BBC: propaganda for NATO

By Reginald Johnson 

                                                 

                                                         Commentary

   In the past few years, I've watched quite a bit of the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation). Their international news coverage, particularly compared to American channels, is very good.

  I've been impressed, for instance, by BBC reporting on Gaza and Lebanon, where Israel has been waging genocidal military campaigns killing tens of thousands of civilians. The BBC has often had reporters on the ground, describing the destruction after Israeli strikes and talking with Palestinians or Lebanese survivors.

  There is no other news network that is doing this, that I'm aware of. The US networks have done very little reporting of substance on the carnage in Gaza and Lebanon, and in many cases reports are skewed heavily to the Israeli point of view (see FOX and Newsmax).

 BBC has also done a solid job covering the Iran War and the fighting in Yemen.

 But --- but --- the BBC's coverage of another theatre of conflict --- Ukraine --- is a totally different story.

 BBC's reports on the Ukraine-Russia War are hopelessly one-sided, with the Ukrainian point of view or the NATO perspective being presented almost exclusively. This is propaganda.

 After Russian airstrikes on Ukrainian cities, BBC correspondents are frequently there, talking with witnesses and survivors as they should be. Sometimes apartment buildings have been hit and there are fatalities and many people injured. 

  Civilian targets should not be hit in times of war and the BBC is right to show extensive video footage of the destruction and talk with anyone impacted. But there should be some effort to get comment from the Russian side, and there never is.

 Why was a residential building struck? Are the Russians taking responsibility? Was it a mistake? Are they saying there were military targets in the building?  These are questions that should be asked but are not.

 Meanwhile, BBC offers only skimpy reporting when it comes to Ukrainian attacks on Russian targets. 

 The Ukrainian bombing of the Blueberry company warehouses, for instance, was reported, but I saw no eyewitnesses or survivors being interviewed. Nor was there any effort to speak with Russian officials.

  When a Russian tour bus was struck by a Ukrainian drone in June and 8 people killed, BBC did report this, but I saw no effort by the station to get comment from survivors or get a response from Russian officials, even though the strike constitutes a war crime. 

 Presenters on the BBC sometimes show an open bias in favor of Ukraine and against Russia. Recently I heard presenter Lucy Hockings describe Russian drone attacks on Odessa as "Russian terror strikes."

 It's funny, because I never heard any BBC presenter describe Ukrainian drone strikes in Russia as "Ukrainian terror strikes."  If Russians were interviewed, they might well describe the bombings as "terror strikes."

 Another area of coverage where the BBC --- as well as other stations --- show favoritism towards Ukraine concerns the issue of drone missiles landing outside the borders of Ukraine or Russia.

There have been a number of incidents where drones have landed in nearby countries like Poland, Romania, the Baltic countries, Germany or in the Black Sea. Sometimes damage is caused. Officials in those countries, who are NATO members, invariably point the finger at Russia as being the likely culprit without citing much evidence.

 A prime example of this was in August when German officials reported there had been incidents involving drones at Leipzig Airport. 

 German officials said that one explosives-laden drone hit a Ukrainian cargo plane but failed to detonate due to a faulty detonator. Another drone collided with a plane circling the airport after it was closed due to the other incident.

 Within days German intelligence officials said they suspected the Russians were responsible for the drone hits. A few weeks later the German government said an investigation concluded the Russians were definitely responsible, because of what they said were tell-tale markings found on the damaged drones. 

 Officials said the drone attacks were part of a Russian campaign of hybrid warfare and sabotage against Europe.

 The BBC reported extensively on the drone incidents and cited the German finding.  The station did report that the Russians denied responsibility for the attacks, but beyond that did nothing to get the other side. There were no interviews with Russian officials.

In general, whenever the BBC presents an analysis on the progress of the Ukraine war, the station always seeks out supporters of Ukraine such as members of the Ukrainian parliament, NATO officials, pro-war representatives of the US Congress, officials of the pro-war US think tank the Atlantic Council, and others such as former US Ambassador to Ukraine, William Taylor.

 No Russian officials are sought out, nor are members of US peace groups, some of whom have criticized the war. 

Recently BBC has given extensive airtime to critics of President Donald Trump's decision to relax sanctions on Russia and buy Russian diesel fuel. Trump said the purchase will help ease high diesel prices in the US.

 Critics, including Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky and members of Congress, claim the move gives Russian leader Vladimir Putin a lifeline and undermines Ukraine in the war effort. 

Again, I haven't seen the BBC interviewing any Russians or anyone who supports the move.

Last week BBC brought on former deputy head of NATO Robert Sheriff who denounced Trump saying he was "siding with Putin" and implied he was a traitor.

 Overall the BBC's coverage of the Ukraine-Russia War amounts to a giant public relations campaign on behalf of Ukraine and its NATO allies. It is deeply unprofessional and unjournalistic. 

 The coverage, so-called, helps fuel the narrative that Russia is bent on mercilessly crushing Ukraine and represents a danger to the rest of Europe.

  In so doing, it provides the justification for continuing the war and providing more arms for Ukraine.

Heading towards global war?

