Monday, February 28, 2022

Climate Memo Mondays #64


64.  Climate Memo Mondays, February 28, 2022

European Green New Deal
Talking to Your Kid about CC



A Left Green New Deal: An Internationalist Blueprint.

Edited by Bernd RiexingerLia BeckerKatharina Dahme and Christina Kaindl.   Monthly Review P, 2022.
Publisher’s description
With the cascading effects of multiple ongoing health and economic crises, conditions are ripe for the emergence of a global progressive social project capable of moving us beyond business-as-usual and eradicating the fundamental causes of misery: namely, a global Green New Deal. But simply creating new “green jobs” within the current capitalist system is not nearly enough. If we are to take on climate change, it is imperative that we first of all engage in “system change,” a process rooted in socialism. Shifting beyond the American notion of the Green New Deal and adding vital internationalist dimension, A Left Green New Deal provides just such a blueprint for this worldwide undertaking.

Written by Bernd Riexinger and his team in the German DIE LINKE [the left] Party, A Left Green New Deal unveils the powerful opponents of a genuine, left-wing Green New Deal—corporations, the wealthy, the ultra-rich and their political allies. But it also discloses the creation of a potent new counterforce, embodied in a left-wing mobilization strategy developed by DIE LINKE. This organizing model is based in “connective party politics”— transformative organizing practices that reach across class lines within and beyond the party. This essential book provides both a Left Green New Deal platform and the inspiration necessary to lay a path towards an alternate future.


Talking to your kid about climate change.  Editor. (2-21-22).    Emotions are at the heart of the matter     





--Biden should declare the climate catastrophe a national emergency (see Biden and climate)

--Contrast Lynas, Our Last Warning, on  the dark truth about temperature and resistance, to Fonda’s optimistic account of 4 mos. Of resistance.

Fonda, What Can I Do? My Path from Climate Despair to Action.  2020. 

Thursday, February 24, 2022

OMNI RUSSIA NEWSLETTER #11, February 24, 2022


February 24, 2022

Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace, Justice, and Ecology


US leaders and maybe the majority of the populace have suffered so severely and so long in foreign policy from deafness and political cataracts (or pathology of Soviet/Russia phobia, or malice against a different economic ideology, or obsession to control the world) that I doubt if they will ever recover.  However, here is another anthology providing views of Russia alternative to those of our ruling Warriors.  It was compiled up to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia beginning February 24, 2022.   The anthology shows, as critics observe, that the invasion was both provoked and preventable.   The articles are published as a deterrent to future war fevers by lovers of war.   



Perspectives Leading to Diplomacy

Putin’s/Russia’s Thinking

   Joe Lauria, Putin’s 3,350-word Speech: NATO Is the Issue

   Chris Hedges on the Economic Motives for NATO Expansion
Minsk Agreements

    Rahman, Ukraine at Fault

    Ray McGovern, Russia and China
German-Russian Pipeline Agreement 

    Whitney, Germany and Russia, Nordstream 2 Pipeline
    George Paulson


    John Foster (author of Oil and World Politics), Nordstream,
         NATO, and Equal Security

M. K. Bhadrakumar, From Recognition of Donbass Provinces to Invasion

   Donbass Refugees

US’/Biden’s Thinking

   Tomlinson, War on Russia

   Hess and Davis, Sanctions as War

   “Hidden Costs of Sanctions”

   Kuzmarov, Yalta: US and Soviet Russia
   Bromwich, Mainstream Media for War

Peace Thinking

   Jack Matlock, Analysis of US and Russian Arguments

   What Could Ukraine—and US and Russia--Think? 

        Art Hobson, Neutrality

        Scott Ritter, Neutrality

        Shea and Pavlova, Austria’s Neutrality

    J. William Fulbright, Empathy, Democratic Humanism, Diplomacy

Anthology #10, 1-8-22






Putin/Russia’s Thinking

What Putin says are the causes & aims of Russia’s military
Editor. (2-26-22)

Russia says it has no intentions of controlling Ukraine and its military operation is only to “demilitarize” and “de-Nazify” Ukraine in an action taken after 30 years of the U.S. pushing Russia too far, writes Joe Lauria.

share on Twitter Like What Putin says are the causes & aims of Russia’s military action on Facebook
“What Putin says are the causes & aims of Russia’s military action” (and Biden’s and other Western leaders’ replies).

Consortium News by Joe Lauria (February 24, 2022 )  |  - Posted Feb 25, 2022

Empire, Strategy, WarRussia, Ukraine, United StatesNewswireNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), President Joe Biden, President Vladimir Putin

Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a TV address Thursday morning that the goal of Russia’s military operation was not to take control of Ukraine, but to “demilitarize” and “de-Nazify” the country. Moments after he spoke, explosions were heard in several Ukrainian cities.

The Russian Defense Ministry said these were “precision” attacks against Ukrainian military installations and that civilians were not being targeted. It said Ukraine’s air force on the ground and its air defenses had been destroyed.

The Ukrainian government, which declared a state of emergency and broke off diplomatic relations with Russia, said an invasion was underway and that Russia had landed forces at the port city of Odessa, on Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, as well as entering from Belarus in the north. It said it had killed 50 Russian troops and shot down six Russian fighter jets, which Russia denied.

Putin said one of the operation’s aims was to arrest certain people in Ukraine, likely the neo-Nazis who burned dozens of unarmed people alive in a building in Odessa in 2014. In his speech Monday, Putin said Moscow knows who they are. Russia said it aims to destroy neo-Nazi brigades, such as Right Sector and the Azov Battalion.

Putin said the aim was not to occupy Ukraine, but he gave no indication when Russia might leave. It could be over quickly if Russia’s objectives are met. But war has its own logic and often lays waste to military plans.

The BBC reported that according to Ukrainian authorities 50 civilians have been killed so far. President Joe Biden is certain how this will turn out.

“President Putin has chosen a premeditated war that will bring a catastrophic loss of life and human suffering,” Biden said Wednesday night.

Russia alone is responsible for the death and destruction this attack will bring, and the United States and its allies and partners will respond in a united and decisive way. The world will hold Russia accountable.

