Six on History: Ukraine (not found on MSNBC)
panaritisp
Welcome back to Six on History
If you like what you find on the "Six on History" blog, please share w/your contacts.
Click here for Detailed Search Help h/t John Elfrank
Noam Chomsky: Before turning to the question, we should settle a few facts that are uncontestable. The most crucial one is that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a major war crime, ranking alongside the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Hitler-Stalin invasion of Poland in September 1939, to take only two salient examples. It always makes sense to seek explanations, but there is no justification, no extenuation.
Turning now to the question, there are plenty of supremely confident outpourings about Putin’s mind. The usual story is that he is caught up in paranoid fantasies, acting alone, surrounded by groveling courtiers of the kind familiar here in what’s left of the Republican Party traipsing to Mar-a-Lago for the Leader’s blessing.
The flood of invective might be accurate, but perhaps other possibilities might be considered. Perhaps Putin meant what he and his associates have been saying loud and clear for years. It might be, for example, that, “Since Putin’s major demand is an assurance that NATO will take no further members, and specifically not Ukraine or Georgia,
Matlock is hardly alone. Much the same conclusions about the underlying issues are reached in the memoirs of CIA head William Burns, another of the few authentic Russia specialists. [Diplomat] George Kennan’s even stronger stand has belatedly been widely quoted, backed as well by former Defense Secretary William Perry, and outside the diplomatic ranks by the noted international relations scholar John Mearsheimer and numerous other figures who could hardly be more mainstream.
None of this is obscure. U.S. internal documents, released by WikiLeaks, reveal that Bush II’s reckless offer to Ukraine to join NATO at once elicited sharp warnings from Russia that the expanding military threat could not be tolerated. Understandably.
We might incidentally take note of the strange concept of “the left” that appears regularly in excoriation of “the left” for insufficient skepticism about the “Kremlin’s line.”
The fact is, to be honest, that we do not know why the decision was made, even whether it was made by Putin alone or by the Russian Security Council in which he plays the leading role. There are, however, some things we do know with fair confidence, including the record reviewed in some detail by those just cited, who have been in high places on the inside of the planning system. In brief, the crisis has been brewing for 25 years as the U.S. contemptuously rejected Russian security concerns, in particular their clear red lines: Georgia and especially Ukraine.
There is good reason to believe that this tragedy could have been avoided, until the last minute. We’ve discussed it before, repeatedly. As to why Putin launched the criminal aggression right now, we can speculate as we like. But the immediate background is not obscure — evaded but not contested.
It’s easy to understand why those suffering from the crime may regard it as an unacceptable indulgence to inquire into why it happened and whether it could have been avoided. Understandable, but mistaken. If we want to respond to the tragedy in ways that will help the victims, and avert still worse catastrophes that loom ahead, it is wise, and necessary, to learn as much as we can about what went wrong and how the course could have been corrected. Heroic gestures may be satisfying. They are not helpful.
As often before, I’m reminded of a lesson I learned long ago. In the late 1960s, I took part in a meeting in Europe with a few representatives of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (“Viet Cong,” in U.S. parlance). It was during the brief period of intense opposition to the horrendous U.S. crimes in Indochina. Some young people were so infuriated that they felt that only a violent reaction would be an appropriate response to the unfolding monstrosities: breaking windows on Main Street, bombing an ROTC center. Anything less amounted to complicity in terrible crimes. The Vietnamese saw things very differently. They strongly opposed all such measures. They presented their model of an effective protest: a few women standing in silent prayer at the graves of U.S. soldiers killed in Vietnam. They were not interested in what made American opponents of the war feel righteous and honorable. They wanted to survive.
It’s a lesson I’ve often heard in one or another form from victims of hideous suffering in the Global South, the prime target of imperial violence. One we should take to heart, adapted to circumstances. Today that means an effort to understand why this tragedy occurred and what could have been done to avert it, and to apply these lessons to what comes next.
The question cuts deep. There is no time to review this critically important matter here, but repeatedly the reaction to real or imagined crisis has been to reach for the six-gun rather than the olive branch. It’s almost a reflex, and the consequences have generally been awful — for the traditional victims. It’s always worthwhile to try to understand, to think a step or two ahead about the likely consequences of action or inaction. Truisms of course, but worth reiterating, because they are so easily dismissed in times of justified passion.