 

   By Reginald Johnson

            (Editors note:  As this article was being published, President Trump announced that the war on Iran would be over "soon." This is a bizarre statement. Just the day before, his war secretary Pete Hegseth said the war was "just beginning." On Saturday, Trump said ground troops could be sent to Iran. The administration doesn't seem to know what it is doing. If the war ends soon, that will be a good thing. But I'm very skeptical this will actually happen, because nothing that Trump says can be trusted. Remember this is the same president who ordered bombing attacks against Iran in the middle of what were supposed to be good faith negotiations with Iran over that country's nuclear development program. He did this twice, last year, and then again this year.) 

        As the Iran War ratchets up in intensity, there is fear the war could spark a global conflict with disastrous consequences.

       In the nine days since the United States and Israel launched their unprovoked attack on Iran, the war has already spilled over into many other countries in the region, with Iran hitting US bases and other targets in Bahrain, Kuwait, Dubai and Qatar. Israel has moved again into Lebanon, attacking the pro-Iranian group, Hezbollah.

   Missile attacks have also taken place against targets in Turkey and Azerbajan, with Israel blaming Iran. But the Iranians have denied responsibility and claim that Israel conducted "false flag" strikes trying to draw Turkey and Azerbajan into the war.

  In still more developments, Russia reportedly is providing Iran with intelligence on US targets in the region and US President Donald Trump is considering giving arms to the Kurds in Turkey, so they can invade Iran. Trump is also said to be weighing sending US ground troops to fight in Iran.

 Finally, as oil prices skyrocket due to shipping lanes being closed through the Strait of Hormuz, there are concerns about how China will respond to the situation. China gets 60 percent of its oil from Iran, and now that supply may be threatened with the strait closed.

    One of those who's deeply disturbed about the trend of events is Columbia Professor Jeffrey Sachs.

 "We are probably in the early days of World War III," said Sachs, a former UN official and a noted foreign policy critic. "The question is, whether it is contained."

   Speaking on a podcast with Prof. Glenn Diesen, Sachs said he's both concerned about the escalating trend of the war and also the irrational behavior of Trump.

  He described Trump as "mentally unhinged" and a "madman" determined to establish American hegemony around the world, despite the risks.

   Sachs said the world has seen madmen before who were bent on conquest, such as Napoleon and Hitler.

  But, Sachs said, "we've never had a circumstance like this in the nuclear age."

  "I would say the world is in a more dangerous situation than ever before. Period," he said. 

  Despite the gravity of the moment and Trump's reckless policy, Sachs said there are few in Washington, DC willing to call out Trump and demand that the war end before it is too late.

  "We're wondering, where, if any, are the grown-ups in the United States in positions of authority who will speak truthfully about this?" he said in another interview with Danny Haiphong.

    "I don't see almost any. There are a few voices in Congress, (Senator) Rand Paul is one of them, Congressman (Thomas) Massie is another...but there are very few others and this is what is alarming," Sachs said.

  Two other military/foreign policy experts, Ret. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson and former CIA analyst Larry Johnson said in interviews recently that due to economic pressures relating to the price of oil, and Israel's losses in the war, the Iran conflict would probably not last long. Both said that contrary to the glowing reports in the US media about US progress in the war, Israel was being hit hard by Iranian missiles and US bases have been badly damaged, too.

 Another concern for Israel is they are running out of interceptors to block incoming missiles.

Speaking on a podcast with Danny Haiphong, Wilkerson said his biggest worry is that Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu might resort to using a nuclear weapon if Israel is losing badly.

  "I have no doubt he'll use one," Wilkerson said. "That's really the problem."

'This could go nuclear'

 

     By Reginald Johnson

         Although there's still hope for a diplomatic solution to settle the dispute between the United States and Iran, chances remain high that the US and Israel will attack the Middle Eastern country.

    And should war break out with Iran, a global conflict involving the major powers could be triggered, and the possibility that nuclear weapons will be used is not out of the question.

   That's the view of one the most prominent US foreign policy critics, Prof. Jeffrey Sachs.

    Speaking on the Danny Haiphong podcast recently, Sachs said:  "No war is inevitable, but this war is likely. It's championed by Israel, and Israel is running American foreign policy in the Middle East."

   Sachs added that US President Donald Trump is a "puppet" of Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, who, he said, "has wanted a US attack on Iran for 30 years." 

  The former advisor to the UN Secretary-General and now teacher at Columbia made his remarks as tensions build between Washington and Tehran, with Trump demanding that Iran end its nuclear development program and threatening to use military force against Iran if it refuses to do so. Talks are ongoing between the two nations, but there's skepticism about whether the negotiations are going anywhere.

Sachs said the situation vis a vis Iran is "fraught with danger."

Unlike other countries like Venezuela, Syria or Somalia that US has been able to attack with little or no  pushback, Iran would be a much more formidable opponent. Iran is a much larger country with a strong ballistic missile system; it has a nuclear energy program which could be retooled to build a nuclear bomb, if leaders chose to do that; and it has major powers for allies, in Russia and China, both nuclear-armed.

  "Iran is not isolated in this and their friends are many, and some are nuclear-armed. This is just the kind of thing that can absolutely lead to a disastrous cycle of escalation." Sachs said.

  "This could go nuclear," he said. 

Sachs said it was critical at this point for the leaders of other large countries that have a stake in the Middle East, such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia and China, to get involved and "explain to Mr. Trump, 'Don't do this.' "

  " And whether that is enough remains to be seen," he said. 