Diminishing Russia


Biden speaks on Ukraine at White House last Friday. (Photo: Ruptly screenshot)

Biden is to make a televised address on Thursday after he coordinates a response to Russia’s military action in Ukraine with the G7 and NATO. Biden said he will announce a new package of economic sanctions against Russia, in addition to those imposed on Monday, but reiterated that U.S. and NATO forces would not become involved. According to TASS, Russia’s news agency, the EU said it intends to weaken “Russia’s economic base and the country’s capacity to modernize.”

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson even hinted at British military involvement. “Our mission is clear,” he said.

Diplomatically, politically, economically and eventually militarily this hideous and barbaric venture of Vladimir Putin must end in failure.

In a White House readout after the last phone call between Biden and Putin this month, Biden said Russia would be “diminished” if it invades, a longstanding U.S. goal.

In addition to the sanctions, Russia has faced widespread condemnation from most of the world, expressed at United Nations meetings this week, including an emergency session of the Security Council on Wednesday night. Several nations spoke in melodramatic tones about the military operation changing global security. Many of those nations supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

On Monday, Putin said he would send Russian “peacekeepers” into Lugansk and Donetsk, which he recognized as states independent from Ukraine. The West denounced it as an invasion, triggering the first round of sanctions against Russia. Putin said the Russian troops were sent in to protect ethnic Russians, many of whom have now fled for safety over the border to Russia.

Combat in Donbass

Fierce fighting was reported Thursday along the line of separation between Ukrainian forces and militias from Donetsk and Lugansk. It is not clear to what extent Russian forces are taking part in the Donbass battle and if the aim is to capture all of the two breakaway provinces.

Both had voted for independence from Ukraine in 2014 after a coup overthrew the elected president Viktor Yanukovych. The new Ukrainian government then launched a war against the provinces to crush their bid for independence, a war that is still going on eight years later at the cost of 14,000 lives.

Neo-Nazi groups, such as Right Sector and the Azov Battalion, who revere the World War II Ukrainian fascist leader Stepan Bandera, took part in the coup as well as in the ongoing war against Lugansk and Donetsk.

A Matter of ‘Life or Death’

The Russian military action follows demands made in December by Russia to the U.S. and NATO in the form of treaty proposals that would require Ukraine and Georgia not to join NATO; U.S. missiles in Poland and Romania to be removed; and NATO deployments to Eastern Europe reversed. The U.S. and NATO rejected the proposals and instead sent more NATO forces to Eastern Europe and have been heavily arming Ukraine.

In his address on Thursday morning, Putin said the military operation he was launching was a “question of life or death” for Russia, referring to NATO’s expansion east since the late 1990s. He said:

For the United States and its allies, it is a policy of containing Russia, with obvious geopolitical dividends. For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation. This is not an exaggeration; this is a fact. It is not only a very real threat to our interests but to the very existence of our state and to its sovereignty. It is the red line which we have spoken about on numerous occasions. They have crossed it.

Detailed Explanation of Causes and Aims of Operation

Silets Sokalskyi Lvivska battlefield monument in Ukraine of Soviets soldiers against Nazi invaders. (Photo: Viacheslav Galievskyi / Wikimedia Commons)

In his 3,350-word speech, Putin laid out in full detail the reasons he decided to take military action and what he hopes it will achieve. The speech is a devastating critique of U.S. policy toward Russia over the past 30 years, which no doubt will fall on deaf ears in Washington.

Western media is so far ignoring the speech or superficially dismissing it. But it has to be carefully studied if anyone is interested in understanding why Russia launched this military operation. Just calling Putin “Hitler,” as Nancy Pelosi did Wednesday night, won’t do.

Hitler in fact features in Putin’s address. For instance, addressing the Ukrainian military, Putin said:

Your fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers did not fight the Nazi occupiers and did not defend our common Motherland to allow today’s neo-Nazis to seize power in Ukraine. You swore the oath of allegiance to the Ukrainian people and not to the junta, the people’s adversary which is plundering Ukraine and humiliating the Ukrainian people.

He linked the Nazis’ invasion of Russia to NATO’s threat today, saying this time there would be no appeasement:

Of course, this situation begs a question: what next, what are we to expect? If history is any guide, we know that in 1940 and early 1941 the Soviet Union went to great lengths to prevent war or at least delay its outbreak. To this end, the USSR sought not to provoke the potential aggressor until the very end by refraining or postponing the most urgent and obvious preparations it had to make to defend itself from an imminent attack. When it finally acted, it was too late.

As a result, the country was not prepared to counter the invasion by Nazi Germany, which attacked our Motherland on June 22, 1941, without declaring war. The country stopped the enemy and went on to defeat it, but this came at a tremendous cost. The attempt to appease the aggressor ahead of the Great Patriotic War proved to be a mistake which came at a high cost for our people. In the first months after the hostilities broke out, we lost vast territories of strategic importance, as well as millions of lives. We will not make this mistake the second time. We have no right to do so.

Putin said the existential threat from NATO’s expansion was the main reason for military action:

Our biggest concerns and worries, [are] the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year. I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.   MORE

[Read the full text of the speech]

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and numerous other newspapers. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times. 

Monthly Review does not necessarily adhere to all of the views conveyed in articles republished at MR Online. Our goal is to share a variety of left perspectives that we think our readers will find interesting or useful. —Eds.


 Russia, Ukraine and the chronicle of a war foretold.”

Chris Hedges. (2-27-22).

After the fall of the Soviet Union, there was a near-universal understanding among political leaders that NATO expansion would be a foolish provocation against Russia. How naive we were to think the military-industrial complex would allow such sanity to prevail.   share on Twitter Like Russia, Ukraine and the chronicle of a war foretold on Facebook 

Posted Feb 26, 2022 by Chris Hedges

Originally published: MintPress News (February 25, 2022 )  | 

WarRussia, UkraineNewswire

I was in Eastern Europe in 1989, reporting on the revolutions that overthrew the ossified communist dictatorships that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was a time of hope. NATO, with the breakup of the Soviet empire, became obsolete. President Mikhail Gorbachev reached out to Washington and Europe to build a new security pact that would include Russia. Secretary of State James Baker in the Reagan administration, along with the West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured the Soviet leader that if Germany was unified NATO would not be extended beyond the new borders. The commitment not to expand NATO, also made by Great Britain and France, appeared to herald a new global order. We saw the peace dividend dangled before us, the promise that the massive expenditures on weapons that characterized the Cold War would be converted into expenditures on social programs and infrastructures that had long been neglected to feed the insatiable appetite of the military.

