US should push for a cease-fire --- now.

 

By Reginald Johnson

     Commentary

    There’s some hope for a cease-fire agreement to end the brutal war in Ukraine.

    Ukrainian and Russian negotiators said this week they made progress towards reaching a truce, coming up with a plan that would center in part on a promise of Ukraine being a neutral country, not joining NATO and a withdrawal of Russian forces.

   But still there are some differences and more time is needed to work them out.

   So far, the United States has sat on the sidelines with any negotiations. That needs to stop. The US must get actively involved to create a cease-fire and end the carnage.

 Since the Russian invasion began on Feb. 24, nearly 700 civilians have been killed, according to UN figures. Thousands of soldiers have lost their lives and 3 million Ukrainians have become refugees.

  People who want peace in Ukraine should call the White House at 202-456-1111 and demand that the administration work actively for a cease-fire. Call your members of Congress at 202-224-3121 and tell them the same thing.

 You can also go to the website for the anti-war organization CODEPINK (CODEPINK.org) and sign the letter being sent to the White house and Congress outlining a plan for peace.

  In a plea to the public, CODEPINK organizers wrote: “A ceasefire deal must be reached immediately! Tell Biden and Congress that rather than supplying more weapons which risks nuclear war, the U.S. must participate in vigorous ceasefire negotiations by outlining the agreements and compromises the U.S. is ready and willing to support.”

  The organization said that provisions for a cease-fire should include the following: Russia must withdraw its troops and commit to respecting the sovereignty of Ukraine; the US rejects a no-fly zone over Ukraine; no NATO expansion; recognition of Ukraine as a neutral country; and off-ramp for sanctions on Russia to be lifted.

 

  

 

 

 

FBI probing Bridgeport?

 

 By Reginald Johnson

         

            BRIDGEPORT REPORT

     BRIDGEPORT --- The FBI has investigated this city in the past, with spectacular results.

   Now it's possible federal officials are looking at Bridgeport again.

  The FBI has reportedly issued a subpoena to the city for information concerning the construction of the new ampitheater in the South End, according to Maria Pereira, a member of the Bridgeport City Council.

  Pereira, who represents part of the East Side, said she learned through a reliable source that the federal agency issued the subpoena concerning the ampitheater, which was built in 2020 with $9 million of city money.

  The facility, called The Hartford Health Care Ampitheater, opened last year in July and has hosted a number of concerts.

  A  request for comment was made to the City Attorney’s office, but a secretary said any statement would have to come from the city’s spokesperson, Rowena White.

   White said “I have never heard of that before. But then again, there’s always rumors out in the community.”

  When asked about the subpoena, a Bridgeport FBI spokesman referred this reporter to the agency’s New Haven office. No one from that office has thus far returned a call for comment.

    

The ampitheater in Bridgeport. The FBI may be investigating the construction of this facility.

  The ampitheater --- which is viewed as a key part of the city’s redevelopment efforts --- was built amid some controversy. Developer Howard Saffan initially promised local officials that the city had to invest no more than $7.5 million for the project, which was pegged to cost $15 million in total. But in 2020 Saffan came back to the City Council asking for another $4.5 million --- on top of $4.5 million the city already had put out --- saying that the construction work had run into unforeseen infrastructure problems.

  Some members of the council, including Pereira, objected and questioned the viability of the new facility. Pereira said the ampitheater would in the long run cost the city a lot more money than what was forecast.

  “The amphitheater is not an economic development project,” she said. “It is nothing more than a taxpayer-funded handout to a developer closely aligned with Mayor (Joseph) Ganim who is also a generous donor to Ganim’s political campaigns,” wrote Pereira in an opinion piece in the Connecticut Post.

  But a majority of council members approved the request for additional money with several commenting that the amphitheater would provide a major boost for the downtown area and bring the city additional revenue.

   “The ampitheater will be a big draw and reinvigorate the downtown,” said City Council President Aidee Nieves.

  The amphitheater was constructed on the site of the old Bridgeport Bluefish baseball field. The city decided in 2017 to not renew the lease for the Bluefish and head in a different direction.

 The amphitheater retains the seating from the old stadium.

 Pereira, who has been a vocal critic of the Ganim administration, also claimed last year that the FBI was investigating a $6 million payment made by the city to the University of Bridgeport for property to be used for the new Bassick High School.

 Pereira and other members of the community had claimed that the $6 million payment was illegal because it was never approved by the City Council.

  An FBI official at that time would not confirm or deny an investigation on that matter.

  The Bassick project is now underway, with the demolition of several dorms at UB.

  The City of Bridgeport is no stranger to FBI investigations. Some 22 years ago, federal officials conducted a major investigation of corruption in the city, and wound up indicting a number of officials including Mayor Ganim. Those officials were later convicted and Ganim served seven years in prison.

  Ganim resurrected his political career when he got out and was able to win back the mayoralty in 2015.

  In the late 1970s, the FBI also netted a number of officials for corruption in Bridgeport, during the administration of Mayor John C. Mandanici.

 

     

Why is the US spurning Ukraine peace deals?

 

    By Reginald Johnson

      Commentary 

 

      The question is arising now:  is the United States really interested in ending the war in Ukraine?