  

  

Trump reneges on promise, ups the ante in Ukraine

   Reginald Johnson

 In a policy change that potentially has grave implications for the world, Donald Trump has reversed course on Ukraine.

The Financial Times is reporting that sources familiar with a phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky last month indicated that Trump is now in favor of sending long-range offensive missiles to Ukraine and encouraged the Ukrainian leader to use them to hit targets deep inside Russia.

In an interview with the BBC, the author of the Financial Times report, Christopher Miller, recounted the conversation as he heard it from the sources.

 Trump asked Zelensky that if the US provided long-range missiles to Ukraine, “Can you hit Moscow? Can you hit St. Petersburg, too?”

Zelensky replied, “Absolutely. We can if you give us the weapons.”

Trump said he supported the idea of sending the missiles so “Russia can feel the pain for its invasion” and also push them to the negotiating table.

 Trump’s comments backing the idea of sending long-range missiles to Ukraine to strike deep inside Russia represent a 360 degree shift in policy from what Trump had been saying throughout the 2024 presidential campaign and early in his administration this year following his reelection.

 Previously he said repeatedly that he wanted to settle the Ukraine war quickly and he had not indicated any willingness to send more lethal weaponry to Ukraine to perpetuate the conflict. Trump had criticized former President Joseph Biden for supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia and said the conflict never would’ve happened if he had been president.

Early this year after his inauguration, Trump promised to work out a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin on a peace deal. There have been several efforts to bring that about but there’s been no resolution. Trump had also refused to sign off on new weapons shipments being sent to Ukraine.

 But in recent weeks Trump has been vocally criticizing Putin saying that the Russian leader was not willing to settle on a peace agreement and had undermined the peace process by approving missile and drone strikes against Ukraine, including against the capital, Kiev.

On Monday, Trump had a long press conference at the White House sitting with the NATO general secretary in which he stated again that he was upset with Putin and was now prepared to send defensive Patriot missiles to Ukraine to protect that country against incoming Russian missile and drone attacks. He also announced that he would impose steep tariffs on Russia.

But he did not indicate during a press conference that he was prepared to send long-range missiles to Ukraine. Now the Financial Times report indicates that the president has adopted a position of being aggressive in the Ukraine war similar to the policy the Biden administration had taken, a policy which Trump and many conservative media voices had criticized. 

The shift by Trump is deeply troubling and his willingness to now send offensive weaponry to Ukraine puts the entire world at risk in the same way that Biden’s policy put the world at risk. The flip-flop by Trump exposes him (again) as an extremely dishonest person who apparently was simply playing politics during the 2024 campaign, trying to tap into antiwar sentiment among many voters.

 To the delight of many of his supporters during the campaign, Trump bragged about how he could settle the Ukraine war in short order, at one point saying that he could settle it with a phone call “in a half hour.” At no point during the campaign did he ever indicate that he would be willing to change his position and send more lethal weaponry to Ukraine to perpetuate the war.

Trump’s new and dangerous policy on Ukraine must be criticized widely by people on both the left and the right. It’s time for Democrats, in particular, to stop hemming and hawing about the Ukraine war and demand that it end. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps over a million people, have died. For what?

Trump’s remarks about “hitting Moscow” are provocative and undermine chances for peace.

  Those comments and a move to send more long-range missiles to Ukraine will be seen as an escalation of the war by Putin and Russian leaders.

  Donald Trump has just made the world a lot less safe.

To avert nuclear war, stop sending missiles to Ukraine!

  By Reginald Johnson

                                     Commentary

  URGENT: The situation in Ukraine is quite serious. We all need to take notice and if possible, to take action.

 In recent weeks the war between Ukraine and Russia entered a new and highly-dangerous phase after Ukraine fired US-made ATACMS missiles into Russia and were given assistance in the launch by American personnel.  This attack was made after President Biden, reversing a previous position, gave the greenlight. Russia responded by firing back with a new and more deadly missile at Ukraine.

 At the same time, Russia changed its nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold under which they would make a nuclear response to a missile attack. According to experts like Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector and intelligence official, the ATACMS missiles used by Ukraine MEET THE STANDARD FOR A NUCLEAR RESPONSE under Russia’s new doctrine. This is frightening. Should Ukraine fire these missiles again at Russia, who knows what will happen?

 Many people think that Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, would never go so far as to retaliate with a nuclear weapon. But who can be sure? The fact is, according to Ritter and others, we are closer to a nuclear conflict then we have ever been and that includes the very dangerous Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. We really need to let our voices be heard and say that as clearly as possible we don’t want nuclear war, which would result in the end of life on earth.

  Ritter and others like peace activist Medea Benjamin of Code Pink are making a good suggestion --- that we call our elected representatives in Congress and demand that they pressure President Biden to reverse his decision on allowing the use of ATACMS missiles. At the same time, they ask that we tell our Congress Member to support House Bill 10218, which prohibits the administration from shipping any more ATACMS to Ukraine.

  We need to flood Congress with calls. It can make a difference. The Congressional switchboard is 202-224-3121. Call that number and ask for your congress person and they will switch you in. You can connect with your senators through the same number. While you’re at it, call the White House at 202-456-1111 and say you don’t want nuclear war and the President needs to pursue peace and stop sending missiles.

 Thank you!