There was a near universal understanding among diplomats and political leaders at the time that any attempt to expand NATO was foolish, an unwarranted provocation against Russia that would obliterate the ties and bonds that happily emerged at the end of the Cold War.

How naive we were. The war industry did not intend to shrink its power or its profits. It set out almost immediately to recruit the former Communist Bloc countries into the European Union and NATO. Countries that joined NATO, which now include Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia were forced to reconfigure their militaries, often through hefty loans, to become compatible with NATO military hardware.

There would be no peace dividend. The expansion of NATO swiftly became a multi-billion-dollar bonanza for the corporations that had profited from the Cold War. (Poland, for example, just agreed to spend $ 6 billion on M1 Abrams tanks and other U.S. military equipment.) If Russia would not acquiesce to again being the enemy, then Russia would be pressured into becoming the enemy. And here we are. On the brink of another Cold War, one from which only the war industry will profit while, as W. H. Auden wrote, the little children die in the streets.

Firefighters hose down a burning building following a rocket attack on Kiev, Ukraine, Feb. 25, 2022. Photo | AP

The consequences of pushing NATO up to the borders with Russia — there is now a NATO missile base in Poland 100 miles from the Russian border — were well known to policy makers. Yet they did it anyway. It made no geopolitical sense. But it made commercial sense. War, after all, is a business, a very lucrative one. It is why we spent two decades in Afghanistan although there was near universal consensus after a few years of fruitless fighting that we had waded into a quagmire we could never win.



Minsk Agreements
“What are the Minsk agreements and what are their role in the Russia-Ukraine crisis?

Editor. (2-26-22).

Under pressure from ultra-nationalists and Russophobes, successive governments in Ukraine have failed to address the grievances of the Russian speaking majority in the Donbass region. Ukraine has also not implemented the provisions of the Minsk agreement signed in 2015 to end the conflict in the region.

share on Twitter Like What are the Minsk agreements and what are their role in the Russia-Ukraine crisis? on Facebook

 Originally published: Peoples Dispatch by Abdul Rahman (February 22, 2022 )  |  - Posted Feb 25, 2022

Strategy, WarRussia, UkraineNewswireMinsk agreements, Normandy Format, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), President Vladimir Putin, Volodymyr Zelensky

On Monday, February 21, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced in a press conference that the country will recognize the independence of the Donetsk and the Luhansk people’s republics. Refuting arguments that the move will harm possibilities for peace and violate provisions of the Minsk agreement, the Russian leader claimed that the decision was aimed at maintaining peace in the region.

According to Valentina Matviyenko, chairperson of the Federation Council, the upper house of Russian parliament, the situation in Donbass is of a “humanitarian disaster and genocide” and Russia’s move will help in easing the situation there. She claimed that Russia was left with no other option to prevent the bloodbath in the region as no one was listening to its calls for diplomatic and political solutions in the last eight years.

Russia’s move is based on certain facts and growing speculation at a time when war hysteria is being whipped up by the U.S. and its NATO allies in the region. According to the Organization for Security and Cooperation (OSCE), which was assigned the role to monitor the ceasefire under the Minsk agreement, the Ukrainian government has violated the ceasefire agreement several times in the last week. Several rounds of talks, revived between the parties of the Minsk agreement in the last couple of weeks, have also failed to address Russian concerns. The situation prompted the leaders of Luhansk and Donetsk to appeal to Putin to take immediate action.

Minsk agreement

The situation in Ukraine today is attributed to the rise of ultra-nationalist and Russophobe groups that compelled the then Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich to resign during the Euromaidan protests in February 2014. Protesters called for Yanukovich to follow policies favorable for integration with the EU and NATO even at the cost of harming Ukraine’s traditional ties with Russia. This same set of ultra nationalist and Russophobe political groups have been hampering the implementation of the Minsk agreement by successive Ukrainian governments.

The Minsk agreement was signed in the context of the outbreak of civil war in Ukraine following the post-Euromaidan government’s move to crush the protests opposing the pro-EU and pro-NATO policies that it had adopted. Ukrainian forces declared a war on the protesters following Russia’s annexation of Crimea. The war lasted for months before the 13-point Minsk agreement was signed, and led to the death of over 14,000 people and displaced over 2.5 million, with nearly half of them seeking refuge in Russia.

The Minsk agreement was signed by countries and groups forming the Normandy format including the OSCE, France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine in February 2015. The agreement was later endorsed by the UN Security Council (UNSC). According to the provisions of the agreement, apart from establishing an immediate ceasefire in the Donbass region, the government in Ukraine agreed to make provisions for greater autonomy to Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, the centers of rebellion, by first recognizing the right to self-government and also creating special status for the regions in the parliament. It was a necessary condition for them to remain within Ukraine and for Russia to hand over border control to the Ukrainian government, which it had taken over following the outbreak of the war. The OSCE was assigned the role of observing the implementation of the ceasefire agreement. The agreement also talked about broader constitutional reforms in Ukraine.

Non-implementation of Minsk agreement


Minsk Accords and China
2-23-22 Putin recognized the independence of the pro-Russian Ukrainian provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk.

What accounts for Putin’s assertiveness on Ukraine?

Editor. (2-24-22).

What about this China factor? Why do Western pundits/savants pay so little heed to this game-changer? It should not require my half-century of studying/reporting on Russia-China relations to notice that China and Russia have never been so strategically close as now.   share on Twitter Like What accounts for Putin’s assertiveness on Ukraine? on Facebook

Originally published: by Ray McGovern (February 22, 2022 ) - Posted Feb 23, 2022

Strategy, War, China, Russia, United StatesNewswire

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s well choreographed decision yesterday to recognize the independence of the pro-Russian Ukrainian provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk points to two key realities: (1) Putin despairs of persuading U.S. allies, Germany and France, to press Ukraine to honor its commitments under the Minsk accords that provide for regional autonomy as well as a ceasefire; and (2) Putin feels assured of very strong backing from China (as long as he is not stupid enough to invade Ukraine).

