OMNI
Compiled by
Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace, Justice, and Ecology.
In this
newsletter: The US superpower, imperial
propaganda system is inciting fear and hatred of Russia, as in Cold War days
against the Soviet Union, but alternative views are readily available in
numerous independent print or online magazines. They need your financial support. If we
are to have peace in the world we must be able to see the world as others see
it, to qualify and test official dogma.
Newsletters
Index:
Blog
CONNECTION BETWEEN US ENCIRCLEMENT OF CHINA
AND RUSSIA : See OMNI’s newsletters/blogs on US
Imperialism Westward Pacific/E. Asia, on Iran , and related subjects.
Contents Russia/Ukraine #2
Alternative Perspectives
Who Is Threatening Whom?
Dick, Google Search: US Bases Surrounding Russia
Steve Weissman: US Participated in Coup That Toppled
Yanukovytch
Stephen Cohen, Cold War
Again?
Two Essays from Bruce Gagnon
Bruce Gagnon, Boxing in the
Bear (with Francis Boyle and Chandra Muzaffar)
Gagnon, Preparing for War
with Russia
Franklin Spinney, What Is
the Real Price of Starting a New Cold War?
US Corporate Old Cold War Media
Ira Chernus: Showdown with Russia Sells Newspapers
Related Topics
Juan Cole: Russia ,
Crimea , Syria , and Putin Patron of
Christians and Shiites
Recent Related Newsletters
Contact Arkansas Senators
Contents of Newsletter #1
GOOGLE SEARCH for US MILITARY BASES
SURROUNDING RUSSIA, March 23, 2014 [Of
the 10 items on the first page, six were about Russia
moving into Ukraine !
]
2.
Ukrainian and Russian troops in standoff at Crimean military
base ...
The Guardian
Mar 2, 2014 - Russian troops have surrounded at least two military bases in Crimea ... The US secretary of state, John
Kerry, warned that Russia could be ...
3.
Transit Center at Manas - Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia
Wikipedia
The base was opened in December
2001 to support U.S. military operations in ... asRussia and China have been
pushing for the closure of the base since 2005. ...Additionally, Kyrgyz
forces now handle security in the areas surrounding the ...
Meet
the Americans Who Put Together the Coup in Kiev
Steve
Weissman / Environmentalists Against War
(March
25, 2014) -- If the US
State Department's Victoria Nuland had not said "Fuck the EU," few
outsiders at the time would have heard of Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, the man on
the other end of her famously bugged telephone call. But now Washington 's
man in Kiev -- Geoffrey Pyatt -- is gaining fame
as the face of the CIA-style "destabilization campaign" that brought
down Ukraine 's
monumentally corrupt but legitimately elected President Viktor Yanukovych.
From david d
Why Cold War Again?
·
Share
·
·
·
·
·
Barack Obama meets with Vladimir Putin during the June 2013
G8 Summit in Northern Ireland . (Reuters/Kevin
Lamarque)
The East-West confrontation over Ukraine,
which led to Moscow’s annexation of Crimea but long predated it, is potentially the worst international crisis
in more than fifty years—and the most fateful. A negotiated resolution is
possible, but time may be running out.
A new Cold War divide is already descending in
Europe—not in Berlin but on Russia ’s
borders. Worse may follow. If NATO
forces move toward Poland ’s
border with Ukraine , as is
being called for in Washington and Europe, Moscow is likely to send its forces into eastern Ukraine . The
result would be a danger of war comparable to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.
Even if the outcome is the nonmilitary
“isolation of Russia ,”
today’s Western mantra, the consequences will be dire. Moscow
will not bow but will turn, politically and economically, to the East, as it
has done before, above all to fuller alliance with China . The United States will risk losing an essential
partner in vital areas of its own national security, from Iran , Syria
and Afghanistan
to threats of a new arms race, nuclear proliferation and more terrorism. And—no
small matter—prospects for a resumption of Russia ’s democratization will be
terminated for at least a generation.
Why did this happen, nearly twenty-three
years after the end of Soviet Communism, when both Washington
and Moscow
proclaimed a new era of “friendship and strategic partnership”? The answer given by the Obama
administration, and overwhelmingly by the US political-media establishment,
is that President Vladimir Putin is solely to blame. The claim is that his
“autocratic” rule at home and “neo-Soviet imperialist” policies abroad
eviscerated the partnership established in the 1990s by Bill Clinton and Boris
Yeltsin. This fundamental premise underpins the American mainstream narrative
of two decades of US-Russian relations, and now the Ukrainian crisis.
But there is an
alternative explanation, one more in accord with the facts. Beginning with the Clinton administration, and supported by every
subsequent Republican and Democratic president and Congress, the US-led West
has unrelentingly moved its military, political and economic power ever closer
to post-Soviet Russia. Spearheaded by NATO’s eastward expansion, already
encamped in the former Soviet Baltic republics on Russia’s border—now
augmented by missile defense installations in neighboring states—this
bipartisan, winner-take-all approach has come in various forms.
