many of these weapons as possible before they reach the frontlines of the war. Therefore, it is not clear how militarily effective these massive arms shipments really are. The other leg of US “support” for Ukraine are economic and financial sanctions against Russia, whose effectiveness is also highly.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres is Moscow and Kyiv to try to kick start negotiations for a ceasefire and a peace agreement. Since hopes for earlier peace negotiations in Belarus and Turkey have been washed away in a tide of military escalation, hostile rhetoric and politicized war crimes accusations, Guterres’ mission may now be the best hope for peace in Ukraine.  

This pattern of early hopes for a diplomatic resolution that are quickly dashed by a war psychosis is not unusual. Data on how wars end from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) make it clear that the first month of a war offers the best chance for a negotiated peace agreement. That window has now passed for Ukraine. 

An of the UCDP data by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) found that 44% of wars that end within a month conclude with a ceasefire and peace agreement rather than the decisive defeat of either side. This percentage decreases to 24% in wars that last between a month and a year. Once wars rage on into a second year, they become even more intractable and usually last more than ten years.

CSIS fellow Benjamin Jensen, who analyzed the UCDP data, concluded, “The time for diplomacy is now. The longer a war lasts absent concessions by both parties, the more likely it is to escalate into a protracted conflict… In addition to punishment, Russian officials need a viable diplomatic off-ramp that addresses the concerns of all parties.”

To be successful, diplomacy leading to a peace agreement must meet five basic :

First, all sides must gain benefits from the peace agreement that outweigh what they think they can gain by war.

US and allied officials are waging an information war to promote the idea that Russia is losing the war and that Ukraine can militarily Russia, even as some officials that such a war could last several years.

In reality, neither side will benefit from a protracted war that lasts for many months or years. The lives of millions of Ukrainians will be ruined. Russians face the specter of another Afghanistan-style military quagmire, as the Soviet Union and, more recently, the US experienced in Afghanistan. 

In Ukraine, the basic outlines of a peace agreement already exist. They are fourfold. First, Russian forces withdraw from Ukraine. Second, Ukraine promises neutrality and becomes an independent buffer state between NATO and Russia. Third, all Ukrainians get the right of self-determination, including those in Crimea and Donbas. Finally, all parties conclude a regional security agreement that protects everyone and prevents new wars. 

Both sides are essentially fighting to strengthen their hand for concluding an eventual agreement along the above lines. How many people must die before the details can be worked out across a negotiating table instead of over the rubble of Ukrainian towns and cities?

Second, mediators must be impartial and trusted by both sides.

The US has monopolized the role of a mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis for decades, even as it openly backs and one side and its UN veto to prevent international action. This has been a transparent model for endless war.  

Turkey has so far acted as the principal mediator between Russia and Ukraine, but it is a NATO member that has supplied, weapons and military training to the latter. Both sides have accepted Turkey’s mediation, but can Turkey really be an honest broker? 

The UN could play a legitimate role, as it is doing in Yemen, where the two sides are finally a two-month ceasefire. But even with the UN’s best efforts, it has taken years to negotiate this fragile pause in the war.    

Third, the agreement must address the main concerns of all parties to the war.

In 2014, the US-backed overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government and the of  protesters in Odessa led to declarations of independence by the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. The first Minsk Protocol agreement in September 2014 failed to end the ensuing civil war in Eastern Ukraine. A critical difference in the agreement in February 2015 was that representatives of the breakaway Donetsk and Luhansk republics were included in the negotiations, and the agreement succeeded in ending the worst fighting and preventing a major new outbreak of war for 7 years.

There is another party that was largely absent from the negotiations in Belarus and Turkey: the women of Russia and Ukraine, who make up half the population of both countries. While some women are fighting, many more can speak as victims of and refugees from a war unleashed mainly by men. The voices of women at the table would be a constant reminder of the human costs of war and that the lives of women and are at stake.    

Even when one side militarily wins a war, the grievances of the losers as well as unresolved political and strategic issues often sow the seeds of future wars. As Jensen of CSIS suggested, the desires of US and Western politicians to punish and gain strategic over Russia must not be allowed to prevent a comprehensive resolution that addresses the concerns of all sides and ensures a lasting peace.     

Fourth, there must be a step-by-step roadmap to a stable and lasting peace that all sides are committed to.

