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.

Nuclear Brink?

   By Reginald Johnson

 

                  Commentary

 

 

                  The eastern world, it is explodin’

                  Violence flarin’ bullets loadin’

                   You’re old enough to kill, but not for votin’

                  You don’t believe in war, but what’s that gun you’re totin?

                  And even the Jordan River has bodies floatin’

                  But you tell me, over and over again and over again, my friend

                 Ah, you don’t believe

                  We’re on the eve of destruction.’

                      (Barry McGuire, The Eve of Destruction, 1965)

 

   The spirit of this song, sadly, is so apt today.

  We’ve reached a very dangerous point in the war in Ukraine, where there’s a real chance of a direct confrontation between Russia and US-NATO forces. And if such a confrontation takes place, nuclear weapons will likely be used.

 Humanity cannot survive a nuclear war.

 Russian President Vladimir Putin has said not once, but twice recently that if Russia feels its territory is threatened by NATO, then they may resort to using nuclear weapons. In the beginning, that might mean using only short-range tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

  But how will the West respond to that? NATO may in turn fire tactical nukes at Russian forces.

  Can the field of combat be limited to tactical weapons? It's doubtful. Russia might well say at a certain point --- particularly since it has a larger arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons than NATO --- that it was time to go all the way and win what they perceive as an existential conflict with the West by firing long-range nuclear missiles at the US and NATO countries. Then, all bets are off and it's full-out nuclear war.

  Whole cities would be leveled during nuclear strikes and tens of millions of people would be instantly killed. Just multiply the devastation of Nagasaki and Hiroshima by 50 times. Those who were able to survive in rural areas would eventually die of radiation poisoning and cancer.

Armageddon.

Tens of millions of people will die instantly in a nuclear attack.

 Now I know, many people are likely to reject this dark, apocalyptic scenario and say,  ‘Come on, it’ll never get to that point. They’ll stop it.’

 But will they?

 The Biden administration has been resisting getting behind negotiations between Ukraine and Russia to bring an end to this war right from the start. In April, Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France agreed on a framework for a tentative peace agreement and it was rebuffed by Washington. US officials, using former UK leader Boris Johnson as their intermediary in talks with Ukraine’s president Volodomyr Zelensky said they had no interest in a negotiated settlement.

 Right now there is absolutely no evidence of any push for negotiations by Washington. And billions more in military aid keeps being sent to Ukraine to prolong the war.

 It’s clear to everyone with eyes to see that the US does not want peace in Ukraine and instead is using the Ukraine war as a means of weakening Russia and eventually bringing about regime change in Moscow. The Ukrainians are being used as cannon fodder in a US proxy war. Biden and other officials are apparently willing to engage in nuclear brinksmanship ---- and put the world at risk --- while they pursue this wild and morally reprehensible geopolitical objective.

  Biden this week went off script in a speech to donors and warned that the situation in Ukraine presented the greatest risk of nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. He was right. But the question needs to be asked, just who put the world in this situation?

  It’s a little bit like an arsonist that runs into a dry forest, lights a match, starts a fire and then runs out and yells, 'Fire! Fire! Hurry, call the fire department!

  It is troublesome that so many in the media have not been taking the situation in Ukraine as seriously as they should and have done little in recent months to question US policy in Ukraine and ask why the United States and NATO continue to pump weapons into Ukraine, without any corresponding push for negotiations, while the danger of an all-out war with Russia continues to grow.

 One commentator who has been sounding the alarm about the Ukraine policy is Tucker Carlson of FOX who since the beginning of the war has sharply criticized American policy.

  On a recent show --- after reporting Zelensky’s rash comment that it was time for the West to nuke Russia --- Carlson said: "If there was a moment for the Biden administration to shut this whole thing down and force negotiated peace, which they could do in an instant, that moment is right now before huge numbers of people die." 

  "But that’s not what the Biden administration is doing. They are moving in the other direction at high speed and doing all they can to bring the West to the brink of destruction,” he said.

