Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts

Thursday, June 04, 2026

News Worth Knowing (which you may have missed) #2

Every Tuesday, during a one-hour lunchtime vigil downtown, I'm given about 5-7 minutes to offer some . “News Worth Knowing (which you may have hissed),” reporting on a few things outside the main headlines. I decided to post them here, particularly because the very nature of it being weekly means it doesn’t have to be breaking, up-to-the-moment news, and so is much more in the nature of this thing here. All they have to be is just, hopefully, worth knowing. So here is News Worth Knowing (which you may have missed) #2. Comments are always welcome.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Stephen Miller’s version of “the great replacement theory.”

Last October, the administration of The Orange Overlord (TOO) said the US would admit just 7,500 refugees in all of 2026, a 94% cut from the previous year’s level of 125,000. Most of the few available slots were to be taken up by Afrikaners supposedly fleeing a non-existent “white genocide” in South Africa.

On May 18, TOO’s underlings said the total would be raised to 17,500 - with all the additional 10,000 slots allocated to white South Africans.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Some dreams should die - immediately.

On May 18, Meidas Touch News, quoting a New York Times report, said that above and beyond the murderous attacks on boats off Venezuela, the death toll for which is now above 200, the US already has troops engaged in joint operations in Ecuador, Guatemala has now made a secret agreement to allow similar joint operations there, and Honduras is expected to follow.

The excuse is always “drug trafficking cartels,” but the real point certainly appears to be normalizing the presence of American troops across Latin America with a goal of forcing Mexico to accept a large-scale US military presence there. - all part of an overall dream of direct US military dominance of the whole of the Western Hemisphere. Kind of like the Monroe Doctrine on steroids without bothering with any claims about “defending” anyone.

Oh, and don’t worry, they’ve already war-gamed military attack plans to respond to what reports call “the potential collapse of Cuba’s totalitarian government as early as this summer.”

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

PEPFAR is on life support.

Since its start in 2003 under George Bush, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is estimated to have saved tens of millions of lives by funding HIV prevention and treatment in poor countries.

On May 5, the TOO gang announced a restructuring of the CDC’s role in distributing funding and overseeing PEPFAR-related programs.

Instead of the current interactive programs, countries will receive funding under bilateral five-year agreements which will require some reciprocal benefit to the US - meaning US corporations - such as access to assets like mineral resources.

In other words, the program has gone from humanitarian assistance to a transactional arrangement based around “Nice country you got there; it’d be a shame if lots of people died unnecessarily.”

The result is to fracture the on-going coordination between the CDC and local health agencies, the very thing that made the program so successful.

Experts on global health say this is effectively the end of PEPFAR.

But then again, what do we care, they’re just LGB people from shit-hole countries and we have our own LGBTQ+ people to screw over.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Speaking of which…

Colorado, Maine, Missouri, and Washington have a total of six anti-trans measures on their fall ballot. Mores are in the works in Arizona, Nebraska, and Nevada.

The Nevada example is noteworthy because the governor, one Joe Lombardo, openly admitted his administration is offering a proposed constitutional amendment to ban “Men in Women’s Sports” specifically because, quoting him “That’s going to get people out to vote.”

The thing is, the public still largely endorses equal treatment trans folks but that same public for several years has been under a relentless and coordinated political assault from a concoction of reactionary flakes, gender bigots, and most importantly right-wing operatives looking to maintain and expand their power by deliberately generating and maintaining a social panic - one which, like most social panics, revolves around some emotional issue, usually involving some combination of sex and children and one which, precisely because it is being promoted and maintained as part of a deliberate campaign, hasn’t burned itself out in a few years the way most do.

The result has been that public opinion has shifted toward the reactionaries on a carefully chosen narrow set of emotion-driven issues, primarily trans girls being playing on girls’ school sports teams, bathrooms (of course), and pediatric healthcare, particularly the eye-bulging, spittle-flecked rants about non-existent “genital mutilation of children.”

And by the way, this is an assault that has gone effectively unopposed by whole swaths of the supposedly progressive left, some of who have actively embraced parts of it and thank you Gavin Newsom, Seth Moulton, and others for making the whole thing harder.

Measures like those coming in the fall have been called “ballot candy,” done not because of any benefit to the public or even in response to public interest - when you ask people what their concerns are, trans issues always rank very low on that list - but rather to, as Gov. Lombardo acknowledged, drive right-wing turnout by preying on the very fears and fantasies that they have been creating.

But here I have to inject a bit of hope for the future. The effect of a good number of these proposals is to stick into a state constitution things that are already illegal under state law. So their immediate impact on the lives of trans people is effectively zero. Then why do it? Specifically and avowedly to make it harder to undo.

The gender thugs know things are changing. Ten years ago, there was open talk of a “revolution” in our understanding of gender and today demographic analyses of the US population show that overall, the younger the age group, the greater the support for trans and nonbinary people. The reactionaries know they are losing and these measures are part of their effort to be, in William Buckley’s famous description of conservatives, “standing athwart history, shouting ‘Stop!’”

Because we’re seen this before. We’ve seen it before. In 2003, when support for same-sex marriage was rising and headed for a majority, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts struck down that state’s ban on same-sex marriage as violating the state constitution.

In the desperate immediate reaction to hold off that prospect, between 2004 and 2008 24 states added bans on same-sex marriage to their state constitutions specifically to hold off the rising tide.

It was of course the Obergefell decision in 2015 that undid all those measures. I can’t imagine that this Supreme Court will do anything like that, but still, history will not be denied and I can and do look forward to a time when the train of history runs over the gender bigots, their allies, and their useful idiot followers.

I may not live to see it - but then again, I thought (and said) the same thing about same-sex marriage.

Footnote: A couple of places where I’ve addressed some aspect of social panics:
https://whoviating.blogspot.com/2009/01/think-of-children.html
https://whoviating.blogspot.com/2022/04/052-erickson-report-for-april-21-to-may.html (from roughly 17:30 to 23:10 in the video)
https://whoviating.blogspot.com/2022/10/064-erickson-report-for-october-27-to_30.html

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Ending on an up note.

Finally for this time out, we have some good news on the death penalty.

For the second time in two weeks, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 5-4. tossed out a death sentence.

In this case, coming out of Mississippi, the prosecution had removed four of the five Black jurors in the selection panel, claiming the removals were for “race-neutral” reasons. That is, it had nothing to do with them being Black oh no of course not perish the thought.

SCOTUS found the defense attorney wasn’t given opportunity to properly challenge the prosecution’s claims of “race-neutral” reasons, declaring that the District Court got the law right and the Mississippi state Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals both got it wrong.

Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor were joined by Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts in the majority.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

You have the best week you possibly can and we’ll see you then.

Monday, August 11, 2025

Another lie on an old topic

So the US is claiming that accusations of genocide in Gaza are just Hamas propaganda.

Really?

I spent about 10 minutes doing web searches around variations of "Israel genocide Gaza" and came up with the following list, which I'm sure isn't complete.