They include US-funded “democracy promotion”
NGOs more deeply involved in Russia’s internal politics than foreign ones are
permitted to be in our country; the 1999 bombing of Moscow’s Slav ally Serbia,
forcibly detaching its historic province of Kosovo; a US military outpost in
former Soviet Georgia (along with Ukraine, one of Putin’s previously declared
“red lines”), contributing to a brief proxy war in 2008; and, throughout,
one-sided negotiations, called “selective cooperation,” which took concessions
from the Kremlin without meaningful White House reciprocity and followed by
broken American promises.
All of this has unfolded, sincerely for some
proponents, in the name of “democracy” and “sovereign choice” for the many
countries involved, but the underlying geopolitical agenda has been clear.
During the first East-West conflict over Ukraine ,
occasioned by its 2004 “Orange Revolution,” an influential GOP columnist,
Charles Krauthammer, acknowledged, “This is about Russia first, democracy only
second…. The West wants to finish the job begun with the fall of the Berlin
Wall and continue Europe ’s march to the east….
The great prize is Ukraine .”
The late Richard Holbrooke, an aspiring Democratic secretary of state,
concurred, hoping even then for Ukraine’s “final break with Moscow” and to
“accelerate” Kiev’s membership in NATO.
That Russia’s political elite has long held
this same menacing view of US intentions makes it no less true—or any less
consequential. Formally announcing the annexation of Crimea on March 18, Putin
vented Moscow ’s
longstanding resentments. Several of his assertions were untrue and alarming,
but others were reasonable, or at least understandable, not “delusional.”
Referring to Western (primarily American) policy-makers since the 1990s, he
complained bitterly that they were “trying to drive us into some kind of
corner,” “have lied to us many times” and in Ukraine “have crossed the line,”
warning: “Everything has its limits.”
We are left, then, with profoundly conflicting
Russian-Western narratives and a political discourse of the uncomprehending,
itself often the prelude to war. Demonized for years, Putin receives almost no
serious consideration in Washington .
His annexation speech, for example, was dismissed as a “package of fictions” by
former secretary of state Madeleine Albright. Nothing in Washington ’s
replies diminishes Putin’s reasonable belief that the EU trade agreement
rejected by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in November, and Yanukovych’s
overthrow in February by violent street protests, leading to the current
“illegitimate” government, were intended to sever Ukraine ’s
centuries-long ties with Russia
and bind it to NATO. (Today’s crisis was triggered by the EU’s reckless
ultimatum, despite Putin’s offer of a “tripartite” agreement, which compelled
an elected president of a deeply divided country to choose economically between
the West and Russia ,
an approach since criticized by former German chancellors Helmut Kohl and
Gerhard Schröder. The EU’s proffered “partnership” also included little-noticed
“security” provisions requiring Ukraine ’s
“convergence” with NATO policies, without mentioning the military alliance.)
Meanwhile, on both sides, belligerent rhetoric
escalates, military forces are being mobilized and provocations mount in Ukraine ’s political civil war, with toughs in
black masks, armed militias, “spontaneous” secessionist demonstrations and
extremist statements by some of Kiev ’s
would-be leaders. Anything is now possible—actual civil war, Ukraine ’s
partition and worse. Tit-for-tat “sanctions” only exacerbate the situation.
There is a diplomatic way out. Putin did not
begin or want this crisis; among other costs, it obliterated the achievement of
his Sochi Olympics. Nor did he initiate the unfolding Cold War, inspired in Washington years before
he came to power. Western policy-makers should therefore take seriously the
adage, “There are two sides to every story.” Is Putin right, as he also said on
March 18, that Russia
“has its own national interests that must be taken into account and respected,”
particularly along its borders? If the answer is no, as it has seemed to be
since the 1990s—if Putin is correct in angrily protesting, “Only they can ever
be right”—then war is possible, if not now, eventually. But if the answer is
yes, proposals made by Putin’s foreign ministry on March 17 could be the
starting point for negotiations.
Briefly summarized, those proposals call for a
US-Russian-EU contact group that would press for the immediate disarming of
militias in Ukraine, as the Ukrainian Parliament ordered on April 1; a new
federal constitution giving more autonomy to pro-Russian and pro-Western
regions; internationally monitored presidential and parliamentary elections; a
“neutral military-political” (that is, non-NATO) government in Kiev shorn of
its extreme nationalist (some observers think “neofascist”) ministers; and
maintaining Ukrainian-Russian economic relations essential to both countries.
In turn, Moscow would recognize the legitimacy
of the new government and Ukraine ’s
territorial integrity, thereby disavowing pro-Russian separatist movements well
beyond Crimea , though without returning the
annexed peninsula. It would also vote for a UN Security Council resolution
affirming the settlement and, possibly, contribute to the multibillion dollars
needed to save the country from financial collapse.
The Obama administration’s reaction to Moscow ’s proposals, which
it has barely acknowledged publicly, is less than adequate. While accepting the
need for some kind of federal Ukrainian constitution and a presidential
election, the White House opposes new parliamentary elections, which would
leave the existing Parliament strongly influenced, even intimidated, by its
ultranationalist deputies and their armed street supporters, who recently
threatened to impose their will directly by entering the building. Nor is it
clear how fully Obama shares Putin’s concern that militias are further
destabilizing the country. Meanwhile, the White House says Moscow
should annul Crimea’s annexation (a nonstarter), remove its forces on Ukraine ’s borders and recognize the unelected Kiev regime. Moreover,
nothing the West has said suggests that it no longer intends to expand NATO to Ukraine ;
indeed, on March 31, NATO’s political chief, echoing Krauthammer from a decade
ago, declared that the military alliance’s “task is not yet complete.” Still
worse, Brussels may use the crisis to deploy
troops deeper into Eastern Europe, toward Russia .