   Top US officials such as Secretary of State Anthony Blinken have always said that the US is interested in talks with Russia and arriving at some fair agreement that would end the terrible war.

  But you have to wonder.

 Tuesday night, in an interview with ABC news, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky said in terms of creating a peace deal, he was open to the idea of Ukraine not being part of NATO and that he was also open to talking with Russian President Vladimir Putin about determining the future status of the breakaway republics in the Donbass part of Ukraine.

  The comments represented a possible breakthrough for resolving the dispute between Russia and Ukraine, as the US and Ukraine have always insisted that Ukraine should be part of NATO, which is something that the Russians had vehemently opposed. His comments about the Donbass area also presented a new basis for negotiation.

  However, the Biden administration has said nothing about Zelensky’s proposal.

  Biden officials were also quiet when Putin two weeks ago said that a peace plan could come about if Ukraine agreed to a status of neutrality and not accepting NATO arms.

  The American silence on Zelensky’s comments is disturbing given the horror that is taking place in Ukraine, as Russia continues its invasion. Hundreds if not thousands of civilians have been killed, infrastructure has been destroyed, and more than 1 million refugees have been sent out of the country to escape violence.

  Russia launched its invasion after years of talks with the US and Ukraine concerning the secessionist republics went nowhere and the US kept insisting that Ukraine be allowed to enter NATO, an anti-Russian military alliance that has bases throughout Europe and missile installations in countries close to Russia, such as Poland and Romania.

  Russia made clear that Ukraine being part of NATO was a red line for them, and that they would not tolerate having an enemy military alliance with armies and bases sitting on their long border with Ukraine.

 Continued bloodshed in Eastern Ukraine, where 14,000 thousand ethnic Russians were killed in attacks by Ukrainian forces in violation of the Minsk Accords covering the region, also angered Russia.

The Ukrainian military has received billions of dollars in support from the United States in the past eight years. (Photo from Wikimedia Commons)
 

Russians then launched their attack on Feb 24, claiming that they had to stabilize the region and also prevent an ongoing security threat from NATO.

However, the Russians have been harshly criticized --- and justifiably --- first for launching an invasion which had no legitimate basis under international law.

Russia has also been justifiably criticized for their brutal military tactics, hitting civilian targets, including the shelling of residential areas.

Meanwhile, the US has responded with sweeping economic sanctions against Russia and an embargo against Russian oil.             

Billions more in lethal aid is also being sent to Ukraine.    

There’s no question this invasion has to end, and the fighting must stop. Lives are being lost on a massive scale and all of Europe is being destabilized.

An agreement must be reached between the principal parties --- the US and its ally Ukraine, and Russia.

There has to be compromise on both sides. Russia must withdraw its forces. But in return there must be firm guarantees in writing that Ukraine will not be part of NATO and Ukraine can’t be an arsenal filled with US weapons. There should also be some degree of autonomy granted to Donetsk and Luhansk.

 These are a achievable goals. The Russians I think, would end their operation if they got those key guarantees. Now, the head of Ukraine says he’s willing to talk about those guarantees.

But is the US willing to talk about the guarantees and bring about an agreement?  Do they want the fighting to end?

 You have to be skeptical.

One leading political figure who’s saying the US wants the war to continue is former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.

 Speaking on the Laura Ingraham show on FOX TV Tuesday night, she praised Zelensky for offering a “window of opportunity” to build a peace deal.

 “Really, he’s sending an olive branch,” she said.

Then she asked, “Why isn’t the Biden-Harris administration charging forward to take advantage of and support President Zelensky in this opening he has created in trying to bring about an end to this conflict and bring about an end to the suffering that we are seeing every single day?

 She added, “Nothing that the Biden administration has done has helped to make this situation better, to help de-escalate the situation. Which is why the only conclusion I can draw about why they have been completely silent and not engaging at all on this window of opportunity President Zelensky opened last night is that what is happening before our eyes right now is exactly what they wanted to see continued.

 “Why is that? Because it’s good for the military industrial complex, it makes politicians look tough, and really, it allows them to have this proxy war with Russia, something that Hillary Clinton laid out just recently, what the aims are, this war machine, this power elite in Washington, they want to turn Ukraine into another Afghanistan …… bleed out and kill as many Russians as possible for who knows for how long,” Gabbard said.

  I agree with Gabbard and add that a continuance of the Ukraine war appears to be part of a long range regime change operation directed against Russia. Bleed ‘em dry and take ‘em down.

 Afterwards, a new Boris Yeltsin can be brought in, and western capitalists can have a field day.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian people are caught in the middle, suffering and dying.

Lending credence to the theory that the US is using the Ukraine conflict to trigger regime change in Russia is that the RAND Corporation --- a think-tank which has a long history of influencing American foreign policy --- produced a report for the Pentagon in 2019 called "Overextending and Unbalancing Russia." The study basically assessed ways of bringing Russia down.

  Specifically, the report said Russia could be weakened by having to respond to a greater NATO and US military presence directed at Russia and that "providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia's greatest point of external vulnerability."

  It’s up to peace-loving people everywhere to rise up and say they won’t be party to these deadly schemes. Demand that the US respond favorably to President Zelensky’s offer, forge a real peace agreement and end this disastrous war.