What about this China factor? Why do Western pundits/savants pay so little heed to this game-changer? It should not require my half-century of studying/reporting on Russia-China relations to notice that China and Russia have never been so strategically close as now. Putin and Xi have done their part to demonstrate that. Why cannot most Western pundits and savants see it and recognize the implications?

There are, happily, notable exceptions–for example, Edward Wong’s Bond Between China and Russia Alarms U.S. and Europe Amid Ukraine Crisis.    MORE


German and Russian PipelineThinking:  2 Articles on Nordstream 2

Crisis in Ukraine is about Germany and Russian Energy

From Sonny San Juan via 2-20-22

Mike Whitney.  “The Crisis in Ukraine Is Not About Ukraine. It's About Germany.” Information Clearing House (February 17, 2022). 

“The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars– the First, the Second and Cold Wars– has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united there, they’re the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn’t happen.” George Friedman, STRATFOR CEO at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs 

 The Ukrainian crisis has nothing to do with Ukraine. It’s about Germany and, in particular, a pipeline that connects Germany to Russia called Nord Stream 2. Washington sees the pipeline as a threat to its primacy in Europe and has tried to sabotage the project at every turn. Even so, Nord Stream has pushed ahead and is now fully-operational and ready-to-go. Once German regulators provide the final certification, the gas deliveries will begin. German homeowners and businesses will have a reliable source of clean and inexpensive energy while Russia will see a significant boost to their gas revenues. It’s a win-win situation for both parties. 

The US Foreign Policy establishment is not happy about these developments. They don’t want Germany to become more dependent on Russian gas because commerce builds trust and trust leads to the expansion of trade. As relations grow warmer, more trade barriers are lifted, regulations are eased, travel and tourism increase, and a new security architecture evolves. In a world where Germany and Russia are friends and trading partners, there is no need for US military bases, no need for expensive US-made weapons and missile systems, and no need for NATO. There’s also no need to transact energy deals in US Dollars or to stockpile US Treasuries to balance accounts. Transactions between business partners can be conducted in their own currencies which is bound to precipitate a sharp decline in the value of the dollar and a dramatic shift in economic power. This is why the Biden administration opposes Nord Stream. It’s not just a pipeline, it’s a window into the future; a future in which Europe and Asia are drawn closer together into a massive free trade zone that increases their mutual power and prosperity while leaving the US on the outside looking in. Warmer relations between Germany and Russia signal an end to the “unipolar” world order the US has overseen for the last 75 years. A German-Russo alliance threatens to hasten the decline of the Superpower that is presently inching closer to the abyss. This is why Washington is determined to do everything it can to sabotage Nord Stream and keep Germany within its orbit. It’s a matter of survival. 

That’s where Ukraine comes into the picture. Ukraine is Washington’s ‘weapon of choice’ for torpedoing Nord Stream and putting a wedge between Germany and Russia. The strategy is taken from page one of the US Foreign Policy Handbook under the rubric: Divide and Rule. Washington needs to create the perception that Russia poses a security threat to Europe. That’s the goal. They need to show that Putin is a bloodthirsty aggressor with a hair-trigger temper who cannot be trusted. To that end, the media has been given the assignment of reiterating over and over again, “Russia is planning to invade Ukraine.” What’s left unsaid is that Russia has not invaded any country since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and that the US has invaded or toppled regimes in more than 50 countries in the same period of time, and that the US maintains over 800 military bases in countries around the world. None of this is reported by the media, instead the focus is on “evil Putin” who has amassed an estimated 100,000 troops along the Ukrainian border threatening to plunge all of Europe into another bloody war. 

All of the hysterical war propaganda is created with the intention of manufacturing a crisis that can be used to isolate, demonize and, ultimately, splinter Russia into smaller units. The real target, however, is not Russia, but Germany.    MORE 

Responses by George Paulson and Art Hobson

George Paulson

10:35 AM (4 minutes ago)

Great article, Dick.   Thanks for sharing.  

I agree with the author's main point, that the goal of this manufactured crisis is to kill Nord Stream 2 (Trump tried, but failed, and now his successor is trying as well).  However, there are other contextual factors that enter into this.  The at times hysterical fear mongering about Russia and the almost cartoonish demonization of Putin serve a number of other interests.  Russia provides a handy excuse to continue to ramp up "defense" spending--we need an enemy, a credible, easily identifiable enemy.  It also serves the interests of a largely disgusting, mendacious, discredited legacy media (trust in the media is at an all time low) which relies on both sensationalism and sucking up to DC elites ("access journalism").  It also serves the interests of the Democratic party, by feeding an influential constituency--I'm referring to relatively affluent socially liberal voters who were traumatized and even unhinged by the 2016 election and chose to blame Russia for Hillary Cliinton's loss to a vulgar, buffoonish, openly corrupt, politically inexperienced game show host--exactly the narrative they crave.  It also serves the Democrats'  interests because it serves to distract the public from the numerous crises that the Biden administration has so miserably failed to address.  


The fact that the people responsible for crafting US policy regarding Ukraine are willing to risk a war with nuclear-armed Russia underscores that they are sociopaths.  


Thanks again for sharing.  




Art Hobson  2-21-22

10:59 AM (17 minutes ago)

Dick - There is a lot of truth in this article.  America is being deeply misled in this crisis.  Yes, the Nordstream pipeline is a key element in all this, and I certainly hope that Germany goes through with it.  I was appalled when Biden announced “We will bring an end to it” (i.e. to the pipeline).  Who the hell are we to dictate Germany’s foreign and economic policy?   I think that the economic cooperation created by this pipeline will be good for Europe, good for the world, and bad for militarism in both Russia and in America.  I’m copying this to good friends in Germany.    Peace - Art


By John Foster, Canadian . February 15, 2022

“Why Nord Stream 2 is a key part of the impasse.”

Click on this link for the first part of the essay:

The current crisis between Russia and the US/NATO has been brewing for many years. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO expanded membership to Eastern Europe. NATO facilitates US leadership, keeping European countries on its side against Russia. From a Russian viewpoint, NATO is provocative and threatening.