Even if these differences narrow, would Putin
be a reliable partner in such negotiations? “Demonization of Vladimir Putin,”
Henry Kissinger recently wrote, “is not a policy.” Nor does it recall that the
Russian leader has assisted US and NATO troops in Afghanistan since 2001;
supported harsher sanctions against Iran in 2010; repeatedly called for
“mutually beneficial cooperation” with Washington; generally pursued a reactive
foreign policy; and, as a result, been accused by harder-line elements in his
own political class of appeasing the West. (No, Putin is not an all-powerful
“autocrat”; and, yes, there is a high-level politics around him.)
Much, therefore, now depends on President
Obama. He will have to rise to the kind of leadership capable of rethinking a
twenty-year bipartisan policy that has led to disaster, and do so in Washington ’s rabid
anti-Putin, Russophobic atmosphere. There is a precedent. Three decades ago, America ’s most
Cold War president ever, Ronald Reagan, sensing in Soviet leader Mikhail
Gorbachev enough in common, resolved to meet him halfway, despite protests by
close advisers and much of his own party. Together, those two leaders achieved
such historic changes that both believed they had ended the Cold War forever.
Read Next: Dimiter Kenarov on the dangers of reporting in Crimea
·
Share
READ COHEN’S SOVIET FATES AND LOST ALTERNATIVES.
IMPORTANT
ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE BY BRUCE GAGNON AND BY FRANCIS A. BOYLE, CHANDRA MUZAFFAR, AND FRANKLIN SPINNEY SENT TO US BY GAGNON
Global Network [globalnet@mindspring.com]
To: GN List Serve
[globenet@yahoogroups.com]
Tuesday, March 04, 2014 9:44 PM
By Bruce Gagnon, Global Network
I am learning so much
from all this work going on now about Ukraine . Statements, or even
meanderings, have been slow to come from the leadership of many peace groups in
the US
and then they've been very cautious. Caution even from folks who know what
is really going on. The old ‘anti-reds’ hysteria from the past still
lives here in the US of A. But the up swell of interest and concern from
every day grassroots activists is strong and they are seeing the bigger
picture.
The big picture is what drives me.... I’m a visual learner. Once I get a feel for what is going on I can then find the rest of the pieces filling in the puzzle on the wall. So here are a few more sharings of some good honest thinking by some stalwarts in the peace movement.
The big picture is what drives me.... I’m a visual learner. Once I get a feel for what is going on I can then find the rest of the pieces filling in the puzzle on the wall. So here are a few more sharings of some good honest thinking by some stalwarts in the peace movement.
I suspect this entire Ukraine Crisis had been
war-gamed and war planned quite some time ago at the highest levels of US/NATO. Notice DOD slipped 2 US warships into the Black
Sea just before the Olympics under a patently absurd pretext. In
other words, what we are seeing unfold here is a US/NATO War Plan. They
instigated the fascist coup against Yanukovich. They anticipated that Putin
would then respond by taking over Crimea . I
suspect the US/NATO/EU response will be to introduce military forces into
Western Ukraine and Kiev and thus make Ukraine a de
facto member of NATO, which has been their objective all along. They have
already anticipated what Putin’s next move after that will be. Notice also the
massive anti-Russian campaign by the Western News Media working in lock-step
with each other. Another sign that all this has been planned well in
advance. I suspect that US/NATO/EU figure that Putin knows they
have this offensive, first-strike strategic nuclear capability with a
rudimentary ABM/BMD capability so that at the end of the day he will be forced
to stand down—or else. Compellence as opposed to Deterrence. Just like
during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That is where this US/NATO/EU War Plan is
heading on the assumptions that they can keep their deliberate Escalation
Dominance under their control and that at the end day Putin will be forced to
stand down just like Khrushchev did and for the same reasons. That would
leave US/NATO/EU in control of at least half of Ukraine as a de facto NATO member
state.
- Francis A. Boyle,Champaign , IL, Lawyer,
professor of International Law, and long-time peacenik [Boyle
has done exemplary writing and court action for peace. Check him out. –Dick]
- Francis A. Boyle,
Last summer when I went to a conference in the
If Ukraine is on the brink of a catastrophe, it is
mainly because the present regime in Kiev
and its supporters, backed by certain Western powers had violated a fundamental
principle of democratic governance. They had ousted a democratically elected
president through illegal means. President Viktor Yanukovich who had come to
power through a free and fair election in 2010 should have been removed through
the ballot-box.
His opponents not only betrayed a democratic principle. They subverted a ‘Peace Deal’ signed between them and Yanukovich on 21 February 2014 in which the latter had agreed to form a national unity government within 10 days that would include opposition representatives; reinstate the 2004 Constitution; relinquish control over Ukraine’s security services; and hold presidential and parliamentary elections by December 2014. According to the Deal, endorsed byGermany , France
and Poland ,
Yanukovich would remain president until the elections.