  Scott Ritter, a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet union implementing arms control treaties and also oversaw the disarmament of WMDs in Iraq, wrote recently in Consortium News that the situation in Ukraine is dire and it is absolutely necessary for both President Biden and President Putin to step up to the plate and engage in serious talks to make sure that the war in Ukraine doesn’t become a nuclear holocaust.

  “We are, literally, on the eve of destruction," he wrote. "Now is the time for the kind of political maturity leaders rarely demonstrate. The onus is on Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin to make sure that even while events on the ground in Europe devolve into chaos and violence, the leaders of the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals do not allow emotion to get the better of reason.  The consequences of failure in this regard are, for humanity, terminal,” 

  It's clear we are heading in a deadly direction and everyone who cares about the fate of the planet needs to step up. Call your senators and congress people and demand that they push the administration to stop fueling the war with more weapons and instead work for a negotiated peace settlement. The Capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121. Call the White House line at 202-456-1111 and tell them you don't want nuclear war and you want the administration to help bring an end to the Ukraine war. You can also write a letter to the local newspaper and demand peace. 

   Also, various peace and anti-war groups are planning events to protest the US policy in Ukraine. Check them out. One is CODE Pink and another is the United National Anti-war Coalition (UNAC).

 In Connecticut, the Connecticut Peace and Solidarity Coalition and the Greater New Haven Peace Council are also taking actions to build support for peace in Ukraine.

  About 20 years ago, I attended an anti-war rally in Times Square in New York City just before a congressional vote on authorizing an American invasion of Iraq --- something that led to the disastrous Iraq War, which killed over 1 million people. Ramsey Clark, the former Attorney General and noted peace activist, was urging people to raise their voice in opposition to war.

  "Your life may depend on it... believe me," he said.

So it is today. Speak out against prolonging the Ukraine War  and demand peace. 

 Your life may depend on it.

 

 

  

 

                  

US officials, media push lies on Ukraine

 

 By Reginald Johnson

     Commentary

 

     So many lies being peddled these days about Ukraine it’s hard to keep up.

    Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin traveled to Kiev to pledge support for the Ukrainans in their fight against Russia. They said America would continue to send millions in aid to defend Ukraine’s sovereignty and democracy.

  First of all, Ukraine’s sovereignty ended in 2014, when the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and National Endowment for Democracy orchestrated a violent coup which toppled a constitutionally-elected government then in power and installed a hand-picked pro-American far-right regime, which included neo-fascists. That regime has been kept alive since then with billions of US tax dollars.

  Second, you can’t call Ukraine a democracy. Democracies don’t shut down opposition newspapers and ban political parties. The Zelensky government has done both those things.

   Third, the idea that Ukraine can “win” their war against Russia, as Blinken and Austin said, is highly unlikely. The Russian military has severely battered the Ukrainian forces, and few objective military observers believe that victory is possible ---- unless the unthinkable occurs --- direct American intervention with boots on the ground. That is a World War III scenario.

   The fourth lie comes in the form of the cover-up of the Nazi presence in Ukraine. US and western media keep downplaying the existence of Nazi extremists in both the political life of Ukraine and in the country’s military. This is very irresponsible. You’ll notice that in the stories about the Azov Battalion of the Ukrainian army --- which is now holed up in a steel plant in Mariupol, surrounded by Russian forces --- the media never calls them out for what the are --- Nazis. This group has swastikas or other Nazi insignias on their uniforms and are dedicated fascists. But the media misleadingly refers to them simply as “Ukrainian soldiers” or “Ukrainian fighters.”

  Finally, the US lies about what this country is doing in Ukraine. The claim is made that we are helping to “protect Ukraine” or to “protect NATO” from Russia. This last claim is bizarre, since NATO has overall a $1.2 trillion military budget and military installations all over Europe, and has a history of armed interventions. Russia has a $65 billion budget an no bases in other countries. Who needs protection?

  The truth is, the US is using Ukraine to fight a proxy war against Russia. This war is part of a geo-political effort by the US to undermine Russia, change its government and ultimately open up Russia’s vast resources for exploitation by western companies. So the very sad truth is, Ukrainians are dying so America can carry out another regime change.