Human Rights Organizations
Amnesty International
B'Tselem
al-Haq, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights
Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights
Center for Constitutional Rights
Human Rights Watch
Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders)
Physicians for Human Rights-Israel

Universities/Academics (in a joint statement)
Center for Human Rights, University of Pretoria
International Human Rights Clinic, Boston University School of Law
International Human Rights Clinic, Cornell Law School
Lowenstein Human Rights Project, Yale Law School
University Network for Human Rights

Individuals
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Bernie Sanders
Elana Sztokman - American-born writer living in Israel for the past 30 years
Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, Emir of Qatar
Francesca Albanese, UN special rapporteur on the situation in Palestine
Itamar Schwartz, Israeli combat soldier who served in Gaza
Josep Borrell, former EU president, former EU foreign policy chief
Yair Golan, former deputy chief of staff of the IDF

14 Nations (in the genocide case against Israel at the World Court)
Belgium
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Cuba
Egypt
Ireland
Spain
Libya
Maldives
Mexico
Nicaragua
Türkiye
South Africa

Genocide Researchers
Dirk Moses, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Genocide Research
Melanie O'Brien, president, International Association of Genocide Scholars
Omer Bartov, Brown University
Raz Segal, Stockton University, New Jersey
Rutger Bregman, historian
Shmuel Lederman, Open University of Israel
Uğur Ümit Üngör, University of Amsterdam and the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust, and Genocide Studies

Bartov said that there has been a consensus among genocide researchers since the second half of 2024 that this is genocide.

Geez, that Hamas propaganda is damn effective, ain’t it?

Saturday, October 08, 2022

063 The Erickson Report for October 6 to 19, Page 2: Follow Up on the shooting of Shireen Abu Akleh

Back in May, I addressed the killing of Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, shot while she was covering an operation by the IDF, the Israeli Defense Forces, near the occupied West Bank city of Jenin.

Now, a new report, the result of a collaboration between the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq and a UK-based research agency called Forensic Architecture, has concluded that Abu Akleh was deliberately and repeatedly targeted by Israeli snipers who shot her down despite her being clearly identified as a member of the press.

The new report confirms the findings of half a dozen earlier independent reviews of the incident, which have found that Israeli forces were responsible for Abu Akleh’s killing, including one from the United Nations that described the killing shot as “well aimed.”

But the new report goes beyond those earlier by having produced a detailed digital reconstruction of the shooting based on previously unseen footage recorded by Al Jazeera staff at the scene, open-source video, eyewitness accounts, and a drone survey of the area, and so offers the most conclusive account yet of what happened.

The Israeli response to this issue has been from the beginning both despicable and typical. The first, immediate response, including from then Israeli PM Naftali Bennett, was to say it had to be Palestinian militants. I mean, it just stood to reason. The IDF Chief of Staff, Major General Aviv Kochavi, said it surely was Palestinians because Palestinians shoot "wildly and indiscriminately in every direction" while IDF soldiers "carry out professional and selective firing."

The Israeli Ministry of Defense then produced a video it claimed depicted what it called "Palestinian terrorists" who "likely" killed Abu Akleh - only to have it turn out that the video was shot several hundred yards away in the wrong direction and there was neither any shooting nor any militants around where she was.

Right around that same time, the military declared "there was no need to open a military police investigation" because, they said in effect, there was a lot of shooting and stuff going on and so who knows what really happened.

Oh, but Israel did promise a full investigation, and on September 5 its official review was issued. It actually admitted that Abu Akleh was probably killed by IDF forces, but hey, it was "accidental," so, y'know, hey, they things happen. Get over it.

And so much for Major General Kochavi's "professional and selective firing," as by the official account either that statement is a lie or what happened was a deliberate murder.

The reconstruction in the new report gives every reason to think it was the latter.

It clearly shows that, again, there were neither armed gunners nearby nor were there shots fired in the minutes leading up to Abu Akleh’s killing and during the actual incident the only shots fired came from an IDF position. Moreover, the reconstruction shows that Abu Akleh’s and her colleagues’ “PRESS” insignias were clearly visible from the position of the IDF shooter; that the shooter had a “clear line of fire,” that the pattern of shots indicated “precise aim,” and that the firing continued as the journalists sought shelter. After Abu Akleh was hit, a civilian attempting to provide aid to her was fired upon each time he tried to approach her: When he hid behind a wall, no shots were fired; when he emerged to try to reach Abu Akleh, he was shot at.

So multiple reports had already come to the conclusion that Shireen Abu Akleh - and in case you didn't catch it, she was Palestinian-American; she was an American citizen - Shireen Abu Akleh was deliberately targeted by the Israeli military. And this new report, with the strongest proof yet, renders the same judgment as the rest.

Sadly, also like the rest, I expect it won't make a damn bit of difference.

There have been calls both in and out of Congress for the US to make its own investigation of what is at the least the extrajudicial killing of one of its citizens, all to no effect. US officials claim to have reviewed the findings of Israeli and Palestinian investigators but failed to reach a “definitive conclusion” as Secretary of State Anthony Blinken wistfully says he wishes someone could do an independent investigation - deliberately ignoring the string of such investigations by human rights organizations that have indeed reached a conclusion along with the fact that the US could do its own such independent investigation, but is deterred by the fearful knowledge of what it would be forced to conclude if it did so.

And so it goes on, without consequences, as the US continues to finance Israel's military to the tune of $3.8 billion every year and our policy wobbles between evading responsibility and making excuses for the crimes against human rights that aid helps to enable, also thereby helping to perpetuate a political atmosphere that holds Israel, whatever its policies, whatever its behavior, whatever its crimes, essentially exempt from criticism and speaking the most literal and simple truth, even if carefully expressed, can and if your voice is loud enough to be heard likely will generate charges of antisemitism.

Consider that there is a movement known as BDS. It stands for boycott, divest, and sanction; it's aim is to bring economic and cultural pressure on Israel to change policies, particularly with regard to Palestinians in the Occupied Territories but also Palestinian citizens of Israel.

And the very fact that it calls for such actions, the very fact that it is aimed at Israel, has resulted in it's being labeled antisemitic. Indeed, there are so-called "anti-BDS laws" on the books in 35 states that in some way seek to constrict speech by economically penalizing, through loss of government investment or contracts, any company that might consider joining the boycott.
Shireen Abu Akleh

Consider, too, the recent example of Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who, speaking at a Palestine Advocacy Day event on Sept 20, said (and this is an exact quote) “I want you all to know that among progressives, it becomes clear that you cannot claim to hold progressive values yet back Israel's apartheid government.”

It took precisely one day for Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, to twist Tlaib's words into her having made a declaration that progressive "American Jews need to pass an anti-Zionist litmus test" and "doubled down on her antisemitism," that antisemitism consisting of "slandering Israel as an apartheid state.”

The same day, Rep. Jerry Nadler said “I fundamentally reject the notion that one cannot support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state and be a progressive,” a statement even further removed from what Tlaib said than Greenblatt's.

Other members of Congress, including Reps. Ted Deutch, Haley Stevens, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Juan Vargas, and others, made similar public comments, conflating opposing, quote, "Israel's apartheid government" with rejecting Israel's right to exist altogether and declaring that calling Israel an apartheid state is by definition both slander and antisemitic.

Major media outlets, including CNN, picked up and amplified the message: criticize Israel and you will be labeled an antisemite.

Now beyond the fact that Tlaib said nothing referring to Israel's right to exist, only to it's governing policies, the brutal truth is that Israel is an apartheid state. It has found to be one by Human Rights Watch, by B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group, by Amnesty International, and by United Nations human rights experts.

For clarity, Amnesty International says, quoting,

The crime against humanity of apartheid under the Apartheid Convention, the Rome Statute and customary international law is committed when any inhuman or inhumane act (essentially a serious human rights violation) is perpetrated in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another, with the intention to maintain that system.