His co-signatories had no intention of honouring the agreement. Without following procedures, parliament, with the backing of the military, voted immediately to remove Yanukovich and impeach him. The Parliamentary Speaker was elected interim President and after a few days a new regime was installed.
- Dr. Chandra Muzaffar,Malaysia
His opponents not only betrayed a democratic principle. They subverted a ‘Peace Deal’ signed between them and Yanukovich on 21 February 2014 in which the latter had agreed to form a national unity government within 10 days that would include opposition representatives; reinstate the 2004 Constitution; relinquish control over Ukraine’s security services; and hold presidential and parliamentary elections by December 2014. According to the Deal, endorsed by
His co-signatories had no intention of honouring the agreement. Without following procedures, parliament, with the backing of the military, voted immediately to remove Yanukovich and impeach him. The Parliamentary Speaker was elected interim President and after a few days a new regime was installed.
- Dr. Chandra Muzaffar,
A key bit that must continually be inserted into discussions about
When the Berlin Wall fell in December of 1991 the
If you are
Admittedly this is a grab by the oil-i-garchs for total global control. The people are the pawns, easily cast aside when need be. The way I figure it, my job is to keep learning about all this and sharing it with others. Don’t fear the anti-commie BS that is used to put people back ‘into their place’. I don’t like people telling me what I can do or say…. I heard enough of that stuff while in the Air Force during the Vietnam War.
Help illuminate the picture on the wall for more to see. We've all, worldwide, got to create a unified demand to shut the capitalist war system down. The corporate fascists have taken over. It's the high-tech version of feudalism.
Stop taking the blue
pill.
Bruce K. Gagnon
Coordinator
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
globalnet@mindspring.com
www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/ (blog)
Coordinator
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
globalnet@mindspring.com
www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/ (blog)
Global Network
[globalnet@mindspring.com]
Sunday, March 02, 2014 10:25 AM
I've been writing for
many years about US-NATO efforts to
militarily surround Russia .
The oil-i-garchy wants to get ahold of the natural gas (the world's largest
supply) that sits on Russian territory. It also wants full control of the
Arctic region now that climate change will make it possible to drill for oil
there. Russia has a
huge northern coastal border with the Arctic
and thus stands in the way of western oil control.
Already the war drums are sounding afterRussia
moved more troops into Crimea to protect its
Navy base and the large pro-Russian population in the region.
Writing yesterday in Foreign Policy Admiral James Stavridis (Ret) called for NATO to immediately increase " all intelligence-gathering functions through satellite, Predator unmanned vehicles, and especially cyber" and to sail "NATO maritime forces into the Black Sea and setting up contingency plans for their use." This is full-blown war talk - withRussia .
Admiral Stavridis was Supreme Allied Commander at NATO from 2009 to 2013. He is
currently dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University .
If Stavridis is saying these things you can just imagine what plans are underway inside the Pentagon and at NATO HQ inEurope .
The Russians know that they are being set up. Reporting for Asia Times, Pepe Escobar wrote, " Even before neo-conVictoria
'fuck the EU' Nuland’s intercept, [Russian intelligence] had already identified
the wider mechanics of the CIA-style coup – including Turkish intelligence
financing Tatars in Crimea ... And what will
the Tatars in Crimea do? Stage a jihad? Wait:
the “West” will surely try to FINANCE THIS JIHAD."
It'sSyria
all over again, this time right on the Russian border.
Except this time the US-NATO are messing with a country that has the capability to fight back. This is how world wars get started. The Russians are not going to idly sit by and watch US-NATO set up a right-wing fascist state right on their border. Hitler tried thatduring WW II and at least 20 million died defending theSoviet Union . Ever since
then the Russian people have been 'sensitive' about defending their immediate
borders.
The decision adopted on March 1, by the Federation Council, upper house of the Russian parliament, which allows Putin to send troops to Crimea, an autonomy within neighboring Ukraine, aims to protect life and security, Irina Yarovaya, chair of the Security and Anti-Corruption Committee in the State Duma (lower house of parliament), said.
“Terrorism is the most dangerous crime around the world. But it is fascism and terrorism that have proclaimed their power in Ukraine and pose a real threat to the life and security of Russian citizens living in Ukraine and undoubtedly to the brotherly people of Ukraine,” she said.
“We have repeatedly warned the international community and theUS against interfering in the internal affairs
of Ukraine ,” she said,
adding “some European and US politicians bear direct responsibility for the
crisis in Ukraine ,
for the bloodshed and for the coup.”
She believes that Obama’s latest statement onRussia
“has fully exposed the US
policy of brutal interference in the sovereign rights of other countries and aggressive
imposition of its interests.”
Of course the Obama administration is saying thatRussia
is violating international law by moving more troops into Crimea .
Obama is threatening Russia
with "severe consequences". And now you can be sure that NATO is
indeed preparing 'contingency plans'.
The open question is how will the American people react to all of this. They rightly opposed Obama's desired cruise missile attack onSyria .