The agreement led to a fragile ceasefire and established a roadmap to a political solution. But the Ukrainian government and parliament, under first Petro Poroshenko and then Volodymyr Zelensky, failed to take the next steps that Poroshenko agreed to in Minsk in 2015. These included passing laws and bringing constitutional changes to permit independent, internationally-supervised elections in the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, along with autonomy within a federalized Ukrainian state.

Now that these failures have led to Russian recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics’�� independence, a new peace agreement must revisit and resolve their status, and that of Crimea. The agreement must do so, in ways that all sides will be committed to, whether that is through the autonomy promised in Minsk II or formal, recognized independence from Ukraine.��

A sticking point in the peace negotiations in Turkey was Ukraine’s need for solid security guarantees to ensure that Russia won’t invade Ukrainian territory again. The UN Charter formally protects all countries from international aggression, but it has repeatedly failed to do so when the aggressor wields a veto in the Security Council. So how can a neutral Ukraine be reassured that it will be safe from attack in the future? And how can all parties be sure that the others will stick to the agreement this time?

Fifth, outside powers must not undermine the negotiation or implementation of a peace agreement.

Although the US and its NATO allies are not active warring parties in Ukraine, their role in provoking this crisis through NATO expansion and the 2014 Ukrainian uprising, supporting Kyiv’s abandonment of the Minsk II agreement and flooding Ukraine with weapons, make them an “elephant in the room” that will cast a long shadow over the negotiating table, wherever that is.

In April 2012, Kofi Annan, former UN secretary general, drew up a six-point plan for a UN-monitored ceasefire and political transition in Syria. But at the very moment that the Annan plan took effect and UN ceasefire monitors were in place, the US, NATO and their Arab monarchist allies held three “Friends of Syria” conferences, where they pledged virtually unlimited financial and military aid to the Al Qaeda-linked rebels they were backing to overthrow the Syrian government. This the rebels to ignore the ceasefire, and led to another decade of war for the people of Syria. 

The fragile nature of peace negotiations over Ukraine make success highly vulnerable to such powerful external influences. The US backed Ukraine in a confrontational approach to the civil war in Donbas instead of supporting the terms of the Minsk II agreement, and this has led to war with Russia. Now Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Mevlut Cavosoglu, has told that unnamed NATO members “want the war to continue,” in order to keep weakening Russia.

The time for peace is now. 

How the US and its NATO allies act now and in the coming months will be crucial in determining whether Ukraine is destroyed by years of war, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, or whether this war ends quickly through a diplomatic process that brings peace, security and stability to the people of Russia, Ukraine and their neighbors.

If the US wants to help restore peace in Ukraine, it must diplomatically support peace negotiations, and make it clear to its ally, Ukraine, that it will support any concessions that Ukrainian negotiators believe are necessary to clinch a peace agreement with Russia. 

Whatever mediator Russia and Ukraine agree to work with to try to resolve this crisis, the US must give the diplomatic process its full, unreserved support, both in public and behind closed doors. It must also ensure that its own actions do not undermine the peace process in Ukraine as they did the Annan plan in Syria in 2012. 

One of the most critical steps that US and NATO leaders can take to provide an incentive for Russia to agree to a negotiated peace is to commit to lifting their sanctions if and when Russia complies with a withdrawal agreement. Without such a commitment, the sanctions have no moral or practical value as leverage over Russia and are only an arbitrary form of collective punishment against its people, and against everywhere who can no longer afford food to feed their families. As the de facto leader of the NATO military alliance, the US position on this question will be crucial. 

So policy decisions by the US will have a critical impact on whether there will soon be peace in Ukraine, or only a much longer and bloodier war. The test for US policymakers, and for Americans who care about the people of Ukraine, must be to ask which outcome US policy choices are likely to lead to and ensure that they support a path to peace.

Will you support FO’s journalism?

We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.

Donation Cycle

One Time Monthly Yearly

Donation Amount

$11 $111 Other

$

The IRS recognizes 51�Թ� as a section 501(c)(3) registered public charity (EIN: 46-4070943), enabling you to claim a tax deduction.

You can also contribute via

X

$5.00

Per Month

Already have an account? Sign in

Payment information

Card number

Expiration

CVC

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How Could the US Bring Peace to Ukraine? appeared first on 51�Թ�.