  Austin’s remarks in Kiev saying the US wanted to “weaken” Russia lends credence to this perspective that the Ukraine War is actually a proxy war against Russia. https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/25/politics/blinken-austin-kyiv-ukraine-zelensky-meeting/index.html. “Austin says US wants to see Russia’s military weakened.”

 

 

   

      

   

  

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.

 

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Canada tramples on free speech

 

     By Reginald Johnson

        Commentary

   A stanza in the Canadian national anthem, ‘O, Canada’ goes like this:

‘From far and wide,

 ‘O, Canada! we stand on guard for thee!’

 ‘God keep our land glorious and free!’

‘O, Canada, we stand on guard for thee!’

  Unfortunately, based on events of the last few weeks, the word ‘free’ in that song may not apply anymore. And ‘glorious’ may not apply either.

 The Canadian government disgraced itself in brutally cracking down on a group of truckers, known as the ‘Freedom Convoy,’ who were protesting long-running vaccine mandates. The government acted more like a dictatorship run by Augusto Pinochet rather than a democracy that accommodates the expression of different points of view.

 Driving in from different parts of the country, the truckers had taken their rigs into Ottawa, the capital of Canada, blocked streets and blared their horns. Some other truckers for a time blocked the Ambassador Bridge, which links Windsor, Ontario, with Detroit, Michigan.

   No question, these protests were annoying and clearly interrupted daily life and regular business in Canada. But there was no significant violence during this period --- nobody burned down buildings, nobody robbed stores and nobody assaulted police.  As with any large protest group, some people behaved poorly and authorities made some arrests for alleged hate crimes, though few specifics have emerged.

  By and large, the demonstrators were peaceful and respectful. By blocking roads and bridges, the truckers were engaged in civil disobedience, a cherished tradition in democracies.

   But Prime Minister Justin Trudeau laced into the truckers, calling them hateful and violent. Instead of meeting with the group and trying to understand their grievances, Trudeau and local officials ordered the police to break up the protest, and break it up they did --- violently.

  Swinging batons, the police smashed the windows on trucks where truckers were refusing to leave. Another protester was thrown on the ground, and a video showed an officer kneeing the person repeatedly. Police rode horses into a crowd of people and a woman singing “Peace, Love and Freedom” was knocked to the ground and trampled.

   But the worst aspect of the government’s crackdown on the truckers was the move to essentially freeze their bank accounts. Trudeau, invoking Canada’s never-used “Emergencies Act,” had his government order a freeze on millions of dollars raised on social media accounts.

  This was an incredible attack on people’s rights of free speech and the right to protest. It has a fascistic ring to it --- a government attacking peoples’ finances simply because they don’t like their views or their acts of civil disobedience.

Parliament building, Ottawa, Canada. The government of Canada recently ordered a brutal crackdown on truckers protesting vaccine mandates, denying them free speech rights. 

 The Supreme Court of Canada approved the bank freeze in what Georgetown University Professor of Law Jonathan Turley called “a major blow to free speech and associational rights in Canada.”

  The Canadian Civil Liberties Association criticized Trudeau, saying the government’s use of emergency powers infringes on the basic rights of the truckers guaranteed to Canadians under the nation’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Amnesty International also criticized the Canadian government for its actions.

  It has been disturbing that members of the liberal-left and liberal media in the United States --- who years ago would have decried a government viciously cracking down on protesters --- seem to be supporting Trudeau’s martial-law tactics.

  CNN correspondent Paula Newton, for instance, said the truckers’ act of civil disobedience was nothing less than a “threat to democracy. An insurrection, sedition.”

  Turley said,  “Blocking streets, occupying buildings and shutting down bridges have long been tactics of protesters. Yet what constitutes a protest or an insurrection often seems to depend on the cause involved. When rioters caused billions of dollars of damages, burned police stations and occupied sections of American cities in the summer of 2020, for example, few in the media declared them to be terrorists or a threat to democracy.”

  The fundraising site, GofundMe, which previously helped in the funding of the Black Lives Matter protesters, froze more than $10 million raised for Canadian truckers to prevent it from being used to support them, Turley said.