Will they be as wise about planting the cancerous NATO flag on Crimean soil?
Clearly Putin andRussia
have been thoroughly demonized in the passive minds of most American
citizens. But will they shake the cobwebs from their brains and see the
absurdity and sheer recklessness of US-NATO saber rattling on the doorstep of
Mother Russia?
Already the war drums are sounding after
Writing yesterday in Foreign Policy Admiral James Stavridis (Ret) called for NATO to immediately increase " all intelligence-gathering functions through satellite, Predator unmanned vehicles, and especially cyber" and to sail "NATO maritime forces into the Black Sea and setting up contingency plans for their use." This is full-blown war talk - with
If Stavridis is saying these things you can just imagine what plans are underway inside the Pentagon and at NATO HQ in
The Russians know that they are being set up. Reporting for Asia Times, Pepe Escobar wrote, " Even before neo-con
It's
Except this time the US-NATO are messing with a country that has the capability to fight back. This is how world wars get started. The Russians are not going to idly sit by and watch US-NATO set up a right-wing fascist state right on their border. Hitler tried thatduring WW II and at least 20 million died defending the
The decision adopted on March 1, by the Federation Council, upper house of the Russian parliament, which allows Putin to send troops to Crimea, an autonomy within neighboring Ukraine, aims to protect life and security, Irina Yarovaya, chair of the Security and Anti-Corruption Committee in the State Duma (lower house of parliament), said.
“Terrorism is the most dangerous crime around the world. But it is fascism and terrorism that have proclaimed their power in Ukraine and pose a real threat to the life and security of Russian citizens living in Ukraine and undoubtedly to the brotherly people of Ukraine,” she said.
“We have repeatedly warned the international community and the
She believes that Obama’s latest statement on
Of course the Obama administration is saying that
The open question is how will the American people react to all of this. They rightly opposed Obama's desired cruise missile attack on
Clearly Putin and
Now is the time for all
peaceful people to speak out. Before the real shooting starts.
Bruce K. Gagnon
Coordinator
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
globalnet@mindspring.com
www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/ (blog)
Coordinator
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
globalnet@mindspring.com
www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/ (blog)
Global Network
[globalnet@mindspring.com]
Thursday, February 20, 2014 10:53 AM
Fanning the Fires of Chaos in
the Ukraine
What is the Real Price of
Starting Another Cold War?
by FRANKLIN C. SPINNEY
In the
late 1980s, the leaders of the west promised Soviet General Secretary Mikhail
Gorbachev that they would not expand eastward if the Soviet Union pulled out of
Eastern Europe and ended the Cold War.
That promise was not kept. A triumphal West stuck it to the Soviet Union ’s greatly weakened Russian successor,
by incorporating the former Warsaw Pact countries into NATO and the EU.
But that was not enough to sate the lust of the neo-liberal triumphalists
in search of a new imperium. Their next move tried to incorporate the
Caucasus country of Georgia — a country more a part of Central Asia than of
Europe — into the West’s sphere of influence. That turned out to be a
bridge too far; the Russians intervened militarily to put a stop to the lunacy.
But events in the Ukraine
suggest that stop may have been viewed as a temporary speed bump on the pathway
to rolling back Russia ’s
geography to the years of Ivan the Terrible.
Combine these efforts in the Ukraine with the ongoing push to start a Cold
War with China
(Obama’s Pacific pivot and the Navy-AF budget plan for the so-called Air-Sea
Battle) and the halcyon years of ever rising defense budgets may be again in
the political offing, triggered by yet another wave of Cold War hysteria.
But this time, the MICC’s (Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex) jumping
off point will be from today’s far higher Defense budget.
This chart gives you an idea of the stakes.
The figure compares the defense budget in current dollars to its
portrayal in inflation-adjusted dollars, either by using GDP deflators or by
using the Pentagon’s self-serving defense deflators.
Bear in mind, the Pentagon only started to
account for inflation in the early 1970s. Its historical deflators for
periods before 1976 are the fanciful concoctions of bureaucratic apparachiks in
the office of the Pentagon’s comptroller. But there is method to their
madness. The Comptroller’s calculations serve the goal of making past defense
budgets look much higher relative to current budgets. This fanciful
depiction creates the false impression that current budgets are lower relative
to past budgets than is actually the case. Put another way, the
Pentagon’s deflators assume the rate of price inflation affecting Pentagon’s
budget is higher than the general rate of inflation for the economy as a whole.
This assumption, of course, makes it far easier to hide the real effects
of cost growth and outright fraud, waste, and abuse over time by attributing
part of it to inflation, which is said to be beyond the MICC’s control.
The chart puts this scam in perspective.
Compared to the two lefthand charts, the Pentagon’s deflators (i.e., the
righthand graph) make the current defense budgets appear to be less of a
departure from past budgets. The right hand chart is the one that the
Pentagon briefs to Congress and the press dutifully regurgitates. It
implies the current defense budget and future plans are less of a distortionary
burden on the economy than is actually the case. (Readers interested in
learning more about the inflation scam are referred to this report for a particularly outrageous case study
documenting how the Pentagon scammed the Congress and the America people into
believing the Reagan spendup was less wasteful than it really was.)