Part of the agreement underpinning the USSR’s dissolution was Western assurance that it would not expand into Russia’s sphere of influence, a pledge NATO most recently violated by stationing troops, ships and planes along Russia’s borders. The West accuses Russia of interference in Ukraine. Russia points to a 2014 Western-inspired coup in Ukraine and legitimate grievances of Russian-speakers in the breakaway Donbas republics. I document the two narratives in my book Oil and World Politics.

In December 2021, Russia presented draft treaties to the US and NATO, demanding a complete overhaul of Europe’s security architecture. Russia stressed the principle of indivisible and equal security for all countries, as agreed by all 56 members of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) at Istanbul (1999) and reaffirmed at Astana (2010). Countries expressly agreed not to strengthen their security at the expense of others. In January, Russia wrote to all signatory countries, including Canada, demanding clear answers on how they each intended to fulfil these obligations in the current circumstances.

Map of transit pipelines through Poland and Ukraine. Image courtesy Lorimer Books.

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that if the West continued its aggressive policies (NATO’s expansion and missile deployment in eastern Europe), Russia would take ‘military-technical’ reciprocal measures. In his words, “They have pushed us to a line that we can’t cross.”

Russia’s initiative put the cat among the pigeons. A succession of high-level meetings occurred between Russia and the US, NATO and OSCE. On January 26, Washington presented written responses, seeking to narrow the debate to Ukraine and alleging the Russians were poised to invade it. Russia insisted repeatedly it would not initiate an invasion but would support Donbas if the latter were attacked.

The US escalated tensions by repeating claims of an “imminent” Russian invasion, even as Ukraine’s leaders expressed doubts. Washington threatened new sanctions of unprecedented severity, including major Russian banks, high-tech goods, the SWIFT financial messaging system, and Nord Stream 2. Britain and Canada followed suit. On January 11, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asserted any Russian incursion into Ukraine would have “serious consequences,” including sanctions.

France, Germany and Italy balked because the sanctions would backfire on their economies. They appeared unconvinced Russia intended to attack unless provoked. A flurry of high-level bilateral discussions with Russia followed.

Significantly, on January 26, representatives of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine confirmed support for the 2015 Minsk II agreement and an unconditional ceasefire. Minsk-II requires Ukraine to negotiate with the two Donbas republics on autonomy within a federalized Ukraine but, thus far, no negotiations have been held.

The EU imports 40 percent of its gas from Russia. For Russia, the routes through Ukraine and Poland are unreliable, because of hostility in both countries. Ukraine has a long-term deal with Gazprom for gas transit until 2024. Ukraine earns big transit fees, roughly US$2 billion per year, and desperately wants to keep them. For its internal market, Ukraine buys Russian gas indirectly from Poland, Romania and Slovakia.

Whatever happens with Western sanctions, Russia has a strategic new market in China. Russia’s Power of Siberia pipeline began exporting gas from east Siberia to northeast China two years ago. The two countries have agreed to build a second line, Power of Siberia 2. It will bring gas from the Yamal Peninsula in the Russian Arctic to China’s northeast. That means Yamal gas will be able to flow to China as easily as to Europe.

The current situation is dangerous and could easily escalate. Nord Stream 2 is critically important but national security trumps all. Security can only be achieved if it is universal. US efforts to contain Russia and maintain leadership over Europe are not working. It’s wake-up time for Canada, too. The world has become multi-polar and Nord Stream 2 is a fulcrum at the centre of the current crisis.



Putin crosses the Rubicon. What next?
M. K. Bhadrakumar. (2-26-22).


Russia’s recognition of the ‘people’s republics’ of Luhansk and Donetsk in the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbass on Monday is a watershed event.  share on Twitter Like Putin crosses the Rubicon. What next? on Facebook



“Russian region declares emergency amid influx of refugees.”

The two self-proclaimed Donbass republics in eastern Ukraine have announced they are evacuating civilians across the border


Buses with refugees leave for Russia, in Donetsk, Ukraine, February 18, 2022. © Sergey Baturin/Sputnik

A Russian region bordering Eastern Ukraine has declared a state of emergency on Saturday, with reports of refugees from the separatist-held Donbass crossing over the border amid a military escalation with Kiev.  

The self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) announced that they had begun evacuating civilians to Russia on Friday, with rebels and Ukrainian army forces accusing each other of shelling across the contact line. It is unclear how many residents may be following the guidance from local leaders, and those living near the front line on both sides have faced regular firefights since 2014.  MORE



US Already Waging War on Russia

Abel Tomlinson  2-19-22

The US strategy to start war with Russia, (along with rampant pro-war media propaganda) is to arm their client-state Govt in Kiev as they bomb ethnic Russian minorities in East Ukraine, to try to goad Russia into the conflict.  This allows the US to try to pretend they are not the aggressor.  Meanwhile US weapons are destroying villages as we speak, causing a mass refugee state of emergency. The US is already waging warfare (not to mention the U.S. backed coup previously)



Immanuel Ness and Stuart Davis, eds.  Sanctions as War: Anti-Imperialist Perspectives on American Geo-economic Strategy.  Leiden: Brill, 202l.  [I have not read this book, but intend to report on it in my next anthology.  –D]



“Hidden costs of the sky falls”

Sonny San Juan via   2-22-22

Economist: If US cuts Russia off from SWIFT, China will turn to

CIPS, & US will lose its financial dominance.   

This means the End of Seigneurage, no more free lunch for the USA, i.e,

no more Current Account Deficit, because the rest of the world would no

longer accept its checks (cheques).     MORE =PQA%2Fo8VE4oZRbK9Fz80OBPmzE4YQw8TVeLZqeP15KVg%3D&reserved=0

 Dec 18th 2021 edition, The Economist   SWIFT thinking………The hidden costs of cutting Russia off from SWIFT.  America's foes would rush to alternatives, hastening its financial decline.


US/FDR’s/Biden’s Thinking
From Yalta to Ukraine Today

Seventy-Seven Years Ago, U.S. and Russia Signed Historic Agreement at Yalta

By Jeremy Kuzmarov and Jacques Pauwels on Feb 12, 2022 12:22 am

With tensions between the U.S. and Russia at historic levels and threat of a hot war breaking out in Ukraine, we would do well to remember FDR’s visionary leadership and pursuit of diplomacy

Reuters reported last week that 
the Ukrainian military was carrying out war games with newly delivered American military hardware in preparation for a conflict that could break out at any time.