Of course, it is true that the U.S. and its allies violate international law without a blink of an eye, but that provides no extenuation for Putin’s crimes.The options that remain after the invasion are grim. The least bad is support for the diplomatic options that still exist, in the hope of reaching an outcome not too far from what was very likely achievable a few days ago: Austrian-style neutralization of Ukraine, some version of Minsk II federalism within. Much harder to reach now. And — necessarily — with an escape hatch for Putin, or outcomes will be still more dire for Ukraine and everyone else, perhaps almost unimaginably so.
Very remote from justice. But when has justice prevailed in international affairs? Is it necessary to review the appalling record once again?
Like it or not, the choices are now reduced to an ugly outcome that rewards rather than punishes Putin for the act of aggression — or the strong possibility of terminal war. It may feel satisfying to drive the bear into a corner from which it will lash out in desperation — as it can. Hardly wise. ... "
At least eleven civilians have died and dozens of others were wounded as the Russians targeted the city on Monday morning, per Ukrainian officials. The shelling was reportedly aimed at residential areas and included the use of cluster munitions, which release submunitions or bomblets considered especially dangerous to civilians since they are difficult to confine to a specific target.
Neither Russia nor Ukraine is a signatory to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a global “ban on the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of cluster munitions.”
Mark Hiznay, associate director of the arms division at Human Rights Watch, told the Washington Post “this attack clearly illustrates the inherently indiscriminate nature of cluster munitions and should be unequivocally condemned. ... "
Oops! turns out Mr. Schorr and the NR "forgot " to let readers know that the US created cluster bombs, used them widely in SE Asia, has sold and given them to other countries, and with it's allies like the UK and Israel, has used them around the world from Laos to Lebanon.
“The use of cluster bombs in any circumstances is banned under international humanitarian law, so their use to attack civilian areas is particularly dangerous and will only lead to further deaths and injuries,” said Denis Krivosheev, Amnesty International’s acting chief for Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
“Cluster bombs are inherently indiscriminate weapons, and their deployment in residential areas is absolutely appalling and unacceptable. As fighting continues to escalate, civilians must be protected, not deliberately targeted or recklessly endangered.”
After the Vietnam War, demands to impose restrictions on cluster bombs increased, but the efforts were fruitless
My questions to the Defense Ministry, the Israel Defense Forces and the Foreign Ministry on whether – and if so, when – Israel supplied cluster bombs to Azerbaijan received a “no comment” across the board. Meanwhile, this week it was reported that Azerbaijan and Armenia had agreed on a cease-fire for the second time, after the one declared a week earlier collapsed quickly.
These bombs were first used during World War I but became infamous during the Vietnam War, when U.S. and South Vietnamese forces fired them from planes and cannons along with napalm and other chemical substances such as Agent Orange, against the Vietcong and North Vietnamese Army. There were many civilian victims.
After the Vietnam War, demands to impose restrictions on cluster bombs increased, but the efforts were fruitless. In 1999, U.S. and NATO forces used them during the war in Yugoslavia.
Missiles carrying cluster munitions explode in the air and send dozens or hundreds of small bomblets over a large area.
"The munitions are notoriously difficult to control, striking nearby targets indiscriminately, which is why international human rights groups say they shouldn't be used anywhere near civilian populations, if at all.
A large portion of submunitions also fail to detonate on impact — as many as 40% by one estimate — leaving behind a trail of unexploded bombs that pose a secondary risk to people nearby.
In 2008, more than 100 countries agreed to a global treaty banning the use of cluster munitions, but neither Russia nor Ukraine signed on.
Amnesty International said that Russian forces likely carried out the attack, since they were operating nearby and have a history of using cluster munitions, and that it may constitute a war crime. ... "
- Attack with alleged cluster bombs on the city today killed at least 11 and injured 44
" ... Neither Russia nor Ukraine is a member of the treaty that bans cluster munitions,
A) Newsweek
"Under the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a total of 123 countries worldwide have agreed never to use cluster munitions under any circumstances nor to develop, stockpile, or sell them. This includes Canada, much of Western Europe, Australia, much of Africa and numerous South American countries.