Apartheid can best be understood as a system of prolonged and cruel discriminatory treatment by one racial group of members of another with the intention to control the second racial group.

That is apartheid. And that is what leading human rights groups have found Israel is guilty of.

And it won't change, not until there are consequences. Palestinians in the Occupied Territories will continue to see discrimination, continue to see their homes demolished, their lands seized, their human rights denied, until there are consequences. And they will continue to be killed without recourse and that also applies to journalists, bringing us back full circle to where we started, as Abu Akleh was not the first: There have been at least 45 journalists killed by the "professional and selective[ly] firing" IDF since 2000.

Under US policy, those consequences should include a declaration the US that it will no longer use its veto in the Security Council or its influence in the General Assembly to defend or protect Israel from any UN sanctions, that the DOJ takes the position, which it will pursue in court, that all anti-BDS laws are unconstitutional violations of the rights to free speech and free association, and most importantly, there will be no more military aid to or military cooperation with, and no more security guarantees to, Israel until there is a final and just settlement to guarantee Palestinian rights, including the right to statehood.

Those are the consequences that we, that the US, should impose to end the injustice, end the occupation, end the apartheid. But I confess I have no faith that it will happen, at least until the current generations - including my own - die off.


Friday, April 01, 2022

051 The Erickson Report for March 31 to April 13

 

 

 

051 The Erickson Report for March 31 to April 13 

Issue 51 of The Erickson Report
- Some observations about the war in Ukraine
     Negotiations?
     Real cancel culture
- Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages
     Clowns: Sen. Rick Scott; Sen. Mike Braun; Irvington, NJ
     Outrage: SCOTUS takes another bite out of VRA
- Hero Award: Gov. Spencer Cox
- Noted in Passing
     states push to end limits on gay and bi men donating blood
     towns in western MA using alternatives to police on mental health crises
     the real reason for GOPper opposition to Ketanji Brown Jackson

Sunday, March 20, 2022

050 The Erickson Report for March 17 to 30, Page Two: Ukraine

050 The Erickson Report for March 17 to 30, Page Two: Ukraine

In 1965, Donovan recorded a song called "The War Drags On." I was reminded of that song thinking about Ukraine and how it has dropped from the absolute number one spot in the news in a number of venues - not that it's being ignored or downplayed or that it's being treated as unimportant, it's still being regularly and intensively covered - but that's it's no longer the automatic story one of the day and it's happening because this war, as the song says, "drags on," in the day after day crushing grind of, again quoting the song, "a sea of blood and bones / Millions without faces, without hope and without homes."

We are able to, we often do, keep up with the war almost literally minute by minute, exposed to it in a way that was not possible earlier - I can recall Indochina being called "the first television war," perhaps we can call this "the first Internet war" - as our compassion is grated away by the on-going visions of bombed-out hospitals and desperate refugees but is pushed and stretched again by the undeniable reality of war from which we usually have shielded ourselves by distance and time, grated and pushed until we just desperately, desperately, feel we have to do something, something, and I fear we are being, intentionally or otherwise, stampeded into a spiral of war.

It sometimes seems - it's not true, but it does sometimes seem that - every proposal coming out of the mouths of the supposed experts, the foreign policy professionals, the analysts, the commentators, every proposal to stop or even just limit this war, all seem to involve stepping further into this war. A no-fly zone. A "limited" no-fly zone, whatever the hell that would mean in practice. A "safe zone" on the ground in western Ukraine, patrolled by UN - or maybe even US - troops. Providing not just defensive weapons like anti-tank or anti-aircraft missiles or drones but long-range offensive weapons - like those Migs.

I can't help but recall the infamous words of a US commander in the Indochina War: “It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it.”

Mike Mazarr, a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation had a Twitter thread on, quoting him, "Acting on the basis of imperative-driven thinking, especially under time pressure in a crisis, is a common prelude to disaster."

And that, I fear, is the possibility we face as the images of pain and desperation assault our eyes and ears and Volodymyr Zelenskyy's emotional, moving, and quite understandable pleas strike at our consciences.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22967674/russia-ukraine-no-fly-zone-limited-nuclear-war
Happily, which sounds really creepy in this context but is intended to express mere relief, not any degree of joy, at least for the moment calmer heads are prevailing. For one thing, despite his pleas, Zelenskyy is not getting his no-fly zone.

It all sounds so easy. It's just protecting lives, that's all. Until you ask how you enforce it and what happens when you do. And how do you deal with the fact that this puts your jets in the line of fire of Russian anti-aircraft batteries. And how do you deal with the fact that most of the airstrikes - which are not even the main source of the destruction, artillery is - are coming from jets flying within the borders of Russia, just lobbing missiles across the border?

The reality is that as humanitarian as it sounds, a no-fly zone accomplishes very little while creating chances, in fact the near certainty, of escalation extending far beyond Ukraine with casualties that would dwarf those seen so far - even if you assume nuclear weapons would not be used.

For the same sorts of reasons, the same sorts of considerations, foreign troops, especially US troops, on the ground is a non-starter and the Migs, regarded by the US Department of War as too much potential risk for too little potential gain, are not coming.

Knowing all that does not make what we witness any easier to bear, but at least we can take whatever minuscule comfort there is in that those with the power (and the responsibility) to actually make those life-and-death choices are resisting the urge to think we can end the horror by adding to it.

Which also makes me wonder what Zelenskyy is thinking. Does he really believe, for example, that a no-fly zone would work, that it would not escalate the war? Is he thinking, just as the US and NATO falsely thought before the war began, that Pukin' could just be bullied into retreat? Or is he, as is more likely, and in the face of what his people are suffering, getting into that "imperative-driven thinking" that Mike Mazarr warned against? If that is true, then the caution of others is even more necessary.

Still, there is hope to be found. There are actual negotiations - well, talks, anyway - going on between officials of Russia and Ukraine, with both sides projecting some optimism. After the last round, the day before I do this, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and representative Dmitry Peskov both said a neutral military status for Ukraine similar to Sweden or Austria was being “seriously discussed,” a major step back from previous demands for the "demilitarization" of Ukraine, while for his part, Zelenskyy said Russia’s demands for ending the war were becoming “more realistic” while also acknowledging that there is no prospect of Ukraine joining NATO.

This does not by any means say that peace is breaking out all over - but it is progress and it starts to offer hints of what a settlement could be. In the meantime, there are a number of groups offering direct aid to the Ukranian people. Two I can suggest because I know they have a presence in Ukraine are Doctors Without Borders at www.doctonrswithoutborders.org and World Central Kitchen at wck.org.


