WaPo | Almost all conversations about roadblocks Trump faces or opposition to
his initiatives centered on what was perceived as the media’s biased
portrayal of him and his administration, rather than on anything the
Democrats were doing.
Republicans and conservatives have grumbled about unfair coverage
from the “mainstream media” for decades. But the Trump era has brought
us to a new plateau, one where the media has moved from adversarial to
oppositional. Many observers, on both right and left, have come to see
the media as the leader of the resistance.
If you care about
journalism, it’s a disturbing trend. Many in the media would undoubtedly
lay much of the blame on Trump’s “fake news” attacks. But peruse the
pages or websites of most of our nation’s leading news providers, and
it’s easy to understand why such a perception has taken hold, apart from
Trump’s claims.
Former Democratic president Jimmy Carter’s widely reported comments in Maureen Dowd’s recent New York Times column about the media’s coverage of Trump were a welcome acknowledgment of the obvious from someone other than a Trump loyalist.
“I
think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president
certainly that I’ve known about,” Carter said. “I think they feel free
to claim that Trump is mentally deranged and everything else without
hesitation.”
That’s what you would expect from the opposition party. The problem is, headlines accusing Trump of “sabotage,” “lies”
and more are not uncommon from our major media outlets. That’s why I
was curious whether the DNC was still bothering to employ a press staff
when it has been made so redundant.
Kahneman | Another scholar and friend whom I greatly admire, Cass Sunstein,
disagrees sharply with Slovic’s stance on the different views of
experts and citizens, and defends the role of experts as a bulwark
against “populist” excesses. Sunstein is one of the foremost legal
scholars in the United States, and shares with other leaders of his
profession the attribute of intellectual fearlessness. He knows he can
master any body of knowledge quickly and thoroughly, and he has
mastered many, including both the psychology of judgment and choice and
issues of regulation and risk policy. His view is that the existing
system of regulation in the United States displays a very poor setting
of priorities, which reflects reaction to public pressures more than
careful objective analysis. He starts from the position that risk
regulation and government intervention to reduce risks should be guided
by rational weighting of costs and benefits, and that the natural units
for this analysis are the number of lives saved (or perhaps the number
of life-years saved, which gives more weight to saving the young) and
the dollar cost to the economy. Poor regulation is wasteful of lives
and money, both of which can be measured objectively. Sunstein has not
been persuaded by Slovic’s argument that risk and its measurement is
subjective. Many aspects of risk assessment are debatable, but he has
faith in the objectivity that may be achieved by science, expertise,
and careful deliberation.
Sunstein came to believe that biased reactions to risks are an
important source of erratic and misplaced priorities in public policy.
Lawmakers and regulators may be overly responsive to the irrational
concerns of citizens, both because of political sensitivity and because
they are prone to the same cognitive biases as other citizens.
Sunstein and a collaborator, the jurist Timur Kuran, invented a name
for the mechanism through which biases flow into policy: the
availability cascade. They comment that in the social context, “all
heuristics are equal, but availability is more equal than the others.”
They have in mind an expanded notion of the heuristic, in which
availability provides a heuristic for judgments other than frequency.
In particular, the importance of an idea is often judged by the fluency
(and emotional charge) with which that idea comes to mind.
An availability cascade is a self-sustaining chain of events, which may
start from media reports of a relatively minor event and lead up to
public panic and large-scale government action. On some occasions, a
media story about a risk catches the attention of a segment of the
public, which becomes aroused and worried. This emotional reaction
becomes a story in itself, prompting additional coverage in the media,
which in turn produces greater concern and involvement. The cycle is
sometimes sped along deliberately by “availability entrepreneurs,”
individuals or organizations who work to ensure a continuous flow of
worrying news. The danger is increasingly exaggerated as the media
compete for attention-grabbing headlines. Scientists and others who try
to dampen the increasing fear and revulsion attract little attention,
most of it hostile: anyone who claims that the danger is overstated is
suspected of association with a “heinous cover-up.” The issue becomes
politically important because it is on everyone’s mind, and the
response of the political system is guided by the intensity of public
sentiment. The availability cascade has now reset priorities. Other
risks, and other ways that resources could be applied for the public
good, all have faded into the background.
SSRN | Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light. (Cass Sunstein is President Barack Obama's appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs)
caitlinjohstone | Antiwar libertarian hero Scott Horton has a viral tweet
going around which reads simply, “Biden’s refusal to attempt to
negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine is the greatest scandal in
American political history.”
Biden's refusal to attempt to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine is the greatest scandal in American political history.
Kind of smacks you in the face,
doesn’t it? I’ve never seen anyone put it quite like that before, but if
you think about it, how could it not be true?
It’s just a simple fact that the Biden administration is actually hindering diplomatic efforts to negotiate an end to this war, and that it has refused
to provide Ukraine with any kind of diplomatic negotiating power
regarding the possible rollback of sanctions and other US measures to
help secure peace. Washington’s top diplomats have consistently been conspicuously absent from any kind of dialogue with their counterparts in Moscow.
Statements from the administration in fact indicate that they expect this war to drag on for a long time,
making it abundantly clear that a swift end to minimize the death and
destruction is not just uninteresting but undesirable for the US empire.
Ukrainian media report
that UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson told Zelensky on behalf of NATO
powers that “even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on
guarantees with Putin, they are not.”
And this isn’t just another war. This is a proxy war being waged by
one of the world’s two top nuclear forces against the world’s other top
nuclear force. This is more serious than Iraq. It is more serious than
Vietnam. It is more serious than any US war that has happened in the
lifetime of anyone likely to be reading these words, because Russia has
increasingly valid reasons to believe its very existence as a nation is
being threatened. This is therefore a war that could very easily result
in the death of everyone on earth.
The
imperial political/media class are not even denying that this is a US
proxy war anymore. In an alarmingly rapid pivot from the mass media’s
earlier position that calling this a proxy war is merely an “accusation” promoted solely by Russia, we’re now seeing the use of that term becoming more and more common in authorized news outlets. The New Yorker came right out and declared that the US is in “a full proxy war with Russia” the other day, and US congressman Seth Moulton recently told Fox News that the US is at war with Russia through a proxy.