For years now, the U.S. media has been demonizing Russia, accusing its leader Vladimir Putin of being an iron-fisted dictator who has interfered in U.S. elections, poisoned opponents, and carried out aggression by illegally annexing Crimea.

With Russia having amassed over 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s border, the U.S. Congress is prepared to pass a 
“sanctions bill from hell” whose purpose would be to cripple Russia’s economy.

Mississippi Senator, Roger Wicker, the second highest Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, went so far as to suggest in an interview with Fox News that the U.S. should not rule out a preemptive nuclear strike on Russia if it invaded Ukraine. […]

The post Seventy-Seven Years Ago, U.S. and Russia Signed Historic Agreement at Yalta appeared first on CovertAction Magazine.


MAINSTREAM MEDIA TAKE SIDES      David Bromwich.   Russia, Ukraine, and The New York Times.” The Nation › Article.  “The paper of record’s coverage of the crisis has been a series of shameless provocative conjectures posing as facts.” The NYT heats up the root cause of the crisis: fortifying Ukraine as a Western bulwark on Russia’s border. I. NATO Expansion.  II. NYT. 
Feb 5, 2022.  


Closely Related Russia/Europe/NATO/Energy: What Can They Be Thinking?

NEW COLD WAR ON CHINA Special No. of Monthly Review (July-August 2021).

Nine articles plus “Notes from the Editors.”


Peace Thinking:  Neutrality, Empathy

Hobson, Ritter, Shea/Pavlova


WHAT COULD UKRAINE BE THINKING?  NEUTRALITY: Articles by Hobson and Shea/Pavlova

OPINION | ART HOBSON: The United States should support neutrality for Ukraine

U.S. militarism, moral advice aren’t working by Art Hobson | February 1, 2022 at 1:00 a.m.


Americans seem to have no idea of the degree to which fear of attack by the West motivates Russian behavior toward Ukraine.


Some relevant history: Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941. World War II had been under way for nearly two years, during which Germany and Mussolini's Italy occupied most of Europe. Hitler started the war by invading Poland and then signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union to avoid fighting on two fronts. But by 1940 Hitler, who had always dreamed of acquiring "Lebensraum" (living room) by expanding into Russia, began planning his conquest of the Soviet Union.


This Nazi offensive was probably the bloodiest military operation of all time. The heroism and self-sacrifice of the Soviet people were crucial in eventually turning the tide. By war's end, 24 million Soviet citizens, mostly civilians, lay dead. For comparison, U.S. military and civilian deaths totaled about 400,000. U.S. soil was hardly touched. Russians did most of the fighting and dying, inflicting 80 percent of Germany's casualties, and the Russian homeland was devastated. Without them, Hitler would have won.


There is much more. France's Napoleon invaded Russia and was defeated in the "Patriotic War of 1812." In the 1853-1856 Crimean War, France, Britain and Turkey invaded Russia.

During World War I, Germany invaded and occupied much of European Russia.

In 1918, Poland launched a three-year invasion of the new Soviet Union that reached as far as Kiev.


There's more: Hoping to strangle the Bolshevik revolution before it could spread to the rest of Europe, America and an alliance of 14 other Western powers intervened during the 1917-1922 Russian Civil War. Contributing to this endeavor were 250,000 troops, including 11,000 Americans, of whom 424 died.


Thus it was fully predictable that Vladimir Putin would react vehemently to the possibility of Ukraine's membership in an opposing military alliance that had been expanding toward his doorstep since 1990.


Walk a mile in Russia's shoes. Imagine that an anti-American military alliance led by Russia and China has incorporated Central America, Mexico and Cuba, and that Canada now wants to join this alliance. In fact something like this occurred during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, and America was, to say the least, outraged.


We seem to feel free to intimidate the other two superpowers at will, stationing warships and military bases just outside their borders. Yet neither Russia nor China makes corresponding military moves against the U.S. homeland.


What's the goal of U.S. policy? Is it for America to elbow the world into following our economic and political norms? If so, I suggest that our own example is not that great given last year's insurrection and other disasters. Nevertheless, we plow ahead with annual military investments ($778 billion plus "off-budget" items such as nuclear weapons) that outstrip the next nine nations combined. As a thought experiment, consider what could be accomplished if 50 percent of this were instead invested in global human needs.


Humankind's leading international problem is war itself. It's outrageous that humans organize, and spend trillions, in order to kill their own species. Surely we can do better. War seems to attract us as a kind of macho zero-sum game, a game that is highly profitable for the rich and powerful, especially those who own military industries. But war is not a zero-sum game: Everybody loses.


Our goal should surely be human happiness, rather than "winning." Instead of expanding military alliances, all nations should work toward demilitarization, i.e., neutrality in military affairs. Finland, for example, declared neutrality throughout the 1950-1990 Cold War, signing a Treaty of Friendship with the Soviet Union. This is basically what Putin is asking Ukraine to do.

What's wrong with neutrality for Ukraine? I visited Finland for a week in 1985 in connection with a sabbatical at Sweden's Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Finland was and is a free, democratic, rich, happy nation. Neutrality has also worked for nations such as Sweden, Switzerland and Austria.


What has been the point of NATO expansion since 1990? After all, NATO's presumed enemy, the Warsaw Pact, disbanded. Why should NATO have continued? In 1951 we were warned by NATO Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower that NATO will have failed if in 10 years all American troops stationed in Europe have not been returned to the United States.

U.S. militarism, and U.S. moral advice to the entire world, foster resentment and feed humankind's worst instincts. We need to back off, reduce our military budgets and support neutrality instead of "victory."


Print Headline: What's wrong with neutrality?


See original article for references
Art Hobson

Attachments12:14 PM (57 minutes ago)

to George, Abel, me

Hi Abel, 

I agree with you Abel.  For the past 3 months I have been saying in my op-ed columns in the NWADG that Ukraine should be neutral, and that NATO should not have expanded into Eastern Europe.  The goal for all nations should be neutrality.  The UN should take global leadership, not the US.  Here are my op-eds:   

My next op-ed will probably be about the effect of nuclear weapons, because if NATO gets into this war there is a real chance that at some point Putin will use nuclear weapons because he knows he cannot defeat NATO with conventional weapons.  Americans need to know that this is serious.