Saturday, March 19, 2022

050 The Erickson Report for March 17 to 30

 

050 The Erickson Report for March 17 to 30

Good News: Relief for the USPS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/03/08/usps-senate-biden/

Ukraine: "The War Drags On"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeH5rVUgios
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/3/10/2085119/-Ukraine-update-A-war-on-the-concept-of-civilization-itself
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22967674/russia-ukraine-no-fly-zone-limited-nuclear-war
https://twitter.com/MMazarr/status/1501688603042361346
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2022/03/no-fly-zone-test/363099/
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-zelenskyy-kyiv-europe-congress-058c8b72b81044f861b30b7ceb500a15
https://www.politico.eu/article/zelenskyy-peace-talks-russia-realistic-accept-compromise-nato/

Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages
Clowns:
    DC "truckers convoy"
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/3/11/2085314/-D-C-freedom-truckers-threaten-to-abuse-911-system-if-Washingtonians-don-t-stop-flipping-them-off
    US Senate
    https://www.aol.com/news/u-senate-approves-bill-daylight-184244252-204613821.html

Outrage:
    Illegitimate "state secrets privilege" used to conceal torture and spying
    https://freedom.press/news/supreme-court-entrenches-state-secrets-privilege-dealing-a-blow-to-accountability/
    https://www.aclu.org/other/background-state-secrets-privilege
    http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2004/04/must-read.html

Julian Assange closer to being extradited
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/03/14/uk-top-court-rejects-assanges-request-appeal-extradition-decision
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/06/13/worlds-most-powerful-imprison-julian-assange-his-virtues-not-his-vices
https://rsf.org/en/news/uk-home-secretary-gives-green-light-extradite-julian-assange-us
https://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/06/wikileaks.investigation/index.html
https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
https://whoviating.blogspot.com/2010/12/once-more-into-breach.html
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/assange-kidnapping-wikileaks-cia-senate/
https://news.yahoo.com/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-london-shoot-out-inside-the-ci-as-secret-war-plans-against-wiki-leaks-090057786.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2010/12/once-more-into-leak.html
https://whoviating.blogspot.com/2017/06/245-news-on-chelsea-manning-and-julian.html
https://rsf.org/en/news/uk-rsf-calls-home-office-block-assange-extradition-following-supreme-court-refusal-consider-appeal
https://freedom.press/news/appeals-court-says-that-nixons-attempt-to-prosecute-pentagon-papers-reporter-must-stay-secret-50-years-later/


049 The Erickson Report for March 3 to 16, Page One: Ukraine

049 The Erickson Report for March 3 to 16, Page One: Ukraine

Our top story, as it has been, is Ukraine.

But I'm not going to talk about current events there; it's just not possible. Once the invasion started on February 4, there is no way a show like this, on once every two weeks, can even try to keep up with events that you can watch live changing minute to minute.

So I have no idea what the situation will be when you see this. So instead I'm going to offer some general comments and observations that I think could be of merit or future use no matter the facts on the ground.

First, I said last time that if my predictions about events proved to be wrong, I would own my failure. The problem in doing that is that I'm not sure to what degree I failed because my prediction was that Pukin' would not invade unless....

The "unless" was important. I referred to an old quote that "faced with the choice of humiliation and war, nations historically have preferred war" and so in a confrontation, if you don't want a war, you have to give the other side a way to back out without appearing to backing down; a graceful exit, some have called it; or as I put it, a way to back down without appearing to be kneeling down.

That point was actually widely discussed, widely referenced in the days before the war; more - considerably more - that one analyst said we have to find something to give Pukin' something that he can point to as a victory. Even the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee said just that. And they're still saying it now as a way to stop the war, even as it becomes harder to find what such a thing could be.

The last time out I mentioned a few ideas that had been proposed. One was declaring a moratorium on new members of NATO. Another, related one, was Ukraine declaring itself neutral. Some proposed the idea of insisting that Ukraine live up to the agreement it made in 2015 for self-rule for the breakaway provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk in the Donbas region of southeast Ukraine.

To that I added my idea: That, plus plus a passive acknowledgement - nothing direct, more like a soap opera character who leaves a scene and then no one ever mentions their name again, just a passive acknowledgement - that Crimea is gone, that there is no way it will again be part of Ukraine in the foreseeable future. I suggested that those things together could be enough because while Pukin' could claim a victory about the self-rule and maybe even Ukraine, Ukraine could say no, it's just doing what it already committed to, it's just that negotiations are taking longer than expected. Meanwhile, neither side gives up anything over which it actually had control nor does either side gain anything over which it did not already have control.

At this point I have to interject that it must be said the the US intelligence was good. The Russian buildup was described accurately and the timetable, with the likely time for an invasion being set for between February 20 and March 1, was spot on.

We're not used to this, especially those of us schooled on Indochina and Iraq. But we need to remember that American intelligence is actually pretty good; it's when that intelligence is massaged for political ends that it gets screwed up. This time reporting it accurately served the political purpose, so it was done that way.

Which means that ultimately, it's possible that none of the ideas for a graceful exit would've worked and we would have found ourselves right where we are anyway. We just don't know.

What I do know is that they weren't tried. We, that is, the US and NATO, the West, did not offer Pukin' a way out. Instead, our entire policy could be summed up in just four words: stand down, no concessions.

Which raises another question: Why wasn't a way out offered? If the intelligence was as good as it seems to have been, a real prospect of a war within a limited time frame if nothing changes, why the unyielding stance?

I gave my reasons, the only four reasons I could think of. The US and NATO - I'm just going to say NATO from now on - either were ignorant of that history of nations preferring war to humiliation, they actually wanted a war, they thought Pukin' wouldn't actually pull the trigger and they could bully him into just backing down, or something was being negotiated in secret.

I think events since have shown I was right in thinking that third alternative was the right one: They though they could bully Pukin' into a humiliating political surrender.

That, with the hideous addendum that they also believed that if war came, it would be over almost before it started. Indeed, a number of analysts outside the government were talking in terms of a war measured in hours, not even days much less weeks.

And it appears that's what Pukin' thought.

Analysts say that the strategy that was seen had been based on the premise that an initial barrage of missile strikes and a thrust toward Ukraine’s capital coupled with the rapid seizure of a few key objectives would bring about the quick collapse of President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government, which would surrender or flee, after which a pro-Russia puppet government could be installed.

Other proof can be found in a statement slated for release on February 26 but instead of being withheld was put out on schedule, supposedly accidentally. The statement reads as though it was intended as a celebration of victory in Ukraine, indicating the Kremlin thought the war would be over in less than two days.

And we can see that expectation within the reports just from the first day that the invaders had not gotten as far as they expected - in other words, they expected to have accomplished a good deal more - and soon after that reports of Russian military vehicles abandoned on the road because they had run out of gas.

The importance of those latter reports is that this is not like some medieval battlefield where you walk to wherever you're going, carrying for the most part your weapons with you, either across your back or strapped to your waist, and if you need food or other supplies you just steal them from the surrounding countryside.

A modern army requires food, fuel, technical and technological support, communications, ammunition, a supply line far more extensive and complex than even a 19th century campaign. It requires large-scale logistics. And it certainly appears that the Russian attack gave little thought to that because they thought it unnecessary.

That expectation of near-immediate collapse may also explain why even now Russian officials can't agree on purpose of invasion.

Before the invasion, Pukin' made claims of "genocide" against ethnic Russians in Luhansk and Donetsk. Then there was the claim that the government in Kyiv was a drug cartel of neo-Nazis and it was about "de-Nazification," about being peacekeepers and arresting the criminals. Then at the UN on March 1, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Ukraine of having "made territorial claims against the Russian Federation" and of seeking to acquire nuclear weapons - which considering the reason Ukraine doesn't have nukes is that it voluntarily gave them up in 1994 in exchange for security guarantees from the US, the UK, and Russia to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine, maybe bringing that up wasn't the smartest thing for Lavrov to do.  

But speaking of nukes, that brings up something else. Pukin' said something about putting Russia's “deterrence forces” - its nuclear weapons - on a “special regime of combat duty.” The result was a spate of new stories claiming he had put Russia's nukes in a state of "high alert."