 

US preparing for nuclear war, expert warns

 

     

     By Reginald Johnson

   

    

    As the war between Russia and Ukraine grows more intense, a former UN weapons inspector and intelligence analyst is warning that military officials in the United States are now actively preparing for a nuclear war with Russia.

 Scott Ritter, a former Iraq weapons inspector and intelligence official with the US Marines, claimed that as one option the United States is considering actually starting a nuclear war with Russia by firing a preemptive strike to knock out all of Russia’s nuclear weaponry and emerge victorious, despite maintaining massive human losses.

 “It is high time for everyone from every walk of life to understand the path we are currently on,” said Ritter. “Left unchecked, events are propelling us down a highway to hell that leads to only one destination – a nuclear Armageddon that everyone agrees can’t be won, and yet the United States is at this very moment preparing to ‘win.’ “

 Ritter added, “a nuclear exchange with Russia, even if the United States were able to execute a surprise preemptive nuclear strike, would result in the destruction of dozens of American cities and more than 100 million Americans.

  “And this is if we ‘win,’ ” he said. “And we know that we can’t ‘win’ a nuclear war. And yet we are actively preparing to fight one,” he said.

  Ritter added, “This insanity must stop. Now.”

 Ritter made his comments in his Substack column “On the Brink” posted November 24.

   The former weapons inspector spoke out as the Ukraine war has taken a dangerous turn after President Biden gave approval to Ukraine to fire US-made long-range ballistic missiles at Russia. The green light reversed a previous decision by Biden in September not to allow Ukraine to use the missiles, out of concern that such attacks would lead to a confrontation with Russia, which has the largest nuclear stockpile in the world.

  With the approval granted, Ukraine on November 19 fired six US “ATACMS”  missiles at Russia, near the city of Bryansk. On November 20, Ukraine launched up to a dozen British-made Storm Shadow cruise missiles against a Russian command post in the Kursk province. Russia responded on November 21, firing a new intermediate range missile called the “Oreshnik” against Ukraine, destroying a major arms factory in Dnipropetrovsk. The facility was used by Ukraine and NATO to produce short and intermediate range missiles.

Ukraine has been fighting Russia almost three years. Now there are worries the conflict could go nuclear. (Wikimedia photo)

 Meanwhile, Russian leader Vladimir Putin announced that his country has changed its nuclear use doctrine, lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons.

  The ATACMS and Storm Shadow missile attacks met the threshold for a nuclear response by Russia, Ritter said.

 “Russia has decided not to invoke its nuclear doctrine at this juncture,” said Ritter, “opting instead to eject the operational use of the Oreshnik missile as an intermediate non-nuclear deterrence measure.”

  But the question is, how long will the Russians hold off on going nuclear – if Ukrainian attacks continue?

 It’s clear the risk of a nuclear war starting is the greatest since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when the United States and Russia came extremely close to going to war over the placement of Russian missiles on Cuban soil.

 Ritter is a widely respected analyst and commentator on foreign-policy and military issues. He gained fame in 2003 when he called out the Bush administration’s bogus claims that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. The administration used the WMD claim to launch an invasion of Iraq, triggering a seven-years-long war, which took 1 million lives.

  Investigations after the war began confirmed what Ritter had said – there were no WMD.

 Despite the severity of the crisis in Eastern Europe – with the possibility that a nuclear war could take place – American media, including progressive media, don’t appear to be overly concerned. Most of the press attention in recent weeks has been focused on the wars in Gaza and Lebanon or Donald Trump’s cabinet picks and most recently the decision by President Biden to pardon his son Hunter. There have been few segments on TV concerning the Ukraine War and the imminent danger of a nuclear confrontation between the US and Russia.

  A few commentators in the conservative media have been sounding the alarm about a possible nuclear war. One of them is Rob Finnerty of Newsmax, who has spent several recent shows talking about the dangerous situation in Ukraine.

  “Russia has more nuclear weapons than any other country on the planet and now Ukraine is firing missiles deep into Russia, and those missiles were made in the United States,” he said.

 “Those are just the facts.  The United States is no longer in a proxy war with Russia. We are at war with Russia,” he said.

  Finnerty criticized Biden for green-lighting the Ukrainian missile attacks, which he said undermine President-elect Donald Trump’s plans for ending the Ukraine war. Trump takes office on January 20.

 “We are a lot closer to World War III then we were yesterday,” Finnerty said.

 

   (A panel discussion about the danger of a nuclear war starting in Ukraine will take place this Saturday in Washington, D.C. The event, called “No Nuclear War --- A Call to Reason” will take place at the National Press Club and run from 4 to 7 pm.  Moderated by Ritter, panel participants include Lawrence Wilkerson, Max Blumenthal, Garland Nixon, Dan Kovalik and Margaret Kimberley.  To reserve a seat, go to www.nonuclearwar.com)

Almost the unthinkable

  

    By Reginald Johnson

   A nuclear catastrophe was narrowly avoided in the Ukraine-Russia War last weekend.

  According to former intelligence officer and arms control expert Scott Ritter. Ukraine had been pressing Washington for permission to use long-range ballistic missiles to hit targets deep within Russia and it appeared that the US was about to greenlight this request. But President Biden backed off at the last minute after a stern warning from Russian President Vladimir Putin that the use of the missiles would be crossing the Rubicon.