America needs a renewed peace movement.  The focus should be pro-peace not anti-America.   Russian citizens are protesting Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.  We should support their efforts while also opposing NATO.  Both sides are too militarized.  The goal should be neutrality  rather than military alliances.   

Peace - Art

3 Attachments




The Case for Neutrality to Defuse Crisis With Russia.   January 14, 2022


 Faced with the certainty of the destruction of their country, most Ukrainians would settle for peace through neutrality, writes Scott Ritter.


Rebel armored convoy near Donetsk, Eastern Ukraine, May 30, 2015. (Mstyslav Chernov/Wikimedia Commons)

By Scott Ritter
Special to Consortium News   According to Axios, Jake Sullivan, national security advisor for President Joe Biden, convened a Zoom conference of erstwhile Russian experts to sound out possible policy options going into this week’s triple round of talks with Russia on European security. “By soliciting advice from the hawkish pockets in the foreign policy establishment,” Axios noted, “including those who served under former President Trump, the Biden administration is considering all options while weighing how to discourage Russian President Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine—and punish him if he does.”

How the solicitation of advice from “hawkish pockets in the foreign policy establishment” translates into “considering all options” is a matter for another time. The point here is that the Biden administration, rather than searching for a potential compromise position which could avert conflict in Europe while attaining legitimate national security goals and objectives for the United States, sought out a literal echo chamber of nonsensical advice from like-minded individuals who have spent the past two decades wallowing in their hate and disdain for Russia and its leader, Vladimir Putin.

Michael McFaul, the former Obama administration Russian expert who served as the U.S. Ambassador to Russia from 2012-2014, and who has famously clashed with Putin’s Russia over time, noted the wisdom of Sullivan seeking “to engage with outsiders…including those who may disagree with him,” while declining to say whether he himself participated in the call. 

A Hawk’s Demands

While McFaul has opted to remain silent on any advice he may have imparted if he had, in fact, been a part of that call, one doesn’t have to delve too far into the realm of speculation to get a feel for both the tenor and content of what such advice might have looked like. In a recent tweet responding to a statement made last year by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov that Russia was demanding a “ironclad” guarantee that “Ukraine and Georgia will never ever become a member of NATO,” McFaul responded with a tweet of his own, declaring:

“And I want a ‘waterproof’ ‘ironclad’ ‘bulletproof’ guarantee Russia will end its occupation of Ukrainian and Georgian territories, will never invade Ukraine or Georgia again and will stop its efforts to undermine democracy in Ukraine & Georgia.”

McFaul’s tweet was reflective of an overall policy position which sought the reversal of what he viewed as Russian usurpation of the territory of three European states—Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia. After the Russian government published the text of a draft treaty calling for a guarantee that the United States would not seek to establish military bases “in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization” or “use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them”, McFaul proposed additional articles to the draft treaty in which:

  • Russia agrees to withdraw its forces from Moldova and restore full sovereignty to this European country;
  • Russia agrees to withdraw its forces from Georgia, renounce recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent countries and restore the full sovereignty of Georgia; and
  • Russia agrees to withdraw its forces from Ukraine, return Crimea to Ukraine, stop supporting separatist forces in Ukraine, and restore the full sovereignty of this European country.


McFaul in 2016. (Rod Searcey/Wikimedia Commons)

While there is little doubt that McFaul, who has been loath to find any common ground with Putin’s Russia, was seeking to counter what he viewed as a non-sensical Russian proposal with a non-sensical response, the fact is that if one departs for a moment from a world where the concept of genuine cooperation based upon a willingness to compromise (i.e., real diplomacy) governed as a matter of course, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia may have actually hit upon a formula that could allow the U.S. and NATO to sustain their no-compromise stance on NATO’s “open door” policy while respecting Russia’s insistence on a NATO-free presence in non-NATO former Soviet Republics.

The notion that Russia would agree to withdraw assets from Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova on its own volition is, of course, a non-starter. This is especially true if NATO was considering allowing any of these three states membership. However, if one is to accept the premise that it is the sovereign right of any nation to freely associate with whom it chooses (the cornerstone of NATO’s “open door” policy”), then the opposite is true as well—it is the sovereign right of any nation to choose neutrality.

A Proposed Deal

This is the missing ingredient in McFaul’s tongue-in-cheek formulation—that in exchange for a binding commitment by Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia to permanently opt out of joining any military alliance, while retaining the sovereign right to interact with the community of nations politically and economically as they best see fit, Russia would undertake measures designed to further the sovereignty of those states, to include the following:

  • The withdrawal of all troops from the territory of the Republic of Georgia, inclusive of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, a rescindment of Russia’s recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, and Russian diplomatic assistance in facilitating both South Ossetia and Abkhazia to Georgian sovereign control;
  • The withdrawal of all troops from Transnistria (Moldova), and the rescindment of any recognition of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, and Russian diplomatic assistance in facilitating the return of Transnistria to Moldovan sovereign control; and
  • Full Russian support for the cessation of hostilities in Donbas and Lugansk, and an agreement on the recognition of Ukrainian interest in Crimea that does not infringe on Russian security or sovereignty.

McFaul and his ilk would never agree to such a trade-off, for the obvious reasons. But the people of Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine might. First and foremost, so long as there are outstanding disputes involving the territorial integrity of a nation, NATO rules preclude any notion of full membership, if for no other reason that NATO does not want Article 5 to be invoked on day one of a nation joining NATO.


Russian peacekeepers at border crossing between Transnistria and Moldova, 2014. (Clay Gilliland/Wikimedia Commons)

As such, until which time Russia changes its posture on Transnistria, Georgia, and Ukraine, NATO membership is an impossibility. In short, those Moldavans, Georgians, and Ukrainians who believe that the future well-being of their respective nation hinges on NATO membership are cutting their own throats.

For Georgians especially, the hundreds of thousands of internally displaced refugees from Abkhazia and South Ossetia is a rowing domestic political problem. If given a choice between being able to return to their homes and live in peace as a neutral nation, or to die far away from home because your government pursued the false hope of salvation through NATO membership, I’m certain most Georgians would choose home and neutrality.