However, neither the U.S., Russia, or Ukraine have committed to this agreement." Perfect!
" ... A convention banning the use of cluster bombs has been joined by more than 120 countries who agreed not to use, produce, transfer or stockpile the weapons and to clear them after they’ve been used.
Russia and Ukraine have not joined that convention. Neither has the United States. ... "
"On December 6, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute published its annual list of the world’s highest-earning arms manufacturers. The Swedish think tank disclosed that in 2020, as hospitals overflowed, morgues filled up, stores shuttered, and the global economy contracted by 3.1 percent, the top 100 weapons makers earned a record total of $531 billion, a 1.3 percent increase from 2019.
“No officials or lawmakers have spelled out why the budget . . . needs to be quite this huge.”
Military sales require military buyers, and last year many governments were happy to double down on defense-related expenditures even as gross domestic products (GDPs) shrank and populations were sick, unemployed, or locked indoors. Global military spending in 2020 hit $1.98 trillion, the highest since the institute started calculating totals in 1988.
“In much of the world, military spending grew and some governments even accelerated payments to the arms industry in order to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 crisis,” institute researcher Alexandra Marksteiner said in a press release.
Unsurprisingly, one country led the world in both producing and buying military equipment. Since 2018, the United States has housed the five largest weapons manufacturers worldwide. This year, forty-one of the top 100 arms companies were from the United States, with cumulative sales of $285 billion, more than the GDP of Finland.
On the purchasing side, the U.S. government during the pandemic continued its decades-long reign as arms buyer-in-chief, spending $778 billion on its military, roughly as much as the next twelve countries combined.
According to the Pentagon’s public database, in 2020 the U.S. government awarded Lockheed Martin about 270 short-term and long-term contracts totaling about $42.1 billion—or 72.3 percent of Lockheed’s total sales.
The source of Lockheed’s remaining revenue probably isn’t very surprising either. The United States exports more arms than the next eight countries combined, and the four biggest global arms importers are dutiful U.S. allies (and thus customers): Saudi Arabia, India, Egypt, and Australia.
In 2020, the U.S. government authorized $50.78 billion in foreign military sales. The largest U.S. arms manufacturers each operate dozens of entities in other countries, which helps boost foreign contracts. Ten of Lockheed’s twenty-eight foreign subsidiaries, for example, are based in the Middle East; it even launched a joint venture with Saudi Arabia’s defense department in 2018 to build Black Hawk helicopters and other military equipment.
As the U.S. government doles out increasingly lucrative contracts to U.S. weapons makers in the name of security, stability, and “the greatest military in the world,” the industry is defined by quid pro quo that looks very much like legalized corruption.
According to an OpenSecrets report published on December 9, the defense industry has spent $98.9 million on lobbying so far in 2021, an eight-year high, to woo Congressional committee members and candidates, and officials from the White House, State Department, and the Defense Department.
The business of making planes, drones, and bombs is synonymous with the bombardment of civilians, destruction of towns, occupations of countries, and mass displacement.
After months of slick mingling and backroom deals, the sector is poised for a gold rush. The Senate just passed a $778 billion defense budget—tens of billions more than President Joe Biden requested and the largest budget since World War II (even when accounting for inflation).
“No officials or lawmakers have spelled out why the budget . . . needs to be quite this huge,” Slate columnist Fred Kaplan wrote last week, in one of his typically thorough policy analyses. Yet, in wondering why “there was strikingly little examination . . . of whether all this money was allocated in quite the right way,” Kaplan appeared surprisingly naive about the Pentagon’s intentions, which for decades have had little to do with honorable allocations and bona fide national security.
Senator Bernie Sanders’s rhetorical question in November was more canny: “Isn’t it strange how even as we end the longest war in our nation’s history, concerns about the deficit and national debt seem to melt away under the influence of the powerful Military Industrial Complex?”
