'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.

    

 

 

 

We must head off a wider war in Ukraine

 

(I recently submitted the following opinion piece to the Connecticut Post, advocating for a cease-fire and negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. The Post published the piece in full on June 16.)

 

 

 Recently both the United States and United Kingdom shipped more lethal aid to Ukraine, to help that nation in its war with Russia.

 The US sent Harpoon anti-ship missiles and howitzers; the British sent long-range missiles which can hit targets with high precision 50 miles away.

 The weapons shipments ramp up an already deadly conflict, which has cost thousands of lives of both civilians and military personnel.

Where is all this headed? Nowhere good.

With each passing day, the chances increase that this regional war could erupt into a global war between the nuclear-armed United States and its NATO allies and nuclear armed Russia, with potentially catastrophic consequences. It’s safe to say that the world as we know it would not survive a nuclear war between the US and Russia.

There is a pressing need for a cease-fire and negotiations to end this brutal conflict.

The Ukrainian army has been given billions of dollars in weaponry by the US

 The basic outline of a settlement is clear: Russian forces must totally withdraw from Ukraine; Ukraine must agree to be neutral and not join NATO; Russia must provide humanitarian aid to help Ukraine rebuild; and there must be self-governance for Ukraine’s eastern provinces, as agreed to previously in the Minsk Accords.

This is all achievable. But there has to be a desire for it.

French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz have both been encouraging negotiations to end the war. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he is open to talks. Ukraine President Vlodomyr Zelenskyy has said at different times there needs to be negotiations.

 But the United States has been silent on talks to end the war.

That’s because officials in the State Department, the Pentagon and others in the Biden administration don’t want a quick end to this war. They are using the Ukraine conflict to wage a proxy war against Russia --- keep Russia bogged down in a long draining war that will eventually trigger regime change in Moscow.

 But that scenario means many more Ukrainians and Russians will die in the process and billions more in American treasure will be wasted.

 This is not an acceptable policy and it must be stopped.

 To prevent further bloodshed and head off a much wider and catastrophic conflict, there must be an immediate cease-fire and negotiations to end the brutal war in Ukraine.

 

Reginald Johnson

Bridgeport

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.”

  

  

  

  

  

  

Stop World War III

      By Reginald Johnson

  

             

     NEW HAVEN ---- As the nation paused this week to honor the veterans of wars past and present, a group of peace activists gathered here to demand that the United States stop trying to “provoke” so much conflict around the world.

            Holding placards saying “Honor Vets, Stop Wars” and “Lower Military Budget, Raise Minimum Wage” members of the Greater New Haven Peace Council and others held a protest called “Veterans Day Vigil to Stop World War 111” to underscore the urgent need for a change in American foreign policy.

       “We’re calling for support of veterans, putting resources into veterans, not ignoring the needs of vets, addressing the medical needs of vets, but at the same time, honoring veterans by stopping wars,” said Henry Lowendorf, a spokesman for the council.

      Lowendorf said the Obama administration has to begin de-esclating the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine, which the U.S. had a key role in creating in the first place.  America, he said, has to “stop provoking the Russians, the Chinese, the Syrians and other people and other governments.”

 

Peace activists demand that U.S. military interventions around the world must end.

    Unless there is a real change in U.S. policy --- turning towards diplomacy as a means of resolving problems and away from military intervention --- the chance of a global catastrophe is real, Lowendorf and others said.

      About a dozen people showed up for the protest, held in a drizzly rain on the corner of Chapel and College streets, in the heart of the city’s downtown.

   The demonstrators held up their signs to the cars going by, and a number of drivers honked their approval.

Mary Compton (center) and Susan Klein (left) say no to war.

     A flyer passed out by the group said: “Our world is at a critically dangerous juncture: there is the possibility of a military, even a thermonuclear, confrontation between NATO, led by the United States, and Russia. These nations each possess thousands of nuclear missiles aimed at each other on hair trigger alert. The militaries of the two superpowers are again facing each other, this time in Eastern Europe, especially in Ukraine, and in Syria. And tensions are increasing each passing day."

   The group demanded immediate diplomatic negotiations to end the conflict in Syria, involving all interested parties, including the Syrian government; removal of all NATO forces from the states bordering Russia; dismantle NATO; remove all foreign troops from Afghanistan; and end the U.S. strategy for global domination.