 Putin had said that such strikes would be regarded as an attack by NATO against Russia and all bets would be off in terms of how Russia would respond. Ritter says that Ukraine, led by crazed leader Volodomyr Zelensky, was all set to use the missiles. Thank god Biden saw the light.  Otherwise, according to Ritter, none of us would be reading these words today. 

It is vital that negotiations bring this highly volatile conflict between Ukraine and Russia to an end as soon as possible, for the sake of humanity.

(Ritter's piece, "72 Hours" can be read at https://consortiumnews.com/category/u-n-security-council/)

Senator Blumenthal wrong on Ukraine

 

                        

 By Reginald Johnson

       (The Connecticut Post published the following op-ed on Sept 25 which countered a number of false claims made by Senator Richard Blumenthal in an article he wrote justifying continued aid for the war in Ukraine,) 

 

   I have to take issue with a number of comments made by US Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn in his recent op-ed in the Connecticut Post entitled “Zelenskyy doesn’t want or need our troops. But he deeply and desperately needs the tools to win.”

  Blumenthal justifies the United States continuing to send billions of dollars to help Ukraine in its war with Russia by making the sweeping claim that if Russia is allowed to defeat Ukraine, Russian leader Vladimir Putin will be emboldened to invade other countries and then take over Europe.

  “If Putin wins in Ukraine, he’ll roll forward against other nations --- NATO allies that we have a treaty obligation to defend with troops on the ground. Ukraine is at the tip of the spear fighting our fight for independence and freedom,” Blumenthal wrote.

  But the view that Russia is on a march of aggression is based on the idea that Russia invaded Ukraine without any provocation and if given a chance, Putin will do the same thing against other countries.

 The fact is that the United States together with its NATO allies did provoke Russia into this invasion. There were two key provocations.

 First, the United States instigated a coup in 2014 against the constitutionally-elected and pro-Russian government in Ukraine led by Viktor Yanukovych. The new regime adopted a belligerent anti-Russian attitude and demanded that all people in Ukraine, including people in the heavily ethnic Russian area in the East, speak the Ukrainian language. A rebellion erupted in the East and the government, using United States military aid, waged a bloody campaign against residents of the area known as Donbas, which is on the Russian border.

 Second, the United States reneged on its promise made to Russian leaders back in the early 1990s that NATO would not be enlarged by granting membership to Eastern European countries which had been part of the old Soviet bloc. The Russians warned that they saw expansion of NATO as a security threat, with their nation becoming encircled.

 Despite Russian objections, the West went ahead and added all the Soviet bloc nations into NATO, except for Ukraine. Russian officials and others urged that at least Ukraine should stay neutral, in order to avoid war. Nonetheless, US and Ukrainian leaders pushed the idea of adding Ukraine to NATO, further heightening tensions with Russia.

  Putin said at the time of the invasion that the expansion of NATO was the reason for Russia’s decision to invade.

Sen. Blumenthal also makes the strange comment in his article that America was helping Ukraine protect “freedom.” But the present Ukrainian government has shut down opposition newspapers, closed Russian orthodox churches and locked up political dissenters. These actions do not comport with a free society.

 Finally, Sen. Blumenthal makes the outrageous statement that Americans “should be satisfied that we’re getting our money’s worth on our Ukraine investment” because we’ve spent “less than 3 percent” of our military budget in helping Ukraine to “degrade” Russia’s military.

  Actually, the roughly 3 percent figure comes to a very substantial amount. The US has given upwards of $140 billion in aid to Ukraine, much of it being military hardware.  That money could have been better spent on funding human needs here at home --- like building affordable housing, improving health care and revitalizing underfunded local public school systems, such as the one in Bridgeport.

 Instead of continuing to support a highly destructive and deadly war in Ukraine (hundreds of thousands of people have died) Senator Blumenthal should get behind peace efforts to bring this terrible conflict to a close.

 

(Reginald Johnson is a free-lance writer in Bridgeport)

 

 

 

 

JFK's call for peace should be heeded today

    

By Reginald Johnson

        Commentary  

    It's been 60 years since President John F. Kennedy gave the commencement address at American University in Washington, D.C., calling for peaceful coexistence with Russia. The address has been called one of the most important speeches in US history. Here's a brief excerpt:

"What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children --- not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women --- not merely peace in our time but peace for all time."

We can learn from Kennedy's words today. As tensions surrounding the war between Ukraine and Russia mount, it is critical that we find every possible way to bring about a peaceful resolution to this conflict, to avoid the unthinkable. The possibility of nuclear war between the US, which backs Ukraine, and Russia, is not out of the question. As Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia says in an interview about Kennedy's speech and its relevance today, the people who dismiss the possibility of a nuclear war "don't understand the world we live in." Sachs also said that US policies have been "shockingly dangerous" and led to "shocking devastation in Ukraine." Below is the interview with Prof. Sachs:

YOUTUBE.COM

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs on how we can make peace with Russia by learning from JFK's example

Watch the full video here: https://youtube.com/live/wRTx6wq

Was Tucker Carlson fired over Ukraine?

  By Reginald Johnson

   Commentary

 

   There’s been a lot of opinions offered about what triggered the firing last month of top-rated cable TV host Tucker Carlson by FOX.

  Many speculated that the Murdoch family that owns FOX were angry over a number of things, including comments Carlson made about possible election fraud in the 2020 election, the sexual discrimination complaint against Carlson, and the talk show host’s controversial show questioning the official narrative concerning the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot.