Of course, it’s not really strange that the House passed the defense budget by a 363-70 vote, and the Senate by 89-10—both bipartisan blockbusters. Since 2001, according to another OpenSecrets report, members of Congress have received an average of $179,000 in campaign contributions from defense firms.
This election cycle, Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, received $147,000 in such contributions. In fact, six of the top ten Congressional recipients of defense funds over the past twenty years are Democrats. One of them is Representative Adam Smith of Washington State, current Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who told The New York Times on December 7 that “one of the major challenges our military faces right now . . . is getting the Pentagon to better and more quickly adopt the innovative technologies that we need to meet our national security threats.”
Smith, who has received nearly $2 million in defense contributions while a member of the committee, gravely added, “Those threats are very real.”
Last year, among the hundreds of defense companies that lobbied the federal government, the top five spenders shelled out $60 million—accounting for more than half of the industry’s lobbying expenditures. Predictably, these top spenders were the same five companies that topped the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s list of the world’s highest earning arms manufacturers: Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Raytheon Technologies. Together, their $60 million investment netted over $183 billion in defense sales.
The kleptocratic texture of U.S. governance is reflected in the military industrial scheme: Spend a bit of private money and receive full access to the taxpayer’s treasure trove. And the rewards go both ways. In 2020, 73 percent of the 663 defense lobbyists had walked through the revolving door from government service to what were assuredly higher salaries in the private sector. “No other sector has a higher percentage of lobbyists who also worked in the government,” reported OpenSecrets.
Every year, lawmakers cite new “threats” to justify diverting the majority of Congress’s discretionary funds away from health care, education, and social welfare. What really distinguishes the defense industry from other, equally avaricious sectors is how these weapons-selling narratives shape global geopolitical realities rather than the other way around.
Manufactured threats must animate very real geopolitical tension and violence to justify and sustain themselves. The business of making planes, drones, and bombs is thereby synonymous with the bombardment of civilians, destruction of towns, occupations of countries, and mass displacement.
In Yemen, for example, bombs made by Raytheon and sold to Saudi Arabia with the blessing of the U.S. government killed twenty-one people at a wedding in 2018. And a one-ton bomb made by General Dynamics killed ninety-seven civilians, including twenty-five children, at a marketplace in 2016.
On December 13, the Pentagon decided that no U.S. troops would be punished for killing ten civilians, including seven children, with a drone strike in Afghanistan amid a last-minute dash to punish the Taliban.
Until recently, military spending relied heavily for its justification on the “threats” of ISIS and the Taliban. This time, we’re told that the bad guys are Russia and China, both of which have decreased their weapons exports since 2015 and directed their state-owned arms companies to produce more civilian goods than military ones
With President Biden likely to sign the defense budget into law, there may not be a happy ending to this story. A tally by the institute in Stockholm predicts that Silicon Valley is certain to become the next frontier of military spending as the Pentagon pivots to artificial intelligence and machine learning.
Microsoft, for example, won a $22 billion ten-year contract in 2021 to supply the army with visual augmentation devices. And last year, the CIA awarded a cloud enterprise contract “to a consortium comprising Amazon, Google, IBM, Microsoft and Oracle . . . reportedly worth tens of billions of dollars over a fifteen-year period.”
For now, Big Tech hasn’t broken into the Top 100 weapons makers. The list, like Congress itself, is still overrun by the old guard. Together, they continue to champion what President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his prophetic 1961 farewell address, described as “the total influence—economic, political, even spiritual”—of the military-industrial complex."
" ... Pain, fear, shame - these are the feelings of today.
Pain - because the war hits the living - grass and trees, animals and their offspring, people and their children.
Fear - because there is a general biological instinct aimed at preserving one's own life and the life of offspring.
Shame - because the responsibility of the leadership of our country in creating this situation, fraught with great disasters for all mankind, is obvious.
Responsibility for what is happening today will be shared by all of us, contemporaries of these dramatic events, who failed to foresee and stop them. It is necessary to stop the war that is flaring up every minute and resist the propaganda lies that are poured out on our population by all media. ..."
" ... One might argue that the US did nothing to protect Ukraine. Indeed, it sent military aid and announced sanctions. Well, it also condemned Houthi attacks against Saudi Arabia and the UAE, but going through the motions is not the same as doing what is necessary for justice to prevail.