The charts give you an idea of the golden
cornucopia awaiting the Military – Industrial – Congressional Complex (MICC),
if its proponents can start a new Cold War. Anyone who doubts the
possibility of the MICC’s capacity to pull this off, need only use these charts
to think about (1) the durability of the so-called “peace” dividend
accompanying the end of the Cold War in 1990 and (2) how the MICC exploited the
horror of 9-11 to power boost the defense budget to levels undreamed of by the
threat inflators during the worst days of the Cold War or Vietnam. Just
try to think about what a new wave of cold-war hysteria could trigger.
When asked to pony up the money to pay for a new
Cold War (and to sacrifice other programs like Medicare and Social Security),
American taxpayers would be well advised to try to understand how future
defense budgets compare to those of the past. They would be better served
if everyone agreed to use the GDP inflator (or something like it) when trying
to remove effects of inflation from a given budget level. The GDP
deflator assumes the Pentagon’s budget is a part of the larger American
economy. The alternative is to continue using the Pentagon’s deflators,
which assume the economics of the MICC are a special place where the
self-interested parties making up the MICC should make up the rules that
establish the terms of political debate.
Franklin “Chuck” Spinney is a former
military analyst for the Pentagon and a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion,
published by AK Press. He can be reached at chuck_spinney@mac.com
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear
Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
globalnet@mindspring.com
www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/ (blog)
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
globalnet@mindspring.com
www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/ (blog)
ZUNES OFFERS SEVERAL QUALIFICATIONS TO THE
PRECEDING ARGUMENTS
·
About
·
Donate
Foreign Policy In
Focus
Straight
Talk on the U.S. and Ukraine
Given the limits of its power and its own
compromised relationship with international law, the U.S.
isn't in a position to do much about Ukraine .
It’s been interesting to observe the large numbers of people who
suddenly think they’re experts on the ongoing crisis in Ukraine—both those on
the left who blame it on Obama for intervening too much and those on the right
who blame it on Obama for not intervening enough.
As someone who has spent his entire academic career analyzing
and critiquing the U.S. role
in the world, I have some news: While the United States has had significant
impact (mostly negative in my view) in a lot of places, we are not omnipotent.
There are real limits to American power, whether for good or for ill. Not
everything is our responsibility.
This is certainly the case with Ukraine .
Delusions of Grandeur
On the right, you have political figures claiming that Obama’s
supposed “weakness” somehow emboldened Moscow to
engage in aggressive moves against Crimea .
Sarah Palin, for example, claims that Obama’s failure to respond
forcefully to Russia ’s
bloody incursion into Georgia
in 2008 made Russia ’s
“invasion” possible, despite the fact that Obama wasn’t even president then and
therefore couldn’t have done much.
Even some Democrats, like Delaware
senator Chris Coons,
claim that Obama’s failure to attack Syria
last fall made the United
States look weak.
In reality, there seems to be little correlation between the
willingness of Moscow to assert its power in areas within its traditional
spheres of influence and who occupies the White House: The Soviets invaded
Hungary in 1956 when Eisenhower was president; the Soviets invaded
Czechoslovakia in 1968 when Johnson was president; the Soviets successfully
pressed for martial law in Poland in 1981 when Reagan was president; the
Russians attacked Georgia in 2008 when Bush was president. In each case, as
much as these administrations opposed these actions, it was determined that any
military or other aggressive counter-moves would likely do more harm than good.
Washington cannot realistically do any more in
response to Russian troops seizing Crimea in 2014 in the name of protecting
Russian lives and Russian bases than Moscow
could do in response to U.S.
troops seizing Panama
in 1989 in the name of protecting American lives and American bases.
There is an equally unrealistic view of supposed American
omnipotence from some segments of the left in their claims that the United States
was somehow responsible for the popular uprising that toppled the Yanukovych
regime last month. [See the several
preceding essays that make this claim.
–Dick]
First of all, it’s not true that the United
States government “spent $5 billion to destabilize Ukraine,” as
some agitators have claimed. That figure is the total amount of money provided
to the country since independence in 1991, which includes aid to pro-Western
Ukrainian administrations (which the United States presumably would not
have wanted to destabilize). Like most U.S. foreign aid, some of it went
for good things and some for not so good things. There was also some funding
through the National Endowment for Democracyand other
organizations to some opposition groups that were involved in the recent
insurrection, but this was in the millions of dollars, nothing remotely close
to $5 billion. And this aid went primarily to centrist groups, not the far
right, so claims that the United States
“supported fascists” in Ukraine
are without foundation.
It’s also unfair to imply that such aid was somehow the cause of the uprising, thereby denying
agency to the millions of Ukrainians who took to the streets in an effort to
determine (for better or worse) their own future. To claim that U.S. aid was responsible for the Orange Revolution of 2005 or the more recent revolt is
as ludicrous as President Reagan’s claims in the 1980s that Soviet aid was
responsible for the leftist revolutions in Central America .
The uprising that overthrew Ukrainian president Viktor
Yanukovych and his allied pro-Russian oligarchs was not a classic nonviolent
pro-democracy uprising like those that have toppled scores of dictatorships in
recent decades. Yanukovych was democratically elected, and the forces that
ousted him included—though were not dominated by—armed, neo-fascist militias.