 But few people have brought up the possibility that Carlson’s criticism of US involvement in Ukraine --- and specifically an editorial Carlson gave during his last broadcast on April 21 accusing the US of running bio warfare labs in Ukraine might have been his undoing.

  One person who has raised this, ironically, is an anchor with a Murdoch-owned operation in Australia, Sky News Australia.

  Andrew Bolt of Sky News said it was his “suspicion” that Rupert Murdoch’s son Lachlan Murdoch --- who he claimed fired Carlson --- was furious over Carlson’s claim that the United States was maintaining bio-labs “in a primitive country like Ukraine as well as sensitive nuclear technology.”

   Bolt commented “many of his viewers would’ve taken that to imply that the US is helping Ukraine with biological, secret biological, weapons research, even nuclear weapons.” Bolt said “that is crap, but it’s dangerous crap.”

  Bolt noted that Lachlan Murdoch had previously visited Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and had what he termed “warm conversations and that Murdoch had donated to a fund for journalists.”

  It also should be noted that Lachlan’s father Rupert also had visited visited with Zelensky and apparently was on good terms with the Ukrainian president.

  So it is quite possible that Zelensky put pressure on the Murdochs to do something about Tucker Carlson since Carlson was the only mainstream news commentator who has, since the beginning of the Ukrainian conflict with Russia, criticized the US support for the war.  He maintained that aid to Ukraine was not in America’s strategic interest and warned that continued aid might lead to a direct confrontation with Russia.

  Since he left FOX, Carlson has not spoken about the reasons for his firing. He is still under contract with FOX and the contractual terms likely prohibit him from making any comments.

 It is interesting to note that while many of Carlson’s shows are still available on the FOX News website the commentary Carlson gave on April 21 concerning the bio labs is gone. I have searched everywhere for it, including on You Tube, and I can't find it.

  It is also a troubling fact that the Murdochs apparently have this friendly relationship with the leader of a country that the United States is so deeply involved in, a nation which is at war with a nuclear armed power. That kind of cozy relationship certainly has to send a message to everybody in the FOX News organization that they better not be critical of Ukraine or the US aid for the war effort.

  We won’t know the real reasons for Carlson’s dismissal until the former talk show host is willing to go public and speak about it. It’s possible that could happen sooner rather than later because there are some rumors now that Carlson is talking about breaking his contract with FOX and starting some sort of independent media operation with mega-billionaire Elon Musk.

  One other interesting point is that since Carlson left any questioning of US support for Ukraine has been dropped at FOX.

   Like the other cable channels and news outlets, including newspapers like the New York Times, FOX reports the Ukraine War in a one-sided manner. Ukraine is portrayed as an innocent party in the war against Russia, a small country attacked by a brutal aggressor without any provocation. US aid is seen as vital and a “moral imperative.”

  But the media narrative leaves out the long lead-up to the war and the many provocations against Russia, including the US-instigated right-wing coup in Ukraine in 2014, leading to the establishment of a virulently anti-Russian regime in Kiev whose leaders included a number of neo-Nazis; the construction of many NATO bases in recent years close to Russia in Romania and Poland; the willful breaking of the Minsk peace agreement by the Ukrainian government, with the silent backing of the United States; the delivery of tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine by the US; and the massing of Ukrainian Army troops in eastern Ukraine just prior to the Russian invasion in February of last year.

 

US closer to full-out war with Russia

By Reginald Johnson 

 

  Are we moving closer to a hot war with Russia?

  It certainly looks that way.

   Contradicting previous statements by the Biden administration, new information shows the US now has a small number of combat troops on the ground in Ukraine, and some are reportedly deployed with Ukrainian forces fighting Russia in the eastern part of the country.

 The recent leak of classified Pentagon documents by Air National Guardsman Jack Teixiera disclosed that 14 US Special Forces troops are in Ukraine, along with more than 80 special forces troops from other NATO countries, including the UK and France, according to a report in the BBC.

  Information in the leaked documents didn’t say where the troops are deployed or how they’re being used, according to the story. Pentagon spokesman  Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder confirmed last November that the US had a small contingent of military personnel in Ukraine connected with the US embassy, but they were there only to inspect deliveries of weapons to Ukraine and would not be involved in combat. 

 However, Special Forces are elite fighting units in the Army and are not generally connected with embassies or used for inspections.

  Also, Democratic Party presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr said on the Tucker Carlson show last week on FOX that his son had been deployed to Ukraine as a Special Forces “machine gunner” and fought alongside Ukrainian forces against the Russian army during “the Kharkiv campaign.”

 The leaked documents also showed the administration has been lying about progress by Ukraine in the war, with statements by officials like Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austen that Ukraine was doing well, with Russian military strength “waning.”.

For the past year, US officials have painted a rosy picture of how well Ukrainian forces are doing in the war with Russia. But the recent leak of Pentagon documents tells a different story.

   To the contrary, the documents reveal that Ukraine is suffering a high casualty rate, with seven Ukrainians dying for every one Russian. Also the information shows that Ukraine’s air defense system is nearly destroyed.

  In the wake of the new information, some Republicans in Congress are pressing the administration to make clear exactly what US forces are doing in Ukraine.