 

Demanding Action on Fukushima

                                          

 By Reginald Johnson

                                

    A determined group of anti-nuclear activists are working feverishly to spread the word about the grave dangers posed by the earthquake-damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan, and demanding that other countries get involved in making sure that the plant doesn’t have a catastrophic nuclear accident.

  Recently the group delivered a petition to the United Nations with over 150,000 signatures which asks that UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and other world leaders take immediate steps to intervene in the Fukushima situation, by sending a team of elite scientists and engineers to Japan to oversee the safe dismantling of the plant.

  The company that owns the facility, Tokyo Electric Power Company, on Monday began the removal of 1300 highly radioactive fuel rods from an unstable storage building at Reactor 4.  The work is expected to last a year.

 But activists such as long-time nuclear power critic Harvey Wasserman maintain that TEPCO does not have the expertise to handle this operation properly, and there’s the possibility of a major accident.

  Wasserman and others say the fuel rods (now in a cooling pool) are in some cases bent or embrittled, and the removal will be extremely tricky. Should any of the rods break, hit each other, or get exposed to the air, there could be an explosion and serious radiation releases.

   The amount of radiation that could potentially be released if all the rods were caught up in an explosion is 14,000 times the amount contained in the fallout from the Hiroshima bomb, according to Hiroaki  Koide, assistant professor at Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute.

   Charles Perrow, a professor at Yale University said the amount of radioactive caesium - 137 in the spent fuel pool is 10 times the amount that was present in the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the Soviet Union in 1986. Radiation from the Chernobyl meltdown spread around the world. At Fukushima, one slip-up in the removal process would trigger a chain reaction, Perrow told ABC News.

  “This has me very scared,” he said. “Tokyo would have to be evacuated because caesium and other poisons that are there will spread very rapidly.”

   At a gathering Nov. 7 at Dag Hammerskjold Plaza outside the UN prior to the delivery of the petition and accompanying letter, Wasserman and other activists spoke about their work and the Fukushima crisis. A number of those present were members of  the group the “Green Shadow Cabinet,” an alternative presidential cabinet whose members often speak in opposition to government policies and offer progressive alternatives.

  “The letter we’re delivering promotes a plan developed by 16 top nuclear experts urging that the government of Japan transfer responsibility for the Fukushima reactor site to a worldwide engineering group….this plan stresses that the clean-up be overseen by a civil society panel and an international group of nuclear experts independent from TEPCO and the International Atomic Energy Admnistration (IAEA),” Wasserman said.

  Also speaking was Dr. Margaret Flowers,  a pediatrician and another member of the Green Shadow Cabinet.  “There is the potential for a massive release of radiation that would have significant health effects for people and other life across the world --- from Japan to the Pacific Islands to the continental United States, “ she said.

  Flowers added,  “The U.S. government and many regulatory bodies are dominated by the nuclear industry and have failed to take appropriate action to provide assistance to Japan. We can’t cross our fingers and hope that TEPCO pulls it off,”

 

  Also on hand was Dr. Jill Stein, the president of the Green Shadow Cabinet and Green Party presidential candidate in the 2012 national election.

 Stein spoke about the need for transparency in the information coming out about Fukushima and the clean-up operation --- also known as decommissioning.

  “The media must be provided with timely, accurate information and must report on Fukushima throughout this critical phase. The public needs to know what’s going on, step by step,” said Stein.

  The problem with the Reactor 4 spent fuel rods is by no means the only issue of concern at Fukushima Daiichi, which was struck by an earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011. The natural disaster caused over 18,000 deaths.

   Three entire reactor cores are missing since the earthquake; massive amounts of radiated water has leaked from the plant into the Pacific Ocean, contaminating sea life; thousands more radioactive spent fuel rods lie in storage buildings around the facility, creating additional health risks in the event of another earthquake.

 

    The activists will continue to agitate to get the word out about the dangers posed by Fukushima and the need for a proper clean-up. More petition drives and actions are planned.

    Wasserman said he and others also will engage in a fast on the 11^th day of every month, “to honor the victims of this horrible disaster, and to focus our efforts on finding ways to survive it.”