He didn't. A higher state, yes; "high," no.

Pavel Podvig, a senior researcher with the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, described it as "normally, under the day-to-day status, the system is not capable of transmitting orders" to launch nuclear weapons. But, he added, "you can bring it into the status where it is capable," which is what he felt had been done.

Meanwhile, former Russian military officer Konstantin Eggert told the German news outlet Deutsche Welle there are four levels of alert in the Russian military: regular, heightened, the threat of war, and full or complete.

It could be compared to the US's DEFCON system for nuclear weapons, which has five levels, DEFCON 5 to DEFCON 1, ranging from what's called "Fade Out" or day-to-day level of operations up to "Cocked Pistol," where we are or soon will be in a nuclear war.

Despite some confusion about just what Pukin' meant since the term “special regime of combat duty” is not used by the Russian military, the consensus came down to a move from "regular" to "heightened." But not "high."

That, however, does not mean that the threat of nuclear war is not higher than it was a week or two ago. But it does mean you need not have sleepless nights over it.

At least not yet. The danger of World War III now lies in the question of what happens if Pukin' essentially - as some are now with unnecessary glee are predicting will happen - loses in Ukraine. Not just doesn't get all he wants, but outright loses, fails, the whole thing collapses. What happens then?

You need to realize this is very personal, very emotional, with Pukin'.

Go back to that February 26 statement that read like a celebration of victory in Ukraine. These are some quotes from that statement:

"A new world is being born before our eyes. ... Russia is restoring its unity.... Yes, at a great cost, yes ... but there will be no more Ukraine as anti-Russia. Russia is restoring its historical fullness, gathering the Russian world, the Russian people together - in its entirety of Great Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians [i.e. Ukrainians]. ... [Referring to Russia's relations with the West:] Not even Russia, but the Russian world, that is, three states, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, acting in geopolitical terms as a single whole. ... Even the deaf could hear - Russia is returning. ... This is Russia's return of its historical space and its place in the world."

Contrary to what some have asserted, his dream is not to reassemble the Soviet Union. He's not thinking back to the 1980s before the breakup of the Soviet Union, he's not thinking back to the 1960s or '50s or even the Stalin era of the '30s. He's thinking back to the Czars.

He dreams of restoring the old imperial Russia, one of the great empires of history, which at its peak ranged from the border of Poland to the Pacific Ocean and from the Arctic Ocean to the border of Afghanistan. He's thinking back to the palaces and the glitter and the gilt and the glory, the glory of Mother Russia. This is what this is about, this is his dream.

So what happens if the result of invading Ukraine is it all blows up in his face, with military defeat combined with a cratered economy, a growing internal unrest and opposition - opposition now also popping up in Belarus - and the resulting humiliation in the eyes of major parts of the world? Would he think "If I'm going down, if everything I wanted is lost, if everything I dreamed of is ashes, I'm going to take the world down with me?" It seems unlikely, it probably is unlikely, but it is possible. In that event, would he be restrained by those around him? Could he be?

So don't have sleepless nights but maybe toss and turn some before you do sleep.

And part of the reason for that tossing and turning goes back to the "unnecessary glee" at the prospect of Pukin's defeat I mentioned. Because something else I raised last time to which I think events have added emphasis and backing is that there are those in the West, in NATO, and even in Moscow who are secretly delighted at recent events heralding a return to the good old days of the good old Cold War and its clear lines and seeming lack of complexity and its, in the eyes of the various foreign policy establishments but creepily to the rest of us, "stability" despite all the proxy wars where the Cold War wasn't all that cold for the people in those places.

It's an attitude reflected in the language of President Blahden's State of the Union address, with its references to it all being about "freedom versus tyranny" - even if we do have people like Viktor Orban on our side and we have increasing reports of bigotry and racism in Ukraine directed against non-white people trying to flee the fighting - language harking back to the rhetoric of decades earlier.

So expect, no matter what happens in (or to) Ukraine, years of heightened, on-going tension between Russia on the one hand and the US and Europe on the other and for all you young folks, welcome back to the world your elders grew up in. Welcome back to a world where peace activists knew about Alcems and Slickems and Glickems, knew the difference between MRVs and MIRVs and MaRVs, where "throw weights" and "ceps" were meaningful terms and the advice to "duck and cover" was a source of bitter amusement. Toss and turn indeed.

Which makes it relevant to raise this here. The "no-fly zone" now being pushed by Ukraine is a terrible idea, so terrible there should be active pushback. Ukrainian officials - including Zalenskyy - should be asked what they think would happen in that event: "Do you think Russia will just go 'Oh, ok, we didn't know it is a no-fly zone, we won't do that any more?' And when that doesn't happen, how do you enforce such a thing?

"You are asking for NATO to shoot down Russian jets; you are asking in fact for the US and NATO to effectively declare war on Russia. That is insane. And if that means that there are limits on how much support the West will give Ukraine, then that’s what it means."

It's one thing to want NATO to accept the risk of World War III - which it is already doing in its current support if things really do go south for Pukin' - but it's quite another to demand that NATO be the one to start it.

Tuesday, March 01, 2022

048 The Erickson Report for February 17 to March 2, Page Three: On NATO

048 The Erickson Report for February 17 to March 2, Page Three: On NATO

Next, I want to get back to what I said about permanently barring Ukraine from NATO being a not bad idea. The realiity is that, as I also said, NATO is a military alliance born in, based on, and still driven by thye shibboleths and demons of the Cold War. For decades it was presented as a response to the Soviet-dominated Warsaw Pact, even though NATO predates the Warsaw Pact by six years.

Even if you grant that, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the evaporation of its control over Eastern Europe, the purpose of NATO, it's reason for existing, evaporated as well.
But instead of being disbanded along with the rest of the predictable celebrations about having "won" the Cold War, it plunged ahead and even aggressively expanded.

Remember the map from last time, the one where every nation in blue to the east of that purple line was added to NATO after Mikhail Gorbachev was assured during discussions about re-uniting Germany it would not expand "one inch" to the east?

According Mary Sarotte, a post-Cold War historian who wrote a book about those negotiations, contemporaneous notes, letters, speeches, and interviews show that Western leaders were already contemplating NATO enlargement by the time those talks took place. It was always the plan.

So what I would say is revive what was for some decades an issue for the left and the international peace movement, but which for some reason faded - actually I can name several but I'll skip that for now: don't just not expand NATO, disband NATO. Break it up. Shut it down. It is a Cold War dinosaur that has become, as it is at this moment, more of a threat to spark a war - intentionally or otherwise - than it ever was to prevent one. It's time, it's part time, for it to just go away.

If you want cooperation, including on mutual security, you have the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the OSCE, of which Russia and Ukraine are already members.

If it's more economic and cultural ties you're interested in, you have the European Union.

What we don't need is a re-hash of the Cold War, but that it what we're seeing. And frankly I am damn sure that there are people in Washington, the capitals of Europe, and yes Moscow that are delighted at the prospect, even if not consciously, but who are thrilled at the prospect of a return to a simpler, clearer, age when there wasn't a complex and very messy political world to deal with but one with the comfort and stability of a clear, identifiable enemy presenting an always rather vague, diffuse, but ever-present existential threat.

I have to tell you, I remember that comfortable, stable time with its proxy wars, militarism, and leitmotif of Red-baiting. I have no desire to reprise it.