As it stands, the West itself is even torn on whether or not to go all the way when it comes to sanctions. Economic gains and mutual benefits stand in the way.
Needless to say, prices of oil and gas are already extremely high, and are likely to go higher, hurting the pockets of ordinary citizens in Europe and America even more.
Of course, the current energy market situation might have been averted or the blow could have been softened had the Biden administration worked closely and not behaved like a pariah state toward long-standing allies and friends.
To go back to the Houthi example, not only would it have cost Washington nothing to admit its mistake and redesignate the Houthis as terrorists, but the admission would be in line with America’s own definition and policies against terrorists. (And in case anyone needs reminding, one of the Houthis’ official slogans and policies is, “Death to America”.) But of course, perhaps some in the current administration might prioritize bickering and reversing decisions of former US President Donald Trump to taking stances that are in line with longstanding American policies and values.
Meanwhile, one cannot help but think that observers in Moscow must be laughing at recently announced punitive measures such as barring Russia from competing in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022 or denying St. Petersburg the chance to host a UEFA Champions League final.
Even the more serious measures announced so far such as sanctioning individuals are all likely to be considered acceptable collateral damage when we take into consideration what the Russian government thinks it is fighting for.
Let us not forget that while many countries in the world believe Ukraine has been invaded and disagree with Moscow’s views on the conflict, several observers believe that — deep inside — Russia has always seen Ukraine as part of its historical motherland. There is also the official Russian narrative, which is that the "peace keeping troops" it sent to Ukraine are defending two newly declared independent republics — Luhansk People's Republic (LPR) and Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) — which officially requested Moscow’s help.
Understandably, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinsky has expressed his frustration with his Western allies by saying he has not received the answers he wanted. He feels — and rightly so — that Ukraine has been left alone to fend for itself. Indeed, nobody can blame Kiev for thinking that with friends like these, who needs enemies? ... "
"Since the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine, messages began to appear on social networks about the dismissal of Russians because of their anti-war position. This situation was faced not only by people who took to the streets, rallied or stood with pickets, but also by those who simply signed an open letter or expressed their negative attitude towards what was happening on social networks.
Novaya Gazeta spoke to Russians fired over demands for an end to hostilities in Ukraine.
On February 26, the head of two Moskino cinemas, Katya Dolinina, said on social networks that she was asked to write a letter of resignation of her own free will because of her signature under an open letter from cultural workers demanding an end to hostilities in Ukraine.
“The war in Ukraine is a terrible tragedy for both Ukrainians and Russians. It entails huge human losses, jeopardizes the economy and security, and will lead our country to complete international isolation. At the same time, it is absolutely meaningless - any enforcement of peace through violence is absurd. The pretext under which the deployment of the “special operation” took place was entirely constructed by representatives of the Russian authorities, and we oppose this war being waged on our behalf,” the letter says.
Katya's signature can be found at number 467. In addition to the name, city and position - "cultural manager", the girl did not indicate anything, "Moskino" was not mentioned. “I had no doubts whether to put my signature, I immediately signed it. I understood that hypothetically this could turn into problems, but, to be honest, I rather expected it to be a problem for the institution. Therefore, I did not indicate my place of work there, ”says Dolinina.
However, Katya personally had problems:
a day later, as she says, a senior colleague called her and said that if the signature under the letter really belongs to her, then she is expected at work with a letter of resignation of her own free will.
“I asked what would happen if I didn’t sign it. The colleague replied that then they would look for options on how to fire me "in a bad way", and that this issue was resolved. I asked if there were any other options, she said, I can write an explanation that my name got there by mistake and that in fact I did not sign anything. Of course, I refused this option, ”says the girl.
According to Katya, she is not the last to be fired because of the signature. Through working chats, colleagues were asked not to publish posts on political topics and not to put the flag of Ukraine on avatars in social networks, but many have already spoken out before all the warnings. The colleague allegedly also told her that the Department of Culture, which owns the Moskino cinema chain, “lowered the list”:
“As far as I understand, this document with all the signatures was sent directly to them and, apparently, they were told to get rid of everyone whose signatures are there. I have already heard that this happened not only with our institution, but also with other organizations subordinate to the Department of Culture. I wrote a letter of resignation of my own free will and from today I no longer work.