“At
the end of the day, we’ve got to realize we’re at war, and we’re not
just at war to support the Ukrainians,” Moulton said. “We’re
fundamentally at war, although it’s somewhat through proxy, with Russia.
And it’s important that we win.”
stratpol |Response to Mr. Myard, on the United States / Russia confrontation in Ukraine.
If a good part of your analysis on the risks of the Ukrainian conflict getting out of hand seems correct to me, I come back to the sentence: “The
information provided by the Americans was decisive in countering the
Russian advance, of which the army proved incapable. to adapt, due to
outdated military concepts.”
Former
"Situation-Intelligence-Electronic Warfare" Chief of the Joint
Operational Planning Staff, I do not at all share this part of the
analysis which is based on an inaccurate "situation assessment" which
is, in fact, the conclusion from a biased Atlanticist position, aimed at
making the Ukrainians believe that Russia is weak, in order to push
Ukraine to resist until the end and let it envisage, with Western help, a
victory. Here is my argument:
Until
proven otherwise, Russia has not declared a partial and even less
general mobilization of its forces to carry out this “special
operation”. As part of
Operation Z, it has so far used only 12% of its soldiers (professionals
or volunteers), 10% of its fighter planes, 7% of its tanks, 5% of its
missiles and 4% of its artillery. Everyone
will observe that the behavior of the Western ruling elites is, until
now, much more feverish and hysterical, than the behavior of the Russian
governance, calmer, more placid, more determined, more sure and master
of itself, of his action and his speech. These are facts.
Russia has therefore not made use of its immense reserves (reserves which hardly exist any more in the EU). She has more than a week's worth of ammunition as she demonstrates every day in the field. We
are not so lucky in the West where the shortage of ammunition, the
obsolescence of major equipment, their insufficient maintenance, their
low DTO (Technical Operational Availability), the absence of reserves,
the lack of training of personnel , the sample nature of modern
equipment and many other elements do not allow us to seriously consider,
today, a military victory for NATO against Russia. This is the reason why we are content with an “economic” war, hoping to weaken the Russian bear.
Let's come to the quality of the military leadership of the Russian side and compare it to that of the “Western coalition”.
On
February 24, the Russians urgently embarked on a pre-emptive “special
operation”, preceding by a few days an assault by kyiv forces against
the Donbass.
This
operation was special because most of the ground operations were going
to take place in a sister country and in areas where a large part of the
population was not hostile to Russia (Donbass). It
was therefore not a classic high-intensity operation against an
irreducible enemy, it was an operation in which the technique of the
Russian steamroller, crushing the opposing forces, infrastructures and
populations by the artillery (as in Germany during the 2nd World War) was impossible to envisage. This
operation was special because it was more, in the Donbass, an operation
to liberate a friendly population, hostage of the Ukro-Nazi reprisal
battalions, and martyred for 8 years ., an operation in which civilian populations and infrastructure were to be spared as much as possible.
This
operation was therefore truly special and particularly difficult to
conduct, always bearing in mind the contradictory requirements of
obtaining victory by advancing and occupying the ground, while sparing
the population and the civilian infrastructure and the lives of its own
soldiers.
In
addition, this operation has been carried out, so far, in numerical
inferiority (nearly one against two), while the ratio of forces on the
ground required in offensive is 3 against 1, and even 5 against 1 in
zone urbanized. The Kievan
forces have also perfectly understood the interest of entrenching
themselves in the cities and of using the Russian-speaking and
Russophile civilian populations as a human shield...
I
observe that, on the ground, the Russian forces continue to advance,
day after day, slowly but surely against a Ukrainian army which has
achieved its general mobilization, which is aided by the West, and which
is supposed to fight for his land...
Question
the quality of Russian leadership, engaged in a very complex military
operation, conducted in numerical inferiority, in which everything must
be done to avoid excessive collateral damage. seems to me to be a huge error of assessment. We
also all too often lend to the Russians, in the West, war intentions or
aims that they never had, just to be able to say that these objectives
have not been achieved.
It
is true that NATO has never bothered with scruples to crush under the
bombs the civilian populations of the countries it attacked (often under
false pretexts), to force these countries to ask for mercy. (Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.). More
than a million NATO bombs have been dropped since 1990 on the planet,
causing the direct or indirect death of several million individuals in
the most total indifference of Western public opinion.
Before
coming to the examination of the Western leadership, for comparison
with the Russian leadership, let us note that NATO took 78 days of
bombardment and 38,000 aerial sorties to force little Serbia to ask for
an armistice. Remember
that Serbia is 8 times smaller than Ukraine and 6 times less populated,
and that it was attacked by NATO, without a UN mandate, in a balance of
power of more than ten to one. Has
anyone in the West wondered then about the quality of NATO's
leadership, which took 78 days to defeat its Serbian adversary with such
a balance of power? Has
anyone questioned the legality of this action launched under a false
pretext (false Racak massacre) and without a UN mandate?
readingjunkie | Here’s the thing, as correctly observed by CNN, the Ukrainian
strategy of holing up in densely populated cities and using human
shields is very effective. There is also enough passive and sometimes
even active loyalty from the civilian population for this strategy to
work without significant backlash. So why are Ukrainians suddenly doing
the opposite? Why not get out of the kill zone in the Donets basin and
retreat to more defensible positions? Furthermore, why is the West
enabling this strategy by funneling billions of dollars of equipment
into a meat grinder where most of it is just destroyed immediately?
Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to retreat, even if this means
abandoning their equipment?
Refusing to capitulate to Russia is morally indefensible, but from a pragmatic point of view, it would make sense, if
there was a chance of the situation improving. If the Ukrainian army
were to escape from Donbass, that would presumably give the Zelensky
government more bargaining power at the negotiation table. But instead
they’re sitting in their fortifications and being destroyed wholesale.
Without artillery support in good quantity the Ukrainian military
has no chance to hold the line and to stop Russian moves. Any unit
which attempts is hold the line will simply be mauled by Russian
artillery until it is no longer able to fight. That is happening now. As
the Ukrainians have orders not to leave or move their defense lines
they either have to give up or die defending them.
By giving ‘hold the line’ orders the Ukrainian leadership is contributing to the Russian demilitarization of the Ukraine.
It is the ‘west’ that is preventing Zelensky from suing for peace.