  The attorney added, “The freezing of funds supporting the truckers laid bare the anti-free-speech trend sweeping the world, including in the US. There is no principled basis for cutting off the ability of citizens to support other citizens in a campaign of civil disobedience.”

  You get the feeling that most liberals and people on the left dismiss the truckers as a bunch of uneducated, white working-class racists who are probably admirers of Donald Trump. So in their view, these people are not worthy of being granted traditional rights of free speech and if they get slapped around by the police, then so be it.

  This, of course, is totally wrong. People have the right to free speech and the right to protest even if a majority of other people in the society don’t like what they’re saying. The right of free speech and the right of association cannot be selective.

  There is a concern that what happened in Canada to the Freedom Convoy could be a preview of coming attractions in the United States.

  The people in the United States have to be ever vigilant in protecting our core rights set forth in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. We cannot allow what happened in Canada to happen here.

  

 

 

Syria coverup: lying about chemical attacks

 

   

By Reginald Johnson

 

  For years, the United States government has been trying to overthrow the regime of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad --- claiming that Assad is a brutal human rights violator who uses chemical weapons against his own people.

   The US claims Assad has done this on a number of occasions, the most recent being April 2018 when the Syrian military allegedly poisoned people in the city of Douma with a gas attack, leaving 40-50 people dead.

  That purported attack was used to justify a missile strike on Syrian government sites ordered by former President Trump. Six people were killed in the bombing.

  Now however, the truth is beginning to emerge that the 2018 chemical attack in Douma was a lie.

   Several former investigators and a former top official with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons have come out and stated that a finding by the OPCW in 2019 which confirmed the chemical attack, was invalid.

  The former inspectors further stated that an interim report they authored determined that no such chemical attack had occurred, but that report was scuttled and the information and in it never made public. Key scientific findings were censored and the inspectors were removed from the probe.

 Documents which have been leaked to Wikileaks and to the Grayzone investigative news website, confirm what the whistleblowers stated, according to Aaron Mate, a writer with the Grayzone.

  “They show in great detail what was happening here and what a cover-up this was,” Mate said on the Tucker Carlson show on Fox TV March 12.

  Mate said there is a push on now to set the record straight. The former OPCW officials have demanded that the organization hold an open forum to discuss all the findings and determine the truth. So far however, OPCW management has refused to do that and in fact has publicly condemned the whistleblowers.

   Now, a group of distinguished authors, academics, antiwar activists and a former US presidential candidate have joined with the whistleblowers and a former top OPCW official to issue a “Statement of Concern” calling out the organization’s actions. Those signing the statement include Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, author John Pilger, Ret. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson and former presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard.

  In the statement posted on the website for the Courage Foundation, which represents whistleblowers, the group criticized the OPCW management and demanded a transparent and open investigation of the April 2018 attack.

  “The issue at hand threatens to severely damage the reputation and credibility of the OPCW and undermine its vital role in the pursuit of peace and security,” the statement read. “It is simply not tenable for a scientific organization like the OPCW to refuse to respond openly to the criticisms and concerns of its own scientists whilst being associated with attempts to discredit and smear those scientists.”

   The statement on, “We believe that the interests of the OPCW are best served by the director general providing a transparent and neutral forum in which the concerns of all the investigators can be heard as well as ensuring that a fully objective and scientific investigation is completed.” 

 The United States has been militarily intervening in Syria over the past decade, first supplying arms to anti-Assad rebels and then introducing hundreds of American troops. During the intervention more than 400,000 Syrians have lost their lives.

   Trump is not the last president to order a military strike against Syria. In February, President Biden ordered airstrikes on Syrian targets, killing 22 people. The administration said the airstrikes were made in retaliation for rocket attacks launched by Iranian-backed militias in Syria against US targets in Iraq.

  Mate said it is critical that the lie about the supposed chemical attack in Douma be exposed.

  “These lies can lead to war.  We know the consequences in Iraq of going to war with Iraq based on lies.” Mate said during his appearance on FOX.

  He added, “Even now today these allegations of chemical attacks in Syria are being used to justify the ongoing military occupation there and the sanctions that are destroying Syria, preventing the import of food and medicine, destroying Syria’s economy and preventing it from rebuilding. That is not good for Syrians and that is not good for Americans. It’s only good for warmongers in Washington.”