  “We’ve been engaged over there for a year and we’ve been hearing ‘transparency’ and ‘we will not let troops on the ground.’  Sadly, we now get information like this,” said Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana on the Tucker Carlson show on FOX April 20^th.

  “A few days ago we filed a letter (to the administration), tell us, who authorized this, how many are actually there, and what are they doing?” said Braun.

  It could not be learned how many other members of Congress had signed onto the letter and who they were.

  Braun commented to Carlson that “This is eerily familiar to what we should have learned decades ago in Vietnam. Mission creep comes into play. Afghanistan, Iraq --- it looks like it’s reeling all over again. The big difference is, this is where two world wars started.  Much different setting, much different context. We’re going to be sure to get to the bottom of this.”

 On his April 13^th show, Carlson said the leaked information “in fact shows that this is not Ukraine’s war. It is our war. The US is a direct combatant in the new war against Russia. As we speak American soldiers are fighting Russian soldiers. So this is not a regional conflict in Eastern Europe. This is a hot war between the two primary nuclear superpowers on earth. And yet this war has never been formally declared – it has not been authorized by Congress.

 “That means this war is a violation of American law. It is a crime,” he said.

Carlson and another guest on his show, investigative writer Glenn Greenwald decried the media’s performance in covering the Pentagon leak. Both charged that the press showed more interest in helping the government catch the person responsible for the leak and punish him, rather than reporting on the contents of the leak and their significance.

 Teixeira should be “celebrated” for the public service he performed, rather than demonized, Greenwald said.

"Christmas Truce" in Ukraine?

 

     By Reginald Johnson

       Commentary

 

    For two wonderful days in December, 1914 during World War I, the guns fell silent and tired soldiers on both sides of the conflict crawled out of their trenches to shake hands with combatants on the other side and celebrate Christmas.

  English, French, and  German soldiers came together in a spontaneous moment to eat dinner, sing Christmas carols and even play soccer.

  The informal cease-fire was dubbed “The Christmas Truce.”

 Though the truce didn’t last long ---  the war resumed and dragged on for another four years --- the Christmas Truce is long remembered as a special moment in history, when the killing stopped and there was a glimmer of hope that a brutal conflict could somehow be brought to an end.

  Now, peace advocates are urging that a “Christmas Truce” be called in the Ukraine War, also a brutal conflict that has left 200,000 Ukrainian and Russian soldiers killed or injured in just nine months.

“The Christmas Truce of 1914 was a symbol of hope and courage, when the people of warring countries organized an armistice on their own authority and joined in a spontaneous act of reconciliation and fraternization,” said a statement by CODE Pink, an anti-war organization.

  “In this same spirit, we ask you to join us in urging President Biden, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and congressional representatives to support the International Peace Bureau’s call for a Christmas Truce in Ukraine,” the statement said. 

“A truce --- a moment of holiday peace --- could pave the way for negotiations to reach a lasting security agreement to end the bloodshed once and for all.”

  A petition has been set up on the CODE Pink website for people to sign and indicate their support. https://www.codepink.org/christmas_truce_in_ukraine_gen

   The peace group and other organizations such as the Fellowship of Reconciliation have also been urging leaders of the faith community and social justice movements to support the campaign.  Dr. Cornel West and the Rev. Jesse Jackson have gotten behind the effort.

 The Ukraine War began in February when Russia invaded Ukraine in what Russia called a “Special Military Operation.”  US and Ukrainian officials called the invasion an act of naked aggression --- completely unjustified and illegal under international law.  Russian officials maintained, however, they acted after a series of provocations by Ukraine and the US-led military alliance, NATO, which has bases in many countries close to Russia.

  The US has supplied over $100 billion in military aid to help Ukraine to fight the war.

 Negotiations to end the war have stalled, with Biden administration officials indicating little interest in peace talks. A tentative plan to end the war last April --- agreed to by Russia and Ukraine --- fell apart after the US rejected the deal.

  The possibility the war could turn nuclear arose after Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky suggested preemptive strikes against Russia to prevent the Russians from using nuclear weapons. Russian officials said they interpreted Zelensky's remarks as suggesting that NATO should launch a nuclear first strike against Russia.

. Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country would not fire a nuclear first strike at Ukraine, but said Russia would use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack.

 Noam Chomsky,  the world renown intellectual and long-time foreign policy critic, warned recently that there could be dire consequences for the human race if the war is not brought to a close in the near future.

  Chomsky foresees possible catastrophe in two ways --- first by the possibility of a nuclear war starting in Ukraine; and second, by the environmental consequences of more widespread use of highly-polluting liquid natural gas, as the flow of Russian gas has been stopped. He said the world only has limited time to shut down high-carbon fossil fuel usage and control global warming, and the wider use now of dirty fuel will hasten the arrival of a total climate collapse.

  “Every possible path to a diplomatic settlement should be pursued,” Chomsky told an audience at The Peoples Forum. “There is no time for delay.”

  The International Peace Bureau is calling for a ceasefire in Ukraine for Christmas 2022/2023 from Dec. 25^th to January 7^th  “as a sign of our shared humanity, reconciliation and peace.”  https://www.ipb.org/ipb-christmas-peace-appeal/

To ask for a Christmas Truce in Ukraine, call the White House at 202-456-1111 and your members of Congress, at 202-224-3121.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

'A state beyond insanity'

      

    By Reginald Johnson

     World renown intellectual and social critic Noam Chomsky is warning of catastrophe if the Ukraine War continues.