The
‘west’ has fallen for its own propaganda. It believes that the Russian
troops near Kiev were defeated by Ukrainian forces. In reality they
retreated in good order after the diversion they constituted was no
longer needed. The ‘western’ fairytale that they were ‘defeated’ gave
hope that Russia could be ‘weakened’, as the U.S. Secretary of State
said.
The war will hardly ‘weaken’ Russia. But the war will destroy the Ukrainian military and many, many of its men.
So
no matter which way you look at this situation, it seems unsustainable,
both for Ukraine and for NATO. While the writers at Moon of Alabama are
probably correct that there is downward pressure on Kiev to keep their
forces committed in Donbass, there is another possible explanation.
Here’s my theory on what is happening.
Russia is using their
contract soldiers, and spent years rotating them all through large-scale
training exercises, including the exercise they just finished in
February. Thanks to this, they rolled into this war with a warm start,
as opposed to a cold one. They can perform adequately on a strategic and
operational level. Tactical inadequacies in the face of a real-life
enemy could be quickly corrected.
As for the Ukrainian side, it
looks like they are a NATO-quality force rebuilt from the ground up
after their serious failures in 2014-15. As individuals and small units,
they can hold their own against their Russian and often win, especially
with the added advantage of being on the defensive. The problem is that
so far they have never demonstrated the ability to push back Russian
forces and retake ground. And no, recapturing terrain that the enemy
voluntarily abandoned doesn’t count. Ukrainians recapturing suburbs
around Kiev was a victory in the same sense as water filling a bowl.
Wars are won by shaping the battlefield to your advantage and forcing
the enemy to conform to it. Flowing into channels the enemy created for
you is the opposite of winning.
Eight years was enough time to build a huge army almost from scratch, but it was not
enough time to properly train them to function at anything higher than a
battalion level, and I think we are seeing that deficiency play out in
Donbass. In previous months they couldn’t maneuver to exploit Russian
mistakes and tactical defeats, and now they can’t maneuver to escape
destruction. Aside from losing a huge number of their vehicles, they
don’t have the doctrine and cohesion to move 40-100 thousand men to
safety.
The logistical complexity of uprooting and moving that
many people is enormous and there is also the morale factor. Standing
your ground is one thing, but if these soldiers moved westward in a
clear retreat, there would be an overwhelming urge to desert and go
home, and that’s what many of them would probably do.
Ukrainians
can’t capitulate, they can’t retreat, so all they can do is stay where
they are and die. Rather than conserve their resources, Kiev is doing
the opposite and sending a continuous stream of additional men and
equipment to be destroyed in the Donbass pocket.
NYTimes | For the second time in less than a decade, Elvira Nabiullina is steering Russia’s economy through treacherous waters.
In
2014, facing a collapsing ruble and soaring inflation after barely a
year as head of the Central Bank of Russia, Ms. Nabiullina forced the
institution into the modern era of economic policymaking by sharply
raising interest rates. The politically risky move slowed the economy,
tamed soaring prices and won her an international reputation as a tough
decision maker.
In the world of
central bankers, among technocrats tasked with keeping prices under
control and financial systems stable, Ms. Nabiullina became a rising
star for using orthodox policies to manage an unruly economy often
tethered to the price of oil. In 2015, she was named Central Bank
Governor of the Year by Euromoney magazine. Three years later, Christine
Lagarde, then the head of the International Monetary Fund, effused that
Ms. Nabiullina could make “central banking sing.”
Now
it falls to Ms. Nabiullina to steer Russia’s economy through a deep
recession, and to keep its financial system, cut off from much of the
rest of the world, intact. The challenge follows years she spent
strengthening Russia’s financial defenses against the kind of powerful
sanctions that have been wielded in response to President Vladimir V.
Putin’s geopolitical aggression.
She has guided the extraordinary rebound of Russia’s currency,
which lost a quarter of its value within days of the Feb. 24 invasion
of Ukraine. The central bank took aggressive measures to stop large sums
of money from leaving the country, arresting a panic in markets and
halting a potential run on the banking system.
In
late April, Russia’s Parliament confirmed Ms. Nabiullina, 58, for five
more years as chairwoman after Mr. Putin nominated her to serve a third
term.
“She’s an important beacon of stability for Russia’s financial system,” said
Elina Ribakova, the deputy chief economist of the Institute of
International Finance, an industry group in Washington. “Her
reappointment has symbolic value.”
Cleaning up the banks
Besides
her record on monetary policy, Ms. Nabiullina has drawn praise for
pursuing a thorough cleanup of the banking industry. In her first five
years at the bank, she revoked about 400 banking licenses — essentially
closing a third of Russia’s banks — in an effort to cull weak
institutions that were making what she termed “dubious transactions.”
It
was considered a brave crusade: In 2006, a central bank official who
had started a vigorous campaign to close banks suspected of money
laundering was assassinated.
“Fighting
corruption in the banking sector is a job for very courageous people,”
said Sergei Guriev, a Russian economist who left the country in 2013 and
is now a professor at Sciences Po in Paris. He called her program
flawed, though, because it was largely limited to private banks. This
created a moral hazard problem that left state-owned banks feeling
comfortable taking on lots of risk with the protection of the
government, he said.
Ms. Nabiullina’s
integrity has never been questioned, added Mr. Guriev, who said he had
known her for 15 years. “She’s never been suspected of any corruption.”
kremlin.ru | Comment Summary: Our Cause Is Just. Everything else is merely conversation...,
The parade was reviewed by Defence Minister, Army
General Sergei Shoigu. The commander of the parade was Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces, Army General Oleg Salyukov.
The parade featured 11,000 servicemembers and 131 pieces of military equipment.
The column
marching through Red Square comprised
33 parade units of officers, sergeants and soldiers of all branches
of the Armed Forces, personnel of other security, defence and law
enforcement agencies,
cadets and students of military academies, Young Army members
and Cossacks. The parade column of female servicemembers included cadets
of six military educational
institutions this year: the Military University, the Military Academy
of Communications, the Military Logistics Academy, the Military-Space
Academy, the Military Air and Space Defence Academy, and the Military
Academy of Nuclear, Chemical
and Biological Protection (NBC Protection Military Academy).