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

Protesting the Coup in Venezuela

  By Reginald Johnson

    NEW HAVEN --- Members of the Greater New Haven Peace Council showed up in frigid weather outside City Hall on Friday to pass out leaflets urging people to oppose the Trump administration’s coup attempt in Venezuela.

     Claiming that Venezuelan leader Nicholas Maduro is running an undemocratic failed state, administration officials are demanding that Maduro step down and be replaced by a man backed by the United States, Juan Guaido.

   On Wednesday, President Donald Trump said that “all options are on the table” --- implying that if Maduro is not willing to step down, the United States would consider using military force to get rid of him.

   Peace Council member Jim Pandaru said people are tired of America trying to force regime change around the world, often using force to achieve its ends. He cited Iraq and Libya as recent examples.

   “ I’m here to draw attention to another American misadventure overseas, getting involved and continuing endless wars.  Everybody is almost taking war as a given, as a natural thing just like getting dressed in the morning. This madness has to stop,” said Pandaru, a Vietnam veteran and member of Veterans for Peace.

Jim Pandaru of the Greater New Haven Peace Council protesting US-orchestrated coup in Venezuela.

    Pandaru said the administration is lying by saying that they want to replace Maduro in order to bring more democracy and freedom to the Venezuelan people. “Venezuela is sitting on top of one of the greatest oil reserves in the world and we just want to get our hands on it,” he said.

    Peace Council members urged people to call their elected representatives in Congress to demand that the United States stay out of Venezuela and stop interfering in the affairs of other countries. The congressional switchboard is 202- 224-3121.  The White House number is 202-456-1111.

Losing Focus

                                                    

 By Reginald Johnson      

  It’s a shame that the important news coming out of the summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump about the US and Russia beginning to patch up their relationship and avoid nuclear catastrophe has been buried amid the furor over Trump’s comment doubting whether Russia was responsible for meddling in the 2016 election.

  After years of a declining relationship between Russia and the United States the leaders of the two countries met in Helsinki and had what they both said were constructive talks dealing with nuclear nonproliferation and other key geopolitical issues.

   Speaking at a press conference following the summit, Putin said that the talks had been “very successful and very useful.”

   He added, “The difficulties and tensions between the two countries do not have any objective grounds. The Cold War is over. The times of ideological confrontation are in the past and the situation in the world is drastically changed.”

   Putin continued that only by the US and Russia “standing together” can the world overcome issues of nuclear proliferation and regional conflicts.

   Trump said that the leaders had a “deeply open and productive dialogue and it went very well.”

  The president added, “The disagreements between our two countries are well known and President Putin and I discussed them at length today,” Trump said. “If we’re going to solve many of the problems we face in the world then we’re going to have to find ways to cooperate in pursuit of shared interests.”

  Together the US and Russia hold 90% of all the nuclear weapons in the world. According to the American Federation of Scientists, the United States has 4000 nuclear warheads and the Russian Federation has 4300.

  A nuclear conflict between Russia and the United States, should it ever break out, would be the ultimate catastrophe. There would be no winner. For those who might escape the immediate effects of a nuclear attack, they wouldn’t live long due to massive radiation fallout and nuclear winter. All life on the planet would be effectively ended.

  Negotiations between the US and Russia are imperative to avoid a potential Armageddon.

Hiroshima, Japan in August, 1945 after US dropped an atomic bomb. Today's nuclear warheads are far more powerful. (Photo- metro.co.UK)

  
Donald Trump did the right thing by going to Helsinki and meeting Putin. He followed in the footsteps of many presidents before him who have met with Russian leaders to work out agreements on arms control and conflict resolution.

   By the accounts of the two leaders, the summit went well and was a step towards improving US Russian relations and avoiding catastrophic conflict.

   But that important  news was all lost amid the furor --- really hysteria --- over an inept comment Trump made during the press conference when he was responding to a question about who was responsible for the alleged hacking  of Democratic Party emails during the 2016 election campaign.