At the same time, Yanukovych’s rampant corruption, repression, and
divide-and-rule tactics had cost him his legitimacy in the eyes of the majority
of Ukrainians. The protesters were primarily liberal democrats who engaged in legitimate acts of nonviolent resistance against severe government repression,
many of whom spent months in freezing temperatures in a struggle for a better Ukraine dominated by neither Russia nor the
West. To label them as simply puppets of Washington
is as unfair as labeling peasant revolutionaries in El
Salvador as puppets of Moscow .
At the same time, given that the new government includes corrupt
neo-liberal oligarchs along with representatives
of the far right, it would be equally wrong to assume that the
change of government represents some kind of major progressive democratic opening.
And the refusal of the opposition to abide by the compromise agreement of
February 21, which called for early elections and limited presidential powers,
and seize power directly raises questions regarding the legitimacy of the new
government. Whether for good or for ill, however, and despite whatever attempts
Western powers have made to influence the outcome, the change of government is
ultimately the responsibility of Ukrainians, not the Obama administration.
While the United States and the European Union no doubt want to
lure Ukraine in a pro-Western direction and the Russians even more desperately
want Ukraine to stay within their orbit, Ukrainians themselves—given the
country’s centuries of subjugation—are strongly nationalistic and do not want
to be under the control of Russia or the West. With a population of 45 million
and significant agricultural and industrial capacity, they are not a country
that would passively accept foreign domination.
Just as U.S.
military action in the greater Middle East in the name of protecting Americans
from Islamist extremism has ended up largely encouraging Islamist extremism, Russia ’s
actions in the name of protecting Russians from right-wing Ukrainian
ultra-nationalists will likely only encourage that tendency as well. The United States ,
therefore, needs to avoid any actions that could encourage dangerous
ultra-nationalist tendencies among either Russians or Ukrainians. Polls show
most Russians are at best ambivalent about the Kremlin’s moves in Ukraine .
Provocative actions by the United
States would more likely solidify support
for Russian president Vladimir Putin’s illegitimate actions.
One factor that may have partly motivated Russian moves in Ukraine could have been talk
by U.S. officials of
incorporating Ukraine in the
NATO alliance, a move which—given the history of foreign invaders conquering Russia through the Ukraine —would be completely
unacceptable to the Kremlin. However, Russia ’s
moves in Crimea may make such a scenario more
likely rather than less likely. To ease such tensions, even such hawks as
former U.S. National Security Advisers Henry
Kissinger and Zbigniew
Brzezinski acknowledge the limits of American power in such a situation and
have proposed a compromise whereby Ukraine, like Finland during the Cold War,
would be prohibited from joining any formal military alliance, and the
Russian-speaking areas would be granted a degree of autonomy. Should President
Obama consider such a compromise, however, he would almost certainly be
attacked not only by Republicans but by hawkish Democrats as well. Indeed,
Obama’s former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in comparing Putin to Adolph Hitler, has
contributed to a political climate making the Obama administration’s ability to
accept such a compromise all the more difficult.
Thousands of Russian troops have fanned out from Russian bases
in Crimea and, under Russian control, the Crimean parliament—dominated by
ethnic Russians—has unilaterally declared independence and called for a snap
referendum to reincorporate the peninsula into Russia. This is a clear
violation of the 1994 Budapest Treaty—signed by Russia ,
Ukraine , the United States , France ,
Great Britain , and China —guaranteeing, in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal inherited
from the Soviet Union , the country’s
territorial integrity and security assurances against threats or use of force.
As a result, there does need to be a strong international
response to Russia ’s
aggrandizement. Unfortunately, the United States is hardly in a
position to take leadership on the matter.
For example, Secretary
of State John Kerry has
chastised Putin’s actions in Crimea on the grounds that “You just don’t invade
another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests,” adding
that Russia ’s
actions constituted a “direct, overt violation of international law.” While
this is certainly a valid statement in itself, it’s ironic coming from a man
who so vigorously supported
the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq on
the phony pretext that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction.”
Indeed, while Obama, to his credit, opposed the Iraq War, the fact that he
appointed so many supporters of that illegal invasion and occupation to major
foreign policy positions in his administration has severely weakened the United States ’
ability to assume leadership in challenging the Kremlin on its own unilateral
excesses.
Similarly, in 2004, Kerry, Joe
Biden, and other members of Congress who later became key Obama administration
officials unconditionally endorsed then-Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon’s
plan to incorporate large sections of the occupied West Bank into Israel , a
proposal denounced by international legal authorities worldwide as an illegal
annexation. This makes it very difficult for the Obama administration to be
taken seriously when it denounces the illegality of the proposed referendum to
have Crimea incorporated into Russia .
There is also the fact that the Obama administration appears willing
to accept Morocco ’s illegal takeover of occupied Western Sahara (under the autocratic monarchy’s dubious
“autonomy” proposal) in defiance of international law, a landmark 1975 World Court
decision, and a series of UN resolutions. While illegitimate, the Russians are
at least willing offer the people of Crimea a
choice in a referendum. By contrast, the United
States has effectively abandoned the United Nations’
insistence that there be a referendum in occupied Western Sahara, apparently in
the recognition that the vast majority of Western Saharans
would vote for independence.