The mechanised column, headed by the legendary Т-34–85
Victory Tank, featured Taifun-K, Taifun-VDV and Tigr-M armoured vehicles, BMP-2
Berezhok, BMP-3 and Kurganets-25 infantry fighting vehicles, T-72B3M, Т-90М Proryv
and the latest Т-14 Armata tanks, Tornado-G rocket systems, Iskander-M
operational tactical missile systems, S-400 Triumf, Buk-M3 and Tor-M2 air
defence systems, and Yars strategic systems driving over the cobblestone paving
of Red Square. Uran-9 strike robots were carried on truck beds.
* * *
Address by the President of Russia at the military parade
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Fellow Russian citizens,
Dear veterans,
Comrade soldiers
and seamen, sergeants and sergeant majors, midshipmen
and warrant officers,
Comrade officers,
generals and admirals,
I congratulate you on the Day of Great Victory!
The defence
of our Motherland when its destiny
was at stake has always been sacred. It was the feeling of true
patriotism that
Minin and Pozharsky’s militia stood up for the Fatherland, soldiers went
on the offensive at the Borodino Field and fought the enemy outside
Moscow and Leningrad, Kiev and Minsk, Stalingrad and Kursk, Sevastopol
and Kharkov.
Today, as in the past, you are fighting for our
people in Donbass, for the security of our Motherland, for Russia.
May 9, 1945 has been enshrined in world history
forever as a triumph of the united Soviet people, its cohesion and spiritual power,
an unparalleled feat on the front lines and on the home front.
Victory Day is intimately dear to all of us.
There is no family in Russia that was not burnt by the Great Patriotic War. Its
memory never fades. On this day, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
of the heroes march in an endless flow of the Immortal Regiment. They carry
photos of their family members, the fallen soldiers who remained young forever,
and the veterans who are already gone.
We
take pride in the unconquered courageous generation
of the victors, we are proud of being their successors, and it is our
duty to preserve the memory of those who defeated Nazism and entrusted
us with being
vigilant and doing everything to thwart the horror of another global
war.
Therefore,
despite all controversies in international
relations, Russia has always advocated the establishment of an equal
and indivisible security system which is critically needed
for the entire
international community.
Last December we proposed signing a treaty on security guarantees. Russia urged the West to hold an honest dialogue in search
for meaningful and compromising solutions, and to take account of each other’s
interests. All in vain. NATO countries did not want to heed us, which means they
had totally different plans. And we saw it.
Another punitive operation in Donbass, an invasion of our historic lands, including Crimea, was openly in the making. Kiev
declared that it could attain nuclear weapons. The NATO bloc launched an active
military build-up on the territories adjacent to us.
Thus, an absolutely unacceptable threat to us
was steadily being created right on our borders. There was every indication that
a clash with neo-Nazis and Banderites backed by the United States and their
minions was unavoidable.
Let me repeat, we saw the military
infrastructure being built up, hundreds of foreign advisors starting work, and regular
supplies of cutting-edge weaponry being delivered from NATO countries. The threat
grew every day.
Russia
launched a pre-emptive strike at the aggression. It was a forced,
timely and the only correct decision. A decision by a sovereign, strong
and independent country.
The United
States began claiming their exceptionalism,
particularly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, thus denigrating
not just the entire world but also their satellites, who have to pretend
not to see anything,
and to obediently put up with it.
But we are a different country. Russia has a different character. We will never give up our love for our Motherland, our
faith and traditional values, our ancestors’ customs and respect for all
peoples and cultures.
Meanwhile, the West seems to be set to cancel
these millennia-old values. Such moral degradation underlies the cynical
falsifications of World War II history, escalating Russophobia, praising
traitors, mocking their victims’ memory and crossing out the courage of those
who won the Victory through suffering.
We
are aware that US veterans who wanted to come to the parade in Moscow
were actually forbidden to do so. But I want them to know: We are proud
of your deeds and your contribution to our common Victory.
We
honour all soldiers of the allied armies – the Americans, the English,
the French, Resistance fighters, brave soldiers and partisans
in China – all those who defeated Nazism and militarism.
Comrades,
Donbass militia alongside with the Russian Army
are fighting on their land today, where princes Svyatoslav and Vladimir Monomakh’s
retainers, solders under the command of Rumyantsev and Potemkin, Suvorov and Brusilov
crushed their enemies, where Great Patriotic War heroes Nikolai Vatutin, Sidor Kovpak
and Lyudmila Pavlichenko stood to the end.
I am addressing our Armed Forces and Donbass
militia. You are fighting for our Motherland, its future, so that nobody
forgets the lessons of World War II, so that there is no place in the world for torturers, death squads and Nazis.
Today,
we bow our heads to the sacred memory of all those who lost their lives
in the Great Patriotic War, the memories of the sons,
daughters, fathers, mothers, grandfathers, husbands, wives, brothers,
sisters,
relatives and friends.
We
bow our heads to the memory of the Odessa martyrs
who were burned alive in the House of Trade Unions in May 2014,
to the memory
of the old people, women and children of Donbass who were killed
in atrocious and barbaric shelling by neo-Nazis. We bow our heads to our
fighting comrades who died
a brave death in the righteous battle – for Russia.
I declare a minute of silence.
(A minute of silence.)
The loss
of each officer and soldier is painful
for all of us and an irretrievable loss for the families and friends.
The government,
regional authorities, enterprises and public organisations will do
everything
to wrap such families in care and help them. Special support will be
given to the children of the killed and wounded comrades-in-arms.
The Presidential Executive Order to this
effect was signed today.
I wish
a speedy recovery to the wounded
soldiers and officers, and I thank doctors, paramedics, nurses and staff
of military hospitals for their selfless work. Our deepest gratitude
goes to you for saving each life, oftentimes sparing no thought
for yourselves under shelling on the frontlines.
Comrades,
Soldiers and officers from many regions of our enormous
Motherland, including those who arrived straight from Donbass, from the combat area,
are standing now shoulder-to-shoulder here, on Red Square.
We remember how Russia’s enemies tried to use
international terrorist gangs against us, how they tried to seed inter-ethnic
and religious strife so as to weaken us from within and divide us. They failed completely.
Today, our warriors of different ethnicities
are fighting together, shielding each other from bullets and shrapnel like
brothers.