   Trump said he wasn’t sure whether the US intelligence agencies were correct in their assessment that the Russians were responsible for the hacking, and not someone else. He seemed to indicate that he believed Putin’s firm denial that the Russian government had any role.

   Immediately, there was an avalanche of criticism. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle and many in the media blasted Trump for appearing to take sides with the Russians over the word of US intelligence.

   A number of Democratic politicians as well as some media pundits went so far as to call Trump’s performance “treasonous.”

   Former CIA Director John  Brennan said Trump’s performance “rises to and exceeds the threshold for high crimes and misdemeanors,” which under the Constitution justifies impeachment. “It was nothing short of treasonous,” he said.

  US Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn, said that the United States was now facing “a 9/11 type emergency” due to Trump’s performance at the summit.

   In truth, much of the criticism and comments about “treason” were way over the top and in the case of members of the media, totally unprofessional.

  There is no question President Trump said a really dumb thing. But it was more a political blunder than a factual misstatement.

   In point of fact, Trump has every reason to doubt the accuracy of the claims about Russian hacking and election meddling. To this date, nothing --- nothing --- has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Russians were behind the much-talked about hacking of Democratic National Committee emails in 2016.

   The main foundation for claims of Russian hacking came out of an Intelligence Community Assessment in early 2017 which blamed the Kremlin for directing the theft of the emails and then turning over the information to WikiLeaks for publication. The revelations about Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, such as the effort by the DNC to undermine the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, was damaging to the Clinton campaign and helped Trump in the polls.

   The ICA, as it is known, authorized by then Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, used a “handpicked group” of analysts from the big three intelligence agencies, namely the CIA, FBI and NSA, to investigate the hacking claim. The ICA did not represent , as was erroneously reported at the time, a community-wide assessment by all 17 intelligence agencies.

   The assessment drew on the findings of an investigation by a private firm, CrowdStrike. The FBI itself did not do its own investigation of the hacking, after DNC officials first reported there had been an intrusion, as the agency was denied access to the email server by the DNC. Even though the agency clearly had the power to subpoena the email server, as this was a national security case, the FBI decided not to do so. Instead it agreed with the Democrats to let CrowdStrike do the inquiry.

 CrowdStrike’s founder is both friendly with the Democrats and also a member of the anti-Russian, neocon Atlantic Council.

  The CrowdStrike findings, which maintain that the email metadata showed evidence of hacking by Russian operatives, has been strongly disputed by cyber experts such as John McAfee and former intelligence officials from the NSA, FBI and CIA.   

  Critics of the report contend that instead of the emails being hacked,  there was actually a download of email information by a disgruntled Bernie Sanders supporter on the DNC staff who then turned over the information to WikiLeaks.

   It is disturbing that the email download scenario never got any attention from the FBI.

   Even the ICA report does not claim to be definitive in showing that the Russians committed hacking.

  “Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information which is often incomplete or fragmentary as well as logic argumentation and precedents,” the report said.

 The recent indictment of 12 Russian military officials for their role in the hacking case also does not constitute firm evidence of Russian intrusion in the US election since these are allegations and have not been aired before a jury. There’s been no conviction. It also should be noted that the indictment document relies again in part on the disputed CrowdStrike findings.

   It is very dismaying that so many politicians and media types alike are waving the indictment around as if it’s final proof of Russian guilt. I saw Shepard Smith on Fox News the other day doing that, saying that Trump was wrong to express misgivings about who was responsible for the hacking because we now have "proof" of Russian involvement due to the indictment.

   Come on Mr. Smith, go back to the dictionary and find out what an indictment is.

  President Trump has every right to be skeptical about the intelligence community findings, due to the flawed ICA, together with the mounting evidence coming from a recent inspector general’s report and congressional testimony showing that FBI officials carried a heavy political bias against Donald Trump as they conducted their investigation of both the possible Russian hacking and collusion between the Trump campaign in Russia.

  It’s well known that both Clapper and Brennan disliked Trump and played a key role in drumming up support for an investigation of collusion which led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. This has all been part of an effort to drive Trump from the presidency, either through impeachment or resignation. Pro-war neo cons and major press outlets have backed this campaign.