048 The Erickson Report for February 17 to March 2, Page 1: Ukraine

048 The Erickson Report for February 17 to March 2, Page 1: Ukraine

I start with a warning that as I write this, events in Ukraine are in serious flux, with Russia saying it's pulling back some troops and NATO countries saying they see no signs of it and one even suggesting a drawdown could be a trick while hints about talks on other topics are being bandied about on both sides.

As I do this, the February 16 "day it will happen" is passing but the "it'll be by February 20" deadline is still ahead. Russia says it is pulling back troops but the US and NATO call b.s. So maybe tension is easing except maybe it isn't.

But it doesn't matter because as Politico's National Security Daily would have it today, February 16 was always "overhyped" and the real important day is February 20. Or soon after February 20. Or March 1. Or it doesn't matter because as one person they quoted said "Just because these dates come and go doesn’t mean the risk is any less." Just be worried all the time.

Things could be - in fact very likely will be in at least some ways - quite different by the time you see this: the difficulty of trying to discuss changing current events in a two-week time frame.

So I decided to plunge ahead with what I intended to say and if events prove that I got things totally and disastrously wrong, so be it and I won't hide from my failure. So onward.

Last time amid the growing drum beat of war at any moment, I made the prediction that Putin not invade Ukraine. 

Among the reasons were my contention that if he intended to invade he would have done it already rather than this extended slo-mo buildup giving both Ukraine NATO plenty of time to prepare a response and that his real intention was to make a declaration that NATO could not continue to act on matters of European security as if Russia did not exist, that is, to remind the West that Russia is still a player in these matters and it does have what it regards as legitimate security concerns about NATO expansion.

And in fact, that has recently been made more explicit, with Putin complaining the US and NATO have “freely interpreted” the principle of the "indivisibility of security," the idea that no country should strengthen its security at the expense of others, a principle that is enshrined in international agreements involving both sides. That is, he is sarcastically accusing NATO of interpreting the phrase in whatever way it finds most convenient at the moment, without regard to any concerns of objections Russia may have.
 
Another reason I gave was that an invasion would be a bloody and difficult undertaking,
the biggest Russian military operation since World War 2, and that includes Afghanistan.

And I also noted that I had some backup of my doubts to be found in statements from various diplomats and officials of non-US countries.

So my conclusion was that Putin would not invade - unless.

Which is where I left it, saying if the following two weeks had not yet proved that I am a lousy prognosticator, I'd finish that sentence this time. Time has not yet proved my failings, so here we are.

Simply put, the "unless" revovles around the NATO - which really means the US - response to Putin's posturing.

Putin is trying to lay down a marker, saying "We will be heard, we will not be ignored." Putin is regarded by some analysts as a gambler in foreign affairs, as being "risk-tolerant" as it's put, but in laying down his marker in this case, he's taking the risk he's making a bet he can't cover.

The risk can be seen most easily and clearly in the frankly bellicose words of US officials.

For one, there was the statement by Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark Milley, who said late in January, quoting, “We strongly encourage Russia to stand down and to pursue a resolution through diplomacy.”

For another, that same week the Biden administration and NATO told Russia there will be no US or NATO concessions on Moscow’s main demands, which revolve around Ukraine being kept out of NATO and the withdrawal of NATO forces from near Russia's border.

Some years ago I read a statement - I can't remember who, I'd like to give credit where it's due but I can't - that "faced with the choice between humiliation and war, nations historically have shown a depressingly persistent preference for the latter." The point and the relevance here is that if you don't want a war, you have to give the other side a way to back out of a confrontation without appearing to back down, a way to say at the very least "OK, I can live with that; it's not everything I wanted but I can live with it." Lacking such a way out, nations historically prefer war to humiliation. That concern is central to where we stand now.

And realize this notion of giving the other side a graceful exit is not an out-there idea: On February 14, Rep. Adam Smith, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, told MSNBC that “If we're going to prevent a war, Putin has to get something out of this. He has to have some sort of diplomatic face-saving mechanism to back down."

The idea has even been mentioned in mainstream news articles, often coupled with claims that the US is now offering Putin such an off-ramp. Unfortunately, that off-ramp consists of saying if Putin totally backs down, that is, withdraws all his troops from near Ukraine and drops all his other demands, including any objection to Ukraine joining NATO, we would be willing to talk about some tangentially-related issues outside the bounds of those demands. It's hard to think of that as being an acceptable alternative to Russia. Such discussions and even some decent results arising from them are certainly not out of the question - on February 15 Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made specific reference to them - but they will not address the central questions.

Which just brings us back to the US-NATO position of "stand down, no concessions."

There are really only four reasons they would say such a thing.
- They are totally ignorant of that history of nations preferring war to humiliation.
- They actually want a war.
- They are really convinced an attack won't happen and taking the opportunity to look tough because they are convinced they can bully Putin into retreat.
- Or there is something going on behind the scenes of which no one is talking about even on background and so of which we know nothing.

Of those, the last is the most hopeful, although hard to credit considering how many potential leaky points there are. Nonetheless, I can hope it's true; it certainly wouldn't be the first time some back-channel deal proved to be the way out of a crisis.

The first reason I simply cannot believe to be true and the second one I have to believe and fervently hope is not true.

Which leaves what I think is the most plausible reason: They think they can bully Putin into backing down. In fact, a hint of that confidence can be seen in that at the same time the US was declaring "no concessions," NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg declared that Russia should not only pull its forces from in and around Ukraine but also from Georgia and Moldova.

Frankly, if that's the game being played here, it is an insanely dangerous one, particularly when you bear in mind that Putin holds the 1990s as a "decade of humiliation" for his country, an experience he is unlikely to be willing to repeat.

Okay, so what can be done? There have been several ideas advanced; let's run through a few.

You have to realize the Ukraine is the key. So one idea is to simply accept Moscow's insistence that Ukraine be permanently barred from NATO. Now, that's actually not a bad one and I'd even go beyond that which I'll get to later, but right now it's not politically viable. It would be almost as much a humiliating retreat for NATO as the one being pushed on Russia by NATO. So in the present, it's a nonstarter.

However, what could be done is to emphasize the fact - and it is a fact - that there is no reasonable prospect for Ukraine to be part of NATO any time in the foreseeable future, if in fact ever.

The prospect of its joining what is a Cold War military alliance is based on a 2008 NATO statement which in the nearly 14 full years since has not produced what's called a Membership Action Plan - a pathway to eventual membership - for Ukraine. And Germany and France were and remain opposed to Ukraine's membership and getting in requires unanimous support from existing members. So Ukraine may never be able to join NATO.

Even Ukranian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy has essentially acknowledged that. During a meeting with German chancellor Olaf Scholz on February 14, Zelenskyy said membership in NATO would take “longer than expected" and described it as a "dream," something Kyiv hopes to get to someday, but who knows when or, bluntly, if.

But instead of pointing that out except occasionally in passing, NATO and the US keep banging on the "anyone can join" drum as if it were a done deal and it's just a matter of some details.

Admittedly, President Blahden did say that Ukraine does not have the go-ahead to join NATO - but that was last June and is not found in the current rhetoric, at least as how anyone would notice. It's dispiriting and indicative of the idea that the US thinks Putin can be bullied because it is pushing pride over practicality, made clearer by that last week Jean-Marie Guehenno, former UN under-secretary-general for peacekeeping operations, described NATO’s non-stop enlargement as a "mistake" and said the 2008 promise was "hypocritical to claim that NATO enlargement was compatible with the development of real friendship with Russia."