This is where the power of Russia lies, a great
invincible power of our united multi-ethnic nation.
You
are defending today what your fathers,
grandfathers and great-grandfathers fought for. The wellbeing
and security of their Motherland was their top priority in life. Loyalty
to our Fatherland is the main value and a reliable foundation
of Russia’s independence for us, their
successors, too.
Those who crushed Nazism during the Great
Patriotic War showed us an example of heroism for all ages. This is the generation
of victors, and we will always look up to them.
BAR | On April 4, 1967 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave one of the most significant speeches of his career. In “Beyond Vietnam - Time to Break Silence”
King declared his unequivocal opposition to the war in Vietnam. His
very public break with Lyndon Johnson was greeted with derision,
including from his own allies, who believed that the president was an
ally who should not be attacked. The NAACP board passed a resolution
calling King’s statement a “serious tactical mistake” that would neither
“serve the cause of civil rights nor of peace.” The media joined in the
condemnation, with the New York Times
characterizing his comments as “facile” and “slander.” Even Black
newspapers such as The Pittsburgh Courier judged his remarks to be
“tragically misleading.”
It is important to remember this speech in which he declared that the
United States was “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world
today.” There are individuals and organizations who routinely claim
King’s mantle until they fall prey to the war propaganda promoted by the
present day purveyors of violence.
The Rev. Dr. William Barber is sadly one such person. In an April 30, 2022 email on the subject Moral Clarity About Our Own Atrocities he made many specious arguments on the issue of war as it pertains to U.S. policy in Ukraine.
“To see the butchery at Bucha or the massacre at Mariupol and do
nothing would be to forfeit any claim to moral authority. We know this
instinctively. It is why, despite the political gridlock on Capitol
Hill, Republicans and Democrats have acted swiftly to approve historic
military aid to Ukraine. In the face of such a moral imperative, it
would be anathema for either party to ask, “How are we going to pay for
it?”
There is no independent investigation of what the Biden
administration and corporate media label as “massacres.” No one who
claims to act in the interests of humanity should praise the historic
levels of military aid to Ukraine, an oligarchic kleptocracy under U.S.
control which depends upon military and police support from openly
neo-Nazi formations. So blatant are the connections that in past years
members of congress have moved to ensure that these groups are denied U.S. aid.
Furthermore, Rev. Barber ought to know that questions of funding for
domestic needs must always be raised. Joe Biden is requesting $33
billion in aid to Ukraine, which means money for the military industrial
complex, after ending stimulus payments and other support for
struggling people in this country. Barber opens his email with the story
of a woman who lost children in her care to a child welfare agency
after the termination of the child tax credit program plunged her into
poverty. It is disturbing to see Barber’s attempt to have it both ways,
demanding help for the poor while also supporting the system that keeps
them in their condition.
The child tax credit which kept families afloat disappeared, along
with enhanced unemployment benefits, anti-eviction protection, and free
covid related treatments to the uninsured. The much vaunted Build Back
Better bill is dead and Biden seems uninterested in resurrecting it. It
is reasonable to ask the Biden administration for a monetary accounting
and for an explanation of how their actions led to a humanitarian
disaster for the Ukrainian people, mass theft from Americans’ public
resources, and a risk of hot war with the Russian Federation.
Barber and the Poor People’s Campaign are preparing for a Poor People’s and Low-Wage Workers Assembly and Moral March on Washington and to the Polls
taking place on June 18, 2022. His ill conceived email was meant to
bring attention to this event but instead he brought attention to the
deep connections that liberal politics has with right wing forces.
Barber is not alone in his capitulation as members of congress who claim
to be progressive march in lock step with imperialism and austerity
which create suffering in this country and around the world.
López
Obrador criticized American officials sharply for being quick to
send billions to Ukraine, while dragging their feet on development aid
to Central America.
On his first stop in neighboring Guatemala, López Obrador demanded
U.S. aid to stem the poverty and joblessness that sends tens of
thousands of Guatemalans north to the U.S. border. The Mexican leader
had been angered that the United States rebuffed his calls to
help expand his tree-planting program to Central America.
“They
are different things and they shouldn't be compared categorically, but
they have already approved $30 billion for the war in Ukraine, while we
have been waiting since President Donald Trump, asking they donate $4 billion, and as of today, nothing, absolutely nothing,” López Obrador said.
“Honestly,
it seems inexplicable,” he added. “For our part, we are going to
continue to respectfully insist on the need for the United States to
collaborate.”
López Obrador's pet program, known as “Planting
Life,” pays farmers a monthly wage to plant and care for fruit and
lumber trees on their farms.
Mexico has asked the U.S. government to help fund the program, something that so far hasn’t happened. Mexico is also touting another program that apprentices young people to companies. Critics say both programs lack accountability.
Mexican
Foreign Relations Secretary Marcelo Ebrard wrote in his social media
accounts that meetings with Guatemalan President Alejandro Giammattei
and other officials focused on development, migration and strengthening
bilateral ties.
Ebrard said Mexico was starting the tree program in the Guatemalan province of Chimaltenango.
It
is only be the third overseas trip in more than three years for López
Obrador, who is fond of saying that the best foreign policy is good
domestic policy. The tour is an opportunity for Mexico to reassert
itself as a leader in Latin America and will be welcomed by some leaders
under pressure from the U.S. government and others for their alleged
anti-democratic tendencies.
johnhelmer | Antonio Guterres, the United Nations Secretary-General, is refusing
this week to answer questions on the role he played in the recent
attempt by US, British, Canadian and other foreign combatants to escape
the bunkers under the Azovstal plant, using the human shield of
civilians trying to evacuate.
In Guterres’s meeting with President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin on
April 26 (lead image), Putin warned Guterres he had been “misled” in
his efforts. “The simplest thing”, Putin told
Guterres in the recorded part of their meeting, “for military personnel
or members of the nationalist battalions is to release the civilians.
It is a crime to keep civilians, if there are any there, as human
shields.”
This war crime has been recognized since 1977 by the UN in Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention.
In US law for US soldiers and state officials, planning to employ or
actually using human shields is a war crime to be prosecuted under 10 US Code Section 950t.