   So far, Mueller has not been able to charge anyone connected with Trump for conspiring with the Russians to influence the election.

   Politically, Trump made a very stupid mistake in openly questioning the intelligence agencies.  And he paid a dear price.

   Needless to say, the hyper controversy about Trump’s comment has totally overshadowed the much more significant development coming out of the summit, which is that nuclear-armed United States and nuclear-armed Russia have begun to start working cooperatively again on the issue of proliferation and resolving regional conflicts.

   This effort should be supported widely and not undermined by the continued blather about Trump-Russia collusion and Russian hacking.

  Endless repetition of unproven claims about collusion and mindless vilification of Russia just serves to impede the peace process and make the possibility of a catastrophic war more likely.

   It’s too bad many progressives and members of the Democratic Party have endorsed the Russia-gate narrative. But it’s time to change focus. Russia-gate is a waste of time and a distraction from dealing with the more central issues important to this country.

 There are plenty of very potent political issues upon which to wage a campaign to elect somebody better than Trump. Russia-gate is not one of them. A determined campaign centered around Medicare-for-all, establishing an equitable tax system, and slashing the bloated defense budget to provide money for education, new infrastructure and job training might well elect someone good.

   However flawed Donald Trump is as a president on a wide range of issues, he’s doing the right thing to try to broker better relations with the Russian Federation. The stakes are too high not to make the effort.

   Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at NYU and one of the leading scholars on Russia, told Tucker Carlson of Fox News this past week that he was stunned by what he called the “mob violence” atmosphere in the reaction to Trump’s comments at the summit press conference.

   Warning that relations between the US and Russia had hit a dangerous new low, Cohen said it’s imperative to get a better relationship going.

   He offered this question and comment: “Do you prefer to try to impeach Trump to trying to avoid war with nuclear Russia? That’s the bottom line. That’s where we’re at today.”

  

  

  

  

  

  

Defending Julian Assange

By Reginald Johnson        

   

   An international campaign is underway to defend the rights of the great whistleblower Julian Assange and stop authorities in the UK and the United States from putting him in prison.

    Assange, the founder and editor of WikiLeaks --- which over the past 15 years has published secret files exposing US war crimes in the Middle East, US political corruption, frightening new cyber warfare systems used by US intelligence and the inner workings of the notorious Guantanamo Bay prison ---- has been holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for six years after being granted political asylum by Ecuador.

   Though isolated and cut off from the outside world,  Assange was protected from arrest by UK and US authorities who want him for various alleged crimes, most importantly the illegal release of classified information.  But Assange’s safety is now in doubt. The left-leaning government in Ecuador of Rafael Correa , which granted Assange asylum, has been replaced by a more conservative government led by Lenin Moreno,  which seeks closer relations with the United States. Officials of Moreno’s administration have indicated that Assange may be forced to leave the embassy in London.

    If Assange has to leave the embassy, he will be immediately picked up by UK officials who said that they will turn him over to the United States.  Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions said he considers arresting Assange “a priority,”  and his office has reportedly drawn up espionage charges.

   If he is tried and convicted, Assange could face life in prison or even the death penalty.

 

Julian Assange speaking from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in 2014

 (AP Photo)

   
     Activists from around the world are holding rallies and protests to spotlight the danger that the WikiLeaks publisher now faces and are demanding that UK and US officials drop any plans for prosecuting Assange.  Demonstrations have taken place in Britain, Australia and Washington, D.C.  Smaller protests also took place in New York and L.A.

   Supporters of Assange, who is Australian, say that if governments in Britain and the US can put the WikiLeaks founder behind bars it will be a severe blow to freedom of speech --- undermining the right to publish information critical of those in power.

    At a rally last weekend in Sydney, Australia, organizer Linda Tenenbaum said the event was set up to start building “a defense campaign in Australia, New Zealand and internationally that will bring together all those committed to democratic rights --- the right of journalists to inform the population, their right to freedom of speech, and the right of everyone to be informed of the truth.”

   Tenenbaum, a leader of the Socialist Equality Party, added, “These are issues of the most fundamental character, the suppression of truth, of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange and they go hand-in-hand with the destruction of democratic rights.”