  The MIT professor emeritus of linguistics and longtime anti-war activist told an audience at the Peoples Forum in New York City recently that the war creates the potential for disaster in two ways – first by triggering a sharp increase in the use of highly polluting fossil fuels at a time when the world has only limited time left to avoid a climate collapse, and second, by creating the real possibility of nuclear war between the United States and Russia.

 “The longer the war continues the greater will be the toll, reaching very fast perhaps, to the end of organized human life, speak of the vast number of species we are wantonly destroying,” Chomsky said.

 “And that of course is assuming we can ward off the option of destroying ourselves more expeditiously with nuclear war, a possibility that is casually being discussed, as if it were an option – it’s an indescribable descent to a state beyond insanity.”

  “Sorry if these remarks seem hyperbolic. They are not,” Chomsky said. “All of this tells us that every possible path to a diplomatic settlement should be pursued in accord with the wishes of almost the entire world, including the core of Europe… There is no time for delay,” he said.

  Chomsky delivered his sobering message during a panel discussion entitled “The Real Path to Peace in Ukraine.” The event, co-sponsored by the ANSWER Coalition, was designed to discuss ways to develop a wider protest movement aimed at stopping the war.

  Among those joining Chomsky was peace activist Medea Benjamin of Code Pink; Dr. Jill Stein, former Green Party presidential candidate and historian and commentator Vijay Prashad.

  The discussion took place as the Ukraine-Russia war is now in its ninth month and shows little signs of letting up. Approximately 100,000 casualties have been reported and there’s been widespread damage to Ukraine’s infrastructure. Leaders of both Ukraine and Russia have said the use of nuclear weapons is not out of the question.

 Meanwhile, the Biden administration has shown no interest in promoting peace talks to end the conflict; in fact, a tentative deal to end the war last April was rejected by the White House.

 Administration officials as well as leaders in both political parties in Congress maintain that continued aid is needed to help Ukraine win back its freedom, resist “Russian aggression” and stop a claimed “threat” posed to the rest of Europe.

  Critics charge however, that the real goal of the United States in funding the war is a geopolitical one: weaken Russia and eventually spark regime change in that country; Ukraine is simply being used in that process.

  So far the United States has given nearly $100 billion --- much of it lethal military hardware --- to help Ukraine fight Russia.

                                                          

The Ukrainian military has gotten billions of dollars in aid from the US to fight Russia.

  “We’re saying ‘no’ to this proxy war, we’re saying ‘no’ to the US government policy of bleeding Russia through the lives of countless Ukrainians,” said Manolo De Los Santos, co-director of the People’s Forum, in introductory remarks.  “We are not going to wait for nuclear war.  We are not going to wait for global famine. We are not going to wait for a further energy crisis…We will not allow them to sacrifice either  Ukrainian or Russian people or better yet we will not allow them to sacrifice the planet for their new war of greed.”

  Benjamin said it will take a broad-based grassroots movement to force a change in US policy on the war, which is supported even by so-called “progressive Democrats” in Congress.

  “It’s important to gather up our forces and to extend them to get the people in the environmental movement to recognize that this war has only led to production of more dirty energy, giving a green light to the oil and gas and coal and nuclear weapons and power producers,” Benjamin said, adding, “we have to get the environmental movement to work with us to say that this war and all wars are so destructive of the environment and they have to stand with us for peace.”

  The Code Pink founder continued, “We also call on the faith-based movement to say war is immoral, all wars are immoral and they need to come with us and call for a ‘Christmas Truce’ like the one that happened during World War I… We are calling on faith-based leaders around the country to join the Pope, who has said we must get all sides to the table.”

Noam Chomsky

     In her remarks, Stein said the war represented “end-stage capitalism” in which only the elites are benefitting from war --- through arms sales and oil profits – while the vast majority of people around the country and the world are seeing a decline in their quality of life.

  “The chickens have come home to roost back here in the seat of the Empire,” she said. “The chickens have come home to roost in the struggles of the poor and the working poor who are growing by the millions in the US and around the world. Hundreds have joined the ranks of the billionaire class while hundreds of millions have joined the ranks of poverty.

  “So the system just doesn’t last,” Stein said. “And we’re all in the crossfire – not just the people of Ukraine who are being set up to the last person, man, woman and child --- their lives are being expended --- we are all part of this vast exercise of unaccountable and abusive power on the part of economic elites. We are saying no more. The buck stops,” she said.

  The 2016 presidential candidate said there is a disconnect between how members of Congress see the nation’s priorities and how regular people see them. She said that Gallup polls indicate that economic priorities --- such as inflation and cost-of-living issues relating to housing and healthcare are at the top of the list of concerns cited by working people.

  Stein said “70,000 people in the United States are dying for lack of health insurance every year and housing is an acute crisis with 11 million people facing eviction.” But Congress is not targeting funding to deal with these problems.

“If you look at Congress it’s very clear and explicit that it’s funding for a new generation of nuclear weapons and more tanks for Ukraine and armaments that is their number one priority,” she said.

  Santos said about the panel discussion, “This is not “a one-off event. This the beginning of a movement to fully challenge NATO and US imperialism.”

  A series of actions and anti-war protests are planned for January, he said.