Instead, Guterres ignored the Kremlin warning and the war crime law,
and authorized UN officials, together with Red Cross officials, to
conceal what Guterres himself knew of the foreign military group trying
to escape. Overnight from New York, Guterres has refused to say what he
knew of the military escape operation, and what he had done to
distinguish, or conceal the differences between the civilians and
combatants in the evacuation plan over the weekend of April 30-May
1.May.
Russian officials have remained publicly polite towards Guterres,
despite what Moscow regards as his taking sides with the US, the NATO
alliance, and the Kiev government from the beginning of the military
operation on February 24. “We are dealing”, the Secretary-General
declared on April 5,
“with the full-fledged invasion, on several fronts, of one Member State
of the United Nations, Ukraine, by another, the Russian Federation — a
permanent member of the Security Council — in violation of the United
Nations Charter, and with several aims, including redrawing the
internationally recognized borders between the two countries.”*
Putin told Guterres his interpretation of the military operation and of the UN Charter was wrong and biased.
To Guterres, Putin also made a clear distinction between civilians
and combatants using the civilians as hostages or human shields. Putin
identified this as a war crime. “The Azovstal plant has been fully
isolated. I have issued instructions, an order to stop the assault.
There is no direct fighting there now. Yes, the Ukrainian authorities
say that there are civilians at the plant. In this case, the Ukrainian
military must release them, or otherwise they will be doing what
terrorists in many countries have done, what ISIS did in Syria when they
used civilians as human shields. The simplest thing they can do is
release these people; it is as simple as that. You say that Russia’s
humanitarian corridors are ineffective. Mr Secretary-General, you have
been misled: these corridors are effective. Over 100,000 people,
130,000–140,000, if I remember correctly, have left Mariupol with our
assistance, and they are free to go where they want, to Russia or
Ukraine. They can go anywhere they want; we are not detaining them, but
we are providing assistance and support to them.”
“The civilians in Azovstal, if there are any, can do this as well.
They can come out, just like that. This is an example of a civilised
attitude to people, an obvious example. And anyone can see this; you
only need to talk with the people who have left the city. The simplest
thing for military personnel or members of the nationalist battalions is
to release the civilians. It is a crime to keep civilians, if there are
any there, as human shields.”
In his many public statements before the Kremlin meeting, and in his remarks at the Russian Foreign Ministry the same day,
, Guterres has not mentioned war crimes except to repeat the US and
Ukrainian allegations about the Russian side. “The war has led to
senseless loss of life, massive devastation in urban centres and the
destruction of civilian infrastructure,” he said on April 5.
“I will never forget the horrifying images of civilians killed in
Bucha. I immediately called for an independent investigation to
guarantee effective accountability. I am also deeply shocked by the
personal testimony of rapes and sexual violence that are now emerging.
The High Commissioner for Human Rights has spoken of possible war
crimes, grave breaches of international humanitarian law and serious
violations of international human rights law. The war has displaced
more than 10 million people in just one month — the fastest forced
population movement since the Second World War.”
reuters | Cowering
in the labyrinth of Soviet-era bunkers far beneath the vast Azovstal
steel works, Natalia Usmanova felt her heart would stop she was so
terrified as Russian bombs rained down on Mariupol, sprinkling her with
concrete dust.
Usmanova,
37, spoke to Reuters on Sunday after being evacuated from the plant, a
sprawling complex founded under Josef Stalin and designed with a
subterranean network of bunkers and tunnels to withstand attack. read more
"I
feared that the bunker would not withstand it - I had terrible fear,"
Usmanova said, describing the time sheltering underground.
"When the bunker started to shake, I was hysterical, my husband can vouch for that: I was so worried the bunker would cave in."
"We
didn't see the sun for so long," she said, speaking in the village of
Bezimenne in an area of Donetsk under the control of Russia-backed
separatists around 30 km (20 miles) east of Mariupol.
She recalled the lack of oxygen in the shelters and the fear that had gripped the lives of people hunkered down there.
Usmanova
was among dozens of civilians evacuated from the plant in Mariupol, a
southern port city that has been besieged by Russian forces for weeks
and left a wasteland.
Usmanova
said she joked with her husband on the bus ride out, in a convoy agreed
by the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC), that they would no longer have to go to the lavatory with a
torch.
"You
just can't imagine what we have been through - the terror," Usmanova
said. "I lived there, worked there all my life, but what we saw there
was just terrible."
MOA | The Russian military forces are grinding down Ukrainian ground forces
by extensive use of heavy artillery. The Ukrainian artillery has been
destroyed or lacks ammunition.The Ukrainian forces have orders to stay
in their position and to hold the line. That only makes sure that
Russian artillery strikes will destroy them.
The order was given because the 'west' has pushed the Ukrainian
president to not make peace with Russia. The consequence will be the
assured destruction of the Ukrainian military.
There are claims that the Russian progress in Ukraine has been slow or has even come to a halt:
The United States assessed last week that Russian troops
were making “slow and uneven” progress in the Donbas, often of no more
than “several kilometers ... on any given day, just because they don’t
want to run out too far ahead of their logistics and sustainment lines,”
one senior U.S. official told journalists.
But in its daily reports, the Institute for the Study of War noted
that Russian forces made no confirmed ground attacks on Monday or
Tuesday. It said a Ukrainian artillery strike April 30 on a Russian
command headquarters near Izium has slowed the Russian push, and noted
that, farther north, a Ukrainian counterattack Monday pushed Russian
forces back 25 miles east of Kharkiv.
Those claims do not hold up to reality. As Clausewitz wrote about the Schwerpunkt in 'On War':
[N]o matter what the central feature of the enemy's power may be—the point on which your efforts must converge—the defeat and destruction of his fighting force remains the best way to begin, and in every case will be a very significant feature of the campaign.
Basing our comments on general experience, the acts we consider most important for the defeat of the enemy are the following:
Destruction of his army, if it is at all significant.
Seizure of his capital if it is not only the center of
administration but also that of social, professional, and political
activity.
Delivery of an effective blow against his principal ally if that ally is more powerful than he.
Accordingly the Russian military is tasked with demilitarizing the Ukraine, Clausewitz' task one, and that is what it is doing.
Russia is using the best available means to destroy the Ukrainian military. On the ground that means ruthless systematic mass use of artillery.
Reports about the high morale of the Ukrainian soldiers who halt
Russian advances are copium when compared with the reality of the
battlefield.