   Advocates for Assange are demanding that the government of Australia step in and exercise its diplomatic power to protect the whistleblower from threats made by the British and American governments. They are asking that the WikiLeaks leader be allowed to return to Australia and that the Australian government reject any demands from the US for his extradition.

   The famed journalist John Pilger also addressed the Sydney rally, which was attended by several hundred people, according to a story in the World Socialist Website.

    “No investigative journalism in my lifetime can equal the importance of what WikiLeaks has done in calling rapacious power to account,”  said Pilger.  “It is as if a one-way moral screen has been pushed back to expose the imperialism of liberal democracies: the commitment to endless warfare and the division and degradation of ‘unworthy’ lives: from Grenfell Tower to Gaza.”

   Pilger said that the American government hatched a secret plan in 2008 to “destroy”  both WikiLeaks and Assange.  Pilger said a top-secret document from the Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments branch of the US Defense Department “described in detail how important it was to destroy the ‘feeling of trust’ that is WikiLeaks’ ‘center of gravity.’”

  “This would be achieved, they wrote, with threats of exposure and criminal prosecution and an unrelenting assault on reputation. The aim was to silence and criminalize WikiLeaks and its editor and publisher. It was as if they plan the war on a single human being and on the very principle of freedom of speech,” Pilger said.

  He continued,  “Their main weapon would be personal smear. Their shock troops would be enlisted in the media --- those who are meant to keep the record straight and tell us the truth. The irony is that no one told these journalists what to do. I call them Vichy journalists --- after the Vichy government that served and enabled the German occupation of wartime France.”

   Pilger had previously criticized the left in both Britain and the United States by not standing in support of the Assange.  In a statement delivered by Dennis Bernstein to the Left Forum in New York in early June at a panel entitled “Russia-gate and WikiLeaks,” Pilger decried the silence of many on the left.

    “There is a silence among many who call themselves left.  The silence is Julian Assange.  As every false accusation has fallen away, every bogus smear shown to be the work of political enemies, Julian stands vindicated as one who has exposed a system that threatens humanity,” said Pilger, who was born in Australia and lives in Britain.

    After noting the many dramatic revelations that WikiLeaks has made, including the famous “Collateral Damage” video, which showed a US helicopter gunship gunning down 12 to 18 civilians in a Baghdad square in 2007, Pilger said, “The fakery of Russia-gate, the collusion of a corrupt media and the shame of the legal system that pursues truth-tellers have not been able to hold back the raw truth of WikiLeaks revelations. They have not won, not yet, and they have not destroyed the man, only the silence of good people will allow them to win. Julian Assange has never been more isolated. He needs your support and your voice. Now more than ever is the time to demand justice and free speech for Julian.”

   In addition to many in the government who have criticized Assange for endangering US military personnel by releasing classified military documents about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, some on the left have taken issue with Assange in the last two years due to WikiLeaks’ perceived role in influencing the 2016 election and helping Donald Trump win.  WikiLeaks was able to secure and then publish emails from the Democratic National Committee in 2016 which showed how the DNC was favoring Hillary Clinton and trying to undermine the insurgent candidacy of Bernie Sanders. 

   Trump was able to use the WikiLeaks revelations to successfully attack Clinton when he campaigned for the presidency against the former Secretary of State.  US intelligence officials and others have maintained, without solid proof, that the DNC emails were hacked by Russian operatives and then given to WikiLeaks, since Russia stood to gain by a Trump victory.  Assange has insisted that a “state actor” was not responsible for providing the emails. He said that another party, not named, provided the material.

    It is believed by many that the email material was actually made available by a disgruntled DNC staffer who backed Sanders and wanted to expose how the nomination process was stacked in favor of Clinton.

    In recent months, Assange has picked up support from a diverse group of writers, lawyers, former intelligence officials and people in arts and entertainment. Among those backing him are Chris Hedges, the Pulitzer prize-winning journalist and author, John Kiriakou, a former CIA official who went to prison for exposing illegal torture practices, former FBI agent Colleen Rowley, Ken Loach, a film director, singer Lady Gaga and actress Pamela Anderson.