In short, given the history of U.S.
support for its allies’ land grabs and its own history of illegal invasions,
this leaves the United
States with little credibility to take
leadership in this crisis. This in no way justifies or minimizes the
seriousness of Russia ’s
aggression, of course. However, it underscores the fact that international
leadership is not just a matter of being “tough.” It means being willing to
abide by and defend the same international legal norms for yourself and your
allies as you demand of your adversaries. Until there is such a change in
policies, there is little the United
States can do.
Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics
and coordinator of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco .
Ira Chernus | Ukraine + Flight 370 = Bad News for Neocons
Ira Chernus, History News Network , Readers Supported News, March 20, 2014
Chernus reports: "Perhaps the corporate news media gave us all those headlines about Ukraine, knowing they would bring in big audiences, because the U.S. - Russia showdown itself was great entertainment."
READ MORE
Ira Chernus, History News Network , Readers Supported News, March 20, 2014
Chernus reports: "Perhaps the corporate news media gave us all those headlines about Ukraine, knowing they would bring in big audiences, because the U.S. - Russia showdown itself was great entertainment."
READ MORE
RELATED
TOPICS
Juan Cole | As Putin Recognizes Crimea, His Other Client,
Syria, Goes on the Offensive
Juan Cole, Informed Comment , Reader Supported News, March 20, 2014
Cole writes: "In the current Sunni-Shiite struggles in the east of the Arab world, Putin has in essence made Russia a patron of the Shiites just as it is a patron of the Eastern Orthodox Christians."
Juan Cole, Informed Comment , Reader Supported News, March 20, 2014
Cole writes: "In the current Sunni-Shiite struggles in the east of the Arab world, Putin has in essence made Russia a patron of the Shiites just as it is a patron of the Eastern Orthodox Christians."
RECENT RELATED NEWSLETTERS
Vietnam
War 4-9
Palestinians
3-30
Manning
3-28
Anti-War
3-25
US
Violence 3-24
Open
Government 3-17
CONTACT ARKANSAS
SENATORS
SENATORS
Sen. John Boozman
Republican, first term
320Hart Senate Office Building
Washington , D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-4843
Fax: (202) 228-1371
Arkansas offices:
FORT SMITH :
(479) 573-0189
JONESBORO : (870) 268-6925
LITTLE ROCK: (501) 372-7153
LOWELL : (479) 725-0400
MOUNTAIN HOME: (870) 424-0129
STUTTGART : (870) 672-6941
EL DORADO :
(870) 863-4641
Website: www.boozman.senate.gov
Republican, first term
320
Phone: (202) 224-4843
Fax: (202) 228-1371
LITTLE ROCK: (501) 372-7153
MOUNTAIN HOME: (870) 424-0129
Website: www.boozman.senate.gov
Sen. Mark Pryor
Democrat, second term
255 Dirksen Office Building
Constitution Avenue and
First Street NE
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2353
Fax: (202) 228-0908
Little Rock office: (501) 324-6336
Website: www.pryor.senate.gov
Democrat, second term
255 Dirksen Office Building
Constitution Avenue and
First Street NE
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2353
Fax: (202) 228-0908
Little Rock office: (501) 324-6336
Website: www.pryor.senate.gov
ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES
[Repeated: My newsletters
do not give the Corporate/Pentagon/White House/Congressional/Mainstream
Media/Imperial propaganda system, because it commands billions of dollars to
persuade and purchase agreement. My
sources are independent and therefore usually on the edge financially. The old journalistic rule of giving both
sides is completely absurd in this situation.
No sane person would expect critics of this power to give equal time to
perspectives that possess immense resources for promulgating war. (So purchase a subscription to your favorite
independents.) Dick]
Contents Russia
Newsletter #1, 2014
Four
Questioning Mainstream Media Pro-War Media
Patrick Smith,
US/New York Times Spin
Stephen Cohen,
Anti-Russia Is Old Anti-Soviet
Parry, Group
Think
Alternative
Analysis
(Plenty of
protest against the pro-war Obama administration and media, but all together
reflecting a comparatively small readership.
If you agree with the analyses of these alternative views that try to
view Russia outside the US imperial
box, then forward this newsletter and notify your contacts.)
The Nation Editorial
Alterman, Cold
War Hysteria Revived
How
Russia/Ukraine Look in Beijing
Charles
Pierce, Dick Cheney’s View
Luke Harding , US
Refuses Crimea Poll
Ray McGovern,
Putin Says No to Regime Change on Its Border
Bruce Gagnon,
Danger of War Following US-led Coup for Gas and Oil
Pilger, Other
Coups, Same Superpower
Robert
Freeman, Ukraine
and WWI over Energy
Mark Swaney
More Reading
Via Historians
Against War (HAW)
Via Common
Dreams
Via FAIR TV
Contact Arkansas
Representatives
END
RUSSIA (AND UKRAINE )
NEWSLETTER #2
No comments:
Post a Comment