Artillery dominated the battlefields of World War I. That
was seen in various ways, from wounding patterns and doctors’ clinical
data, to memoirs, diaries, and letters, through to changed military
doctrine after the war. No nation that had experienced significant ground combat would blithely assume morale could replace firepower. Artillery even holds the dubious distinction of causing a new diagnosis, shellshock.
Morale can not replace firepower. Morale gets destroyed when soldiers
come under concentrated artillery fire. Russia has plenty of the later.
As I wrote a week ago after reading the Russian military report for that day:
The nearly 1,000 artillery missions in the last 24 hours and
on the days before speak of intense preparations for upcoming attacks
by Russian mechanized forces. Over all artillery will do the most damage to the Ukrainian troops.
In World War II and other modern mechanized wars some 65% of all
casualties were caused by artillery strikes. The recent rate on the
Ukrainian side will likely be higher.
There were at that time few reports about the artillery situation at
the frontline. I have now found three which have since come out. They
convey what the power of artillery does to an army and confirm my
previous take.
The Head of the Russian State warmly congratulated Naftali Bennett and the Israeli people on the national holiday celebrated today - Independence Day. Mutual interest was expressed in the further development of friendly Russian-Israeli relations and the maintenance of useful contacts between the leadership of the two countries.
A thorough exchange of views on the situation in Ukraine continued. Particular attention is paid to humanitarian aspects, including the evacuation of civilians from the territory of the Azovstal plant, held by militants of nationalist formations, carried out in cooperation with representatives of the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Russian military remains ready to ensure the safe exit of civilians. As for the militants remaining at Azovstal, the Kyiv authorities should give them an order to lay down their arms.
On the eve of Victory Day in the Great Patriotic War, which is celebrated in Russia and Israel on May 9, Vladimir Putin and Naftali Bennet emphasized the special significance of this date for the peoples of both countries, who carefully preserve the historical truth about the events of those years and honor the memory of all the fallen, including victims of the Holocaust. The President of Russia recalled that out of the six million Jews tortured in ghettos and concentration camps, killed by the Nazis during punitive operations, 40 percent were citizens of the USSR, and asked to convey wishes of health and well-being to the veterans living in Israel. Naftali Bennet, in turn, noted the decisive contribution of the Red Army to the Victory over Nazism.
haaretz | In a call with Prime Minister Naftali
Bennett, Russian President Vladimir Putin apologized for Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov's assertion that Adolf Hitler had Jewish
origins.
#BREAKING: Israel PM office says: Putin apologized to PM Bennett for Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov's anti-semitic remarks;
Bennett thanked Putin for the president's attitude toward the Jewish people and the memory of the Holocaust
Bennett
accepted Putin's apology for Lavrov's remarks and thanked him for
clarifying the Russian president's attitude toward the Jewish people and
the memory of the Holocaust, Bennett's office said in a statement.
The
two leaders also stressed the importance of May 9 – the day of victory
of Nazi Germany – to Israelis and Russians, as well as the memory of
victims of war and the Holocaust.
Bennett
mentioned the contribution of the Red Army to the victory in the Second
World War. During the conversation, he brought up Zelenskyy's request
to find a solution to the besieged Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol,
where it is estimated that several hundred people are trapped. Putin
said that Russia was still ready to provide safe passage for civilians
to leave the plant and called on Kyiv to order Ukrainian fighters holed
up in Azovstal to put down their weapons.
Putin also sent his congratulations to President Isaac Herzog to mark Israel's Independence Day.
"I extend my sincere wishes on the occasion of Israel's Independence Day," Putin wrote to Herzog.
"I
believe that relations between Russia and Israel, based on the
principles of friendship and mutual respect, will continue to develop
for the benefit of our people and in order to strengthen peace and
security in the Middle East.
"I wish you good health and great success, as well as joy and prosperity for all Israeli citizens," he added.
mid.ru |Question: After your statement about the possibility
of a nuclear war, of the third world war, the whole world is asking: is
there a real risk of that happening?
Sergey Lavrov: It
looks like by the whole world you mean Western media and politicians.
This is not the first time I note how skillfully the West twists what
Russia’s representatives say. I was asked about the threats that are
currently growing and about how real the risk of the third world war is.
I answered literally the following: Russia has never ceased its efforts
to reach agreements that would guarantee the prevention of a nuclear
war. In recent years, it was Russia who has persistently proposed to its
American colleagues that we repeat what Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald
Reagan did in 1987: adopt a statement reaffirming that there can be no
winners in a nuclear war, and therefore it must never be unleashed.
We failed to
convince the Trump Administration, because it had its own ideas on this
issue. However, the Biden Administration agreed to our proposal. In June
2021, at a meeting between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and US
President Joseph Biden in Geneva a statement was adopted on the
inadmissibility of a nuclear war. Let me stress: this was done at our
initiative.
In January
2022, five permanent members of the UN Security Council adopted a
similar statement at the highest level, also at our initiative: there
can be no winners in a nuclear war. It must never be unleashed. In order
to achieve this goal, President Vladimir Putin proposed convening a
summit of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. This
proposal was supported by our Chinese colleagues and France. The United
States and the United Kingdom, which always defers to it, are holding
back this important event for the time being.
After I said
this, I urged everyone to exercise utmost caution not to escalate the
existing threats. I was referring to the statement made by President
Vladimir Zelensky in February that it had been a mistake for Ukraine to
give up its nuclear weapons and it was necessary to acquire them again.
There was also a statement made by the leadership of Poland about their
readiness to deploy American nuclear weapons on their territory, and
much more.
Somehow there
were no questions from the media about the statements made by Vladimir
Zelensky and Poland. Or after the statement by Foreign Minister of
France Jean-Yves Le Drian, who said suddenly: Let us not forget that
France also has nuclear weapons. This is what I was talking about. When
Western journalists take words out of context and distort the meaning of
what I or other Russian representatives actually said, this does them
no credit.
Question: Several days ago, President Vladimir Putin said Russia had “unparalleled weapons.” What did he mean?