Another related idea of what could be done is for NATO, rather than barring Ukraine or emphasizing membership is only long-term possibility, to declare a moratorium on new member states, a way to finesse Ukrainian membership without directly acknowledging the connection. Yet another proposal is the so-called "Finlandization" of Ukraine, which has a bad air about it because it has implied being subject to informal domination by Russia, but would really mean Ukraine declaring itself neutral and trying to maintain contacts and good relations with both Russia and the West, which wouldn't be popular with the pro-Europe western parts of Ukraine and would require a formal change in Ukrainian policy but still could be a viable option and over time become the normal state of affairs.

Yet another potential off-ramp for Putin, a way for him to, if you will, stand down without appearing to kneel, something that would give him that "face-saving mechanism" would be for the US and NATO to insist that Ukraine fulfill its obligations under a 2015 peace deal regarding two breakaway pro-Russia provinces in the Donbas region in the southeast of the country, a deal that was brokered by France and Germany and required Kyiv to offer self-rule to the rebel-held territories. Its implementation has stalled because of domestic opposition in the anti-Russian western Ukraine, but granting that self-rule plus surrendering even if not formally to the reality that Crimea is gone could well be enough to provide the "flexibility" to avoid a major war without anyone on either side giving up anything over which they actually have control.

Personally, I think that is the best option available and could be made even better if only because more saleable is for Ukraine to be admitted to the European Union - something to which it appears Russia has not objected - which would to some degree satisfy Kyiv's desire to closer ties to the West without involving any commitments of Europe or the US to the military defense of Ukraine or allowing for the stationing of any NATO forces or bases within it.

In fact, I'm going to go way out on a limb here. On February 15, Putin declared, without offering any evidence, that what is going on in Donbas is "genocide" - that is, genocide against the ethnic Russians there. Analysts are as you'd expect claiming that this is intend as a pretext for an invasion. Which, I have to acknowledge, it could be. However, he has been saying the same thing since 2014. It has served as the excuse for Russian military support of the rebels. Which prompts me to think that raising it right now, in this context, is a tell that what I just raised - a deal involving self-rule to the breakaway provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk - could be the key to a settlement.

As events unfold, we'll see how I do.

Thursday, February 17, 2022

048 The Erickson Report for February 17 to March 2



The Erickson Report for February 17 to March 2

This episode:

- "Putin will not invade - unless..." explained

- Government pushes, media embraces, unquestioning acceptance of official claims

- Disband NATO

- "The Threat" to public education

(Sources to follow)

Tuesday, April 27, 2021

036 The Erickson Report for April 22 to May 5, Page Two: Afghanistan

036 The Erickson Report for April 22 to May 5, Page Two: Afghanistan

I'm just going to take a minute or two for this because I am absolutely sure you have heard about it, but just as absolutely it has to be mentioned.

President Joe Blahden has directed that all remaining US forces be withdrawn from Afghanistan by September 11, ending America’s longest war 20 years after it started, in a decision supported even by veterans groups across the political landscape and from both Democrats and GOPpers in Congress.

NATO troops will also depart.

Despite the bipartisan support, there are still those urging that 20 years of war and $2 trillion in spending is not enough, that leaving has to be "conditions based" - in other words, the killing should continue until we win. The threat, they say, is civil war, as if that's not what Afghanistan has been experiencing all along.

Besides that obvious point, there is the argument that pulling out actually increases pressure on both the Taliban and the Afghan government to reach an agreement because neither can continue to hold the US hostage to political developments in the country - the government because it can no longer sit back and rely on the US to maintain it; the Taliban because it can no longer use the presence of foreign troops to build and hold popular support.

There is some wiggle room in the announcement, as the administration plans to leave “sufficient” forces in the region to conduct counterterrorism missions and keep a check on the Taliban, but how extensive those forces will be or where they will be stationed is unclear.

What's really odd, though, is that some are referring to it as a "surprise" announcement, even though the deadline is more than four months after the May 1 deadline agreed to by the Tweetie-pie administration last year.

I guess, like some of us sometimes, they just couldn't imagine it really ending.


Sunday, April 25, 2021

036 The Erickson Report for April 22 to May 5



036 The Erickson Report for April 22 to May 5

This episode:

- Some thoughts prompted by the Derek Chauvin conviction
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/20/watch-live-jury-delivers-verdict-in-derek-chauvin-murder-trial.html
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2021/4/15/22383392/adam-toledo-shooting-video-released-chicago-police-bodycam
https://theconversation.com/being-skeptical-of-sources-is-a-journalists-job-but-it-doesnt-always-happen-when-those-sources-are-the-police-159173
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/officer-who-fatally-shot-daunte-wright-police-chief-have-resigned-n1263949
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/minnesota-police-chief-says-he-believes-officer-meant-grab-taser-n1263817
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-veteran-officer-could-have-mistaken-glock-taser-fatal-shooting-n1263976
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-similar-to-duante-wright-shooting-other-cops-have-claimed-gun-taser-mixup-20210412-7b34zo47kzhtpj4n3rxjl37mze-story.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/12/us/brooklyn-center-police-shooting-minnesota.html

- Afghanistan
https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2021/04/us-nato-troops-withdraw-afghanistan-911-us-official-says/173326/
https://apnews.com/article/world-news-afghanistan-troop-withdrawals-islamabad-015703a459088547531a755819897040

- Noted in Passing
https://www.aol.com/news/ohio-republicans-aim-rename-state-174607622-163054145.html
-
https://www.aol.com/finance/romney-introduces-legislation-tackle-social-163327974.html
https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/
-
https://theintercept.com/2021/04/19/israel-aid-elizabeth-warren-j-street/
-
https://ncse.ngo/creationism-bill-advanced-arkansas
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
-
https://www.aol.com/finance/poll-15-americans-worse-off-120630775-134039730.html - And Another Thing
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/may/12/100-years-on-eclipse-1919-picture-that-changed-universe-arthur-eddington-einstein-theory-gravity
https://www.alternet.org/2021/03/black-hole/

Wednesday, March 24, 2021

033 The Erickson Report for March 11 to 25, Page 4: Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages [the Outrages]

033 The Erickson Report for March 11 to 25, Page 4: Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages [the Outrages]

Now for the Outrage, and we have two, or in a way one and a-half as they involve the same person and the same topic, but two different examples.

The person is President Joe Blahden; the issue is his foreign and military policies.

On February 25, on Blahden's order, the US dropped seven 500-pound bombs in eastern Syria on what is claimed to have been a site housing Iran-backed militias. The attack, which killed 22 people according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, was undertaken without Congressional authorization and was not in response to any imminent threat. In fact, it was avowedly labeled retaliation for a rocket attack a week earlier on a US base in northern Iraq, a base which the Iraqi parliament said a full year ago it wanted closed. To what should be no one's surprise, this "retaliation" did not stop and more likely provoked the rocket attack which followed the bombing.

It was so far removed from any useful military purpose that military experts quoted by USA Today said it was actually about "sending a message" that the US intended to remain "engaged" in the Middle East.

Perhaps the worst part of this was when White House press secretary Jen Psaki said of the bombing, "when threats are posed, he has the right to take an action at the time, and in the manner of his choosing" and insisted it was within his "Article II authority," adopting exactly the same sort of "presidents can do whatever they damn please with the military, we don't need no stinking Congress" attitude that has plagued our nation with war for decades without resolution or end.