A Resolution in Ukraine

For Ukraine, the choice is even starker—their government’s pursuit of NATO membership will almost certainly result in the destruction of their nation. NATO has already said it will not intervene to prevent this destruction, and Russia is almost certain to make an example out of Ukraine to intimidate the rest of Europe. Faced with the certainty of the destruction of their country, most Ukrainians would settle for peace and some sort of face-saving measure on Crimea.

The idea of a neutral Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine does not in any way compel NATO to rescind its “open door” policy toward membership—the thing about an “open door” is that nations are free not to walk through it. By offering real solutions to real problems, Russia and the U.S./NATO could resolve the current impasse regarding European security.

And the establishment of a neutral bloc could lead to further de-escalation, including the reduction of military forces along the NATO-Russian frontier, the end of provocative military exercises in the Black Sea and NATO-Russia periphery, and a ban on weapons systems, such as missile defense and intermediate-range missiles, deemed to be destabilizing.

Unfortunately, this kind of compromise is virtually impossible to consider today. I would bet a dime to a dollar that not a single one of the Russian experts approached by Jake Sullivan for guidance regarding the recently completed round of negotiations with Russia would endorse such a policy line, if for no other reason that it would end the raison d’etre for NATO’s continued existence in the post-Cold War era, and it would solidify Russian President Putin as a rational actor, something the anti-Putin crowd—McFaul included—could never tolerate, as it would diminish their own niche relevance.

The U.S. and NATO are hell-bent on containing and rolling back Russian influence and power, at the cost of the very security they claim to be promoting and defending. The nations that will bear the brunt of the cost of this hubris-laced adventurism—Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine—are but an afterthought to NATO, little more than useful pawns in a greater game of geopolitical dominance.

If offered the choice between peace and war, if the cost was neutrality, I am certain where most Moldovans, Georgians, and Ukrainians would vote. This is, of course, why the U.S. and NATO will never give them such an option.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.


"Austria escaped crisis by declaring neutrality. Ukraine could follow that lead."  By Thomas SheaKateryna Pavlova | February 7, 2022

Salzburg, Austria. Credit: Jorge Franganillo. Accessed via Wikipedia. CC BY 2.0.

At the end of World War II, Austria was occupied by France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union. It might have remained divided like Germany. Instead, Austria and the four powers agreed to Austrian neutrality in 1955, which has proved remarkably successful. Today, Vienna hosts well-respected international organizations like the United Nations and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The city was deemed the “most livable” for 10 years running on a survey that compared world cities on political, social and economic climate, medical care, education, and infrastructure conditions.

As Russia bears down on Ukraine, Austria’s experience warrants examination. Could Ukraine follow Austria’s lead to resolve the current crisis? To be sure, the circumstances of post-World War II Austria differ from the current moment. In 1955, Austrians were defeated, disarmed, and desperate to recover. By then, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States possessed nuclear weapons, and Cold War tensions were palpable. Today, Ukraine is besieged by Russia but strengthened by support from Western military powers. Ukrainian citizens are desperately preparing—for what? No one knows, given the uncertain course of the current crisis.

Would Ukrainian citizens accept neutrality? The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was founded in 1922 and, following the end of World War II, became an integral part of the Soviet Union’s nuclear force structure.

But many Ukrainians wanted a different future. Months before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic declared “its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear free principles: to accept, to produce and to purchase no nuclear weapons.” The declaration made clear that it was “the basis for a new constitution and laws of Ukraine and determines the positions of the Republic for the purpose of international agreements.”

In 1994, Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom signed the Budapest Memorandum in which they reaffirmed their commitments to respect the independence, sovereignty, and existing borders of Ukraine. President Putin refused to be bound by what former Russian president Yeltsin had accepted. Instead, he supported insurrections and brazenly seized Ukrainian territory, while neither the United States nor the United Kingdom were prepared to act on their Budapest Memorandum commitments.  MORE


Never has former Senator J. William Fulbright’s affirmation of empathy in foreign affairs been needed more than now.   The US establishment—the Pentagon-Corporate-White House-Republican/Democrat Congressional-Mainstream Media Complex—is threatening  war, blind to or suppressing the several decades of NATO’s eastward expansion to encircle Russia’s border from Finland to Kazakhstan.  The final chapter of J. William Fulbright’s The Arrogance of Power (1966) is entitled “The Two Americas.”   Here Fulbright contrasts the values and practices of “intolerant puritanism” underlying US “zealous nationalism” and empire to the “democratic humanism” he espoused.  Equally important is his chapter 7 in The Price of Empire, “Seeing the World as Others See It.”  If we are to understand our differences and to change our aggressions, we must “acquire some capacity for empathy” (196).   Democratic humanism and empathy make neutrality and diplomacy possible.



This anthology begins with indignation by Tomlinson, WBW, and Butterfield, moves to analysis and action by Lowendorf, Franklin, and Prashad, to an appeal for peace by WBW, and to the extensive scholarship of Prof.  Zunes

Call To Action: No War With Russia Over Ukraine.

Endless War Is the Empire’s Last Dance.

A War Only America And Britain Seem To Want.

Abel Tomlinson. “The US Wants War, Not Russia.”

World Beyond War.   No War in Ukraine!”

Greg Butterfield.  Ukraine, U.S. drum up war threats against Donbass and Russia.”  April 8,  2021.

Henry Lowendorf reports the ”terribly destructive U.S. foreign policy” that “has no moral, or legal, or logical authority.”

Matt Taibbi via George Paulson. “Let’s Not Have a War.” 

H. Bruce Franklin.  “Another Game of Russian Roulette,” on the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Vijay Prashad.  Why Ukraine’s borders are back at the center of geopolitics.”
WBW, Appeal for Negotiation, a mini-anthology within a mini-anthology.
Stephen Zunes.  “The U.S., Russia, and Ukraine.” (and critiques of Zunes)

Contents Russia Newsletter #9


  I hope to send #12 soon (and #13!).   (I have called these “newsletters,” but they are more accurately described as anthologies, perhaps Resistance Anthologies.)  (Will you consider taking over the editorship?)





Dick's Wars and Warming KPSQ Radio Editorials (#1-48)

Dick's Wars and Warming KPSQ Radio Editorials (#1-48)