In the statement itself, Katya, as she says, was not allowed to indicate the real reasons for the dismissal, they said that by taking the whole story into the public space, she "signed her own verdict."
Katya Dolinina believes that the matter is not in a particular cinema, but in the department of culture: “In my opinion, the problem is not with Moskino in this case, but with the order. I will not undertake to judge how they should have dealt with this, and I will not sue them. I decided that this was not the war I wanted to fight, not these people, not this place. I don't want to fight them, I don't think it will make anyone feel better. I think it's more important to keep your inner peace as much as possible, and it's better to tell others about it so that they won't be afraid to be afraid."
Novaya was contacted by another employee of the Department of Culture, who anonymously said that he was asked to write a letter of resignation for refusing to remove the flag of Ukraine from his Facebook profile picture.
Alexei worked for a little less than a year as the chief engineer of the Svetly Ice Arena, which is located in the small village of Kamenka, Rostov Region, right on the border with Ukraine. A man travels 50 km from home to work.
“It’s a long drive to work, so, as usual, on February 24 at 7 o’clock I got ready, turned on the TV, and there was Putin’s appeal about the start of hostilities. I went to work in complete shock, and everyone there was happy. I had such a hard time enduring how they all praise Putin and scold the Ukrainians. I barely worked all this time. That night, the first unofficial information about the dead began to appear, and out of anger I decided to write a post,” Safonov recalls that day.
“What horror and shame we are witnessing. The consequences for the Russians will be catastrophic! Ukrainians fortitude! Glory to heroes!" - this is how the entire post of 47-year-old Alexei Safonov on Instagram looks like. At the time of writing, there are four likes and 19 comments under it, most of which condemn Safonov.
The day after the publication, when Aleksey was at work, a friend, a police officer, called him demanding that the post be deleted.
But Alex refused. According to him, a few minutes after this conversation, Alexander Goncharov, general director of Svetly LLC, burst into the office where he himself and his director are sitting and said that they “do not need” people like Safonov. He allegedly advised the man to write a letter of resignation. Safonov, according to him, refused, packed his things and went home, realizing that he would be fired in any case.
An hour later, police officers arrived at Alexei's house and asked him to follow them to the police department. A protocol was drawn up against the man under part 3 of article 20.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses - dissemination of information that offends human dignity and public morality. The protocol says: “On February 24, 2022, citizen Alexei Safonov, by his actions, showed clear disrespect for the society and state of the Russian Federation.” The trial is set for March 4.
According to Safonov, he does not regret anything and will not refuse his words.
On February 25, the opera The Marriage of Figaro at the Nizhny Novgorod Theater began with a short performance by conductor Ivan Velikanov. He addressed the audience with the words that the musicians are for peace and against war. Then he performed the theme from Beethoven's "Ode to Joy", which the conductor himself called "the music that best expresses the ideas of the world."
Two days later, Velikanov posted a video on his Facebook account explaining this act. The conductor said that the anti-war speech was his initiative, the Nizhny Novgorod Opera House was not in the know, and now he himself should be solely responsible for everything.
Two days later, Ivan Velikanov announced that he had been suspended from conducting the Marriage of Figaro.
“In connection with my small anti-war speech and the performance of the theme from Beethoven's Ode to Joy before the performance on the 25th at the Nizhny Novgorod Opera, I am suspended from conducting Le nozze di Figaro on March 1 in Moscow at the Golden Mask festival. I would like to express my gratitude to those who tried to defend me, and respect to my colleagues who did not agree to replace me. I wish the performance and all its participants, including Fabio Mastrangelo, who will be at the podium tomorrow!” Ivan said."
Every day we tell you about what is happening in Russia and the world. Our journalists are not afraid to get the truth to show it to you.
In a country where the authorities constantly want to ban something, including the ban on telling the truth, there should be publications that continue to engage in real journalism.
Your support will help us, Novaya Gazeta, to continue to be such a publication. Make your contribution to the independence of journalism in Russia right now."