Sergey Lavrov: Everyone
knows this well. Three years ago, during his Address to the Federal
Assembly, President Vladimir Putin presented the latest Russian
innovations. First of all, these included hypersonic weapons. He gave a
frank and detailed explanation that Russia began developing them after
the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Back
then President George W. Bush, answering the question why his country
was destroying this essential document, which ensured global stability
to a large extent, told President Vladimir Putin they were going to
withdraw from the treaty to create an anti-missile system that would not
be aimed against Russia. He said they were concerned about North Korea
and Iran, and “you can do whatever you want in response.” They will also
consider this as not aimed against the United States.
We had no
choice but to work on hypersonic weapons because we knew perfectly well
that the US missile defence system would not be aimed at North Korea and
Iran but against Russia and then China. We needed weapons that were
guaranteed to overpower missile defences. Otherwise, a country that has
missile defence systems and offensive weapons may be tempted to launch
the first strike thinking that a response will be suppressed by its
missile defence systems.
This is how
we developed these weapons. They are described in detail in specialised
publications. We don’t hide that we have them. We were even ready to
hold talks with the US on including a discussion on the new systems that
have already been developed or will be developed in the future in the
treaty on strategic stability that would replace the current New START.
Today the Americans have suspended all these talks. We will rely on our
own resources.
Question: When
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was visiting Kiev, the city was
hit by missile strikes. What would you say in response to Western media
and President Vladimir Zelensky who regard these strikes as a
provocation against the UN?
Sergey Lavrov: We
gave constant warnings. When he announced the launch of the special
military operation, President Vladimir Putin said it will be aimed
against the military infrastructure in Ukraine used to oppress civilians
in the east of the country and create a threat to the security of
Russia. They know very well that we are attacking military targets in
order to deprive the Ukrainian radicals and the Kiev regime of the
opportunity to receive reinforcements in the form of weapons and
ammunition.
On the other
hand, I have not heard President Vladimir Zelensky say a word about a
situation that is in no way related to either a military plant (whatever
it is called) or any other military facilities. I mean the Tochka-U
missile strikes at the centre of Donetsk over the recent weeks, or the
civil railway station in Kramatorsk and several other places, including
Kherson (just the day before yesterday). The reason for these strikes
was clearly to terrorise civilians and prevent the people living in
these regions from deciding their fate. The majority of people there are
tired from the oppression they have been suffering all these years from
the Kiev regime, which is increasingly becoming a tool in the hands of
neo-Nazis, the United States and its closest allies.
Those who
came to power after a bloody unconstitutional coup launched a war
against their own people and against everything Russian, banning the
Russian language, education, and media. They adopted laws promoting Nazi
theories and practice. We have warned them. All our warnings met a wall
of silence. As we understand now, back then the West led by the United
States already intended to encourage the Ukrainian leaders (Petr
Poroshenko and Vladimir Zelensky, who came after him) in every possible
way in their desire to create threats for Russia.
Our warnings
issued in November and December 2021 about the need to stop NATO’s
reckless expansion to the east and agree on security guarantees that
that will not be related to the accession of new countries to the
military-political bloc were rejected. I would even say the answer we
received was not very polite: “It’s none of your business,” “we will
expand NATO as we wish,” and “we won’t ask for your permission.”
At the same
time, the Ukrainian regime gathered about 100,000 troops along the
conflict line with Donbass and intensified strikes thus violating the
Minsk agreements and the ceasefire. We had no choice but to recognise
these two republics, sign an agreement on mutual assistance with them
and, upon their request, defend them from the militarists and Nazis who
are flourishing in today’s Ukraine.
Question: This
is how you see it, while Vladimir Zelensky puts it differently. He
believes denazification doesn’t make any sense. He is a Jew. The Nazis,
Azov – there are very few of them (several thousand). Vladimir Zelensky
refutes your view of the situation. Do you believe Vladimir Zelensky is
an obstacle to peace?
Sergey Lavrov: It
makes no difference to me what President Vladimir Zelensky refutes or
does not refute. He is as fickle as the wind, as they say. He can change
his position several times a day.
I heard him
say that they would not even discuss demilitarisation and denazification
during peace talks. First, they are torpedoing the talks just as they
did the Minsk agreements for eight years. Second, there is nazification
there: the captured militants as well as members of the Azov and Aidar
battalions and other units wear swastikas or symbols of Nazi Waffen-SS
battalions on their clothes or have them tattooed on their bodies; they
openly read and promote Mein Kampf. His argument is: How can there be
Nazism in Ukraine if he is a Jew? I may be mistaken but Adolf Hitler had
Jewish blood, too. This means absolutely nothing. The wise Jewish
people say that the most ardent anti-Semites are usually Jews. “Every
family has its black sheep,” as we say.
As for Azov,
there is evidence being published now confirming that the Americans and
especially the Canadians played a leading role in training the
ultra-radical and clearly neo-Nazi units in Ukraine. During all these
years, the goal was to insert neo-Nazis into the regular Ukrainian
troops. Thus, the Azov fighters would play a leading role in every unit
(battalion or regiment). I read such reports in Western media. The fact
that the Azov battalion is clearly a neo-Nazi unit was recognised by the
West without any hesitation until the situation in early 2022, when
they began to change their minds as if on cue. Japan even apologised to
Azov recently for having listed it as a terrorist organisation a few
years ago because of its neo-Nazi ideology.
Journalists
(from some Western media outlet) interviewed Vladimir Zelensky and asked
him what he thought about Azov and the ideas that Azov preaches and
puts into practice. He said there were many such battalions and “they
are what they are.” I would like to emphasise that this phrase – “they
are what they are” – was cut out by the journalist and it was not
included in the interview that was aired. This means the journalist
understands what this person says and thinks. He thinks about how the
neo-Nazis can be used to fight Russia.
Question: There
are several thousand or perhaps tens of thousands of neo-Nazi
militants. Can their presence excuse the denazification of a country
with the population of 40 million? There are such battalions as the
Wagner Group, who also draw inspiration from neo-Nazi ideas, serving
with the Russian troops.
A Foundation of Joy
-
Two years and I've lost count of how many times my eye has been operated
on, either beating the fuck out of the tumor, or reattaching that slippery
eel ...
April Three
-
4/3
43
When 1 = A and 26 = Z
March = 43
What day?
4 to the power of 3 is 64
64th day is March 5
My birthday
March also has 5 letters.
4 x 3 = 12
...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...