Our second example shows that on the other hand, Joe Blahden doesn't always have to show he's tough enough to "take action." Consider the case of Saudi Arabia.

As a candidate, he promised to make Saudi Arabia "the pariah that they are" over the 2018 murder of dissident Saudi writer Jamal Khashoggi.

But when it came time to actually do something, he refused to take any action against Saudi Crown Prince and dictator Mohammed bin Salman even in the face of a US intelligence report concluding bin Salman had ordered Khashoggi's murder.

State Department spokesman Ned Price blew off the moral collapse by calling Saudi Arabia "a hugely influential country in the Arab world.” In other words, "Hey what did you expect?"

Instead, Price said, the US is "recalibrating" its relationship with the kingdom, a “recalibration” that looks a lot like another case of Obama 2.0: tsk-tsking and tut-tutting about massive human rights abuses, oppression, imprisonment, torture, kidnapping, and now murder while doing absolutely nothing so long as a few lessers can be thrown under the bus for the sake of appearances.

So again it's about "sending a message." It's just that this time, the message is "if you're at the top, then no matter what, so long as you sell us your oil and buy our guns, it's business as usual."

That is, the usual Outrage.

Saturday, March 13, 2021

033 The Erickson Report for March 11 to 25

 


The Erickson Report for March 11 to 25

This episode:

Recent news on climate change
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-atlantic-ocean-gulf-stream-system-amoc-weakest-1600-years/
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2004/03/warm-up-to-main-event.html
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/01/26/president-biden-us-capable-too-europe-generates-more-electricity-renewables-fossil
https://thinkprogress.org/forget-coal-both-solar-and-wind-are-now-cheaper-than-new-natural-gas-plants-e281f5485e5f/
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/01/27/largest-ever-climate-poll-shows-64-global-public-believes-warming-planet-emergency
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-28/biden-s-early-climate-blitz-goes-faster-further-than-expected?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=email
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/2/3/2013746/-Scientists-say-2-trillion-investment-can-decarbonize-energy-by-2050-paid-for-with-a-carbon-tax
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/03/02/green-new-dud-progressives-warn-house-climate-bill-fails-grasp-fundamental-truth
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/01/28/climate-campaigners-say-listen-science-new-study-shows-earth-now-warmer-any-time
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3061/2020-tied-for-warmest-year-on-record-nasa-analysis-shows/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/12/09/carbon-footprints-climate-change-rich-one-percent/

Updates on attacks on LGBTQ+ rights
https://19thnews.org/2021/02/wave-of-anti-trans-bills-are-hitting-statehouses/
https://19thnews.org/2021/02/36-anti-lgbtq-religious-freedom-measures-are-in-covid-church-bills/
https://www.rawstory.com/republicans-anti-lgbtq-bills/
https://www.them.us/story/virginia-ban-anti-lgbtq-panic-defense-danica-roem
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/25/us-house-equality-act-lgbtq-americans-discrimination

Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages [Clowns]
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-early-childhood-education-education-boise-bills-581517bc89b86666887396ae8ecce4ce
https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-house-passes-bill-allowing-legislature-to-declare-federal-laws-unconstitutional/35661454
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-school-chivalry-assignment_n_6041bfc6c5b660a0f387697e

Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages [Outrages]
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/02/26/syria-bombing-biden-airstrikes-mark-test-us-role-worlds-police/6831034002/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/26/syria-bombings-biden-airstrikes-deliver-message-more-than-damage/6834550002/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50998065
https://apnews.com/article/biden-retreats-saudi-arabia-sanctions-khashoggi-killing-d91d31edece5db07112d1c2d4dd3be33

Saturday, February 06, 2021

031 The Erickson Report for February 4 to 17, Page Three: Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages [Outrages]

031 The Erickson Report for February 4 to 17, Page Three: Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages [Outrages]

Now we turn to the Outrages, and this time we have just one. It's the Blahden administration.

Okay, it's more focused than that. A number of domestic moves have been encouraging, some even better than I expected. But on foreign and military policy, it's a disaster and an Outrage. Let me go through a few things in no particular order to illustrate.

For one thing, the Space Force, Tweetie-pie's vanity project, apparently is going to continue. Once established, it quickly developed institutional momentum, now preaching the Fear Merchants' classic line about "emerging threats," just now in space, and it seems he is of no mind to challenge that.

For another, take military spending in general. Despite the fact that during Tweetie-pie's regime, such spending rose 19%, Blahden is expected to resist calls from progressives to cut that budget in order to finance human needs, expected especially because even during the campaign, he said if elected he didn't foresee any significant reductions.

On Afghanistan, there are already indications that Blahden will keep US troops there past a May withdrawal deadline laid out in a deal with the Taliban. It appears the intention is to keep 2000-2500 troops there for "counterinsurgency" - apparently permanently, giving an interesting twist to the notion of "ending our forever wars."

Another forever war he is likely to continue is the drone wars. He's spoken very little on the topic, but as vice-president he advocated for what he called “counterterrorism plus,” in Afghanistan, a combination of special forces and aggressive drone bombing.

Now, I'm sure there are those who will praise his plans for Israel and the Palestinians, but they look good only by comparison to the horrendous Tweetie-pie years.

What he proposes is a return to the mushy, all-talk-no-action "support" for a two-state solution, a policy pursued by multiple previous administrations across parties, one marked primarily by tut-tutting and tsk-tsking about Israel's oppression of the Palestinians - including turning Gaza into what has been accurately described as the world's largest outdoor prison, building settlements, illegally seizing Palestinian land, and demolishing Palestinian homes - while at the same time providing Israel with billions in military support and deliberately refusing to use any of the leverage this gives the US to push for a political settlement.

One more case to mention is Venezuela, where the Blahden administration will continue to recognize Juan Guaido as president, part of a campaign to force out president Nicolas Maduro, a campaign marked by crushing economic sanctions that have cost the Venezuelan economy an estimated $194 billion, reduced import earnings by 99%, and killed tens of thousands from lack of medical supplies and medicines. And for those who would parrot the official line that the sanctions are because of Maduro's disputed 2018 re-election, I'd note that the first round of economic sanctions came in August 2017, nearly a year before that election took place.

There is a lot more to this; I had originally intended to do a whole segment about Venezuela but the time to explain it properly just kept expanding and expanding to more than I could properly present. But know this: There is a great deal to doubt and question about Nicolas Maduro but ultimately this is not and never was about him. The US has been trying to undermine or overthrow the government of Venezuela since 1998, when the people there committed the unforgivable sin of electing the socialist Hugo Chavez. Nicolas Maduro is not the cause, he is the current excuse.

Because ultimately, this is not about democracy or free elections. It is about dominance and the bipartisan foreign policy consensus which Joe Blahden embraces. Which is an Outrage.
 
// I Support The Occupy Movement : banner and script by @jeffcouturer / jeffcouturier.com (v1.2) document.write('
I support the OCCUPY movement
');function occupySwap(whichState){if(whichState==1){document.getElementById('occupyimg').src="https://sites.google.com/site/occupybanners/home/isupportoccupy-right-blue.png"}else{document.getElementById('occupyimg').src="https://sites.google.com/site/occupybanners/home/isupportoccupy-right-red.png"}} document.write('');