A Travesty of Reporting

                                       

By Reginald Johnson

               I’ve always felt The New York Times is a schizophrenic paper --- alternately very good or very bad.

             The “paper of record” has won a myriad of Pulitzer Prizes over the years for coverage of a variety issues, such as environmental problems and questionable business practices abroad by U.S. corporations.

            Reporters like Charlie Savage and James Risen have turned out some great stories on civil liberties and national security issues.

            But the Times has fallen down badly on other occasions, particularly with respect to foreign policy and war coverage.  The paper’s reporting in late 2002 and 2003 on Iraq, which presented thinly-sourced stories claiming that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, helped the Bush administration build its public case that Iraq had to be invaded and Saddam Hussein removed.

   Months later, the stories were discredited when inspection teams could find no WMD.  But the damage had already been done --- an invasion of Iraq took place in March, 2003. That set off a brutal ten-year war which cost over 5,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.

   It emerged later that the Times’ stories before the war had relied heavily on the claims of one Iraqi expatriate leader, Ahmed Chalabi, who wanted to return to power and stood to benefit from Saddam’s removal.

  Now the Times is failing again in its reporting on another overseas issue: Ukraine.

  From the onset of this crisis in early 2014 --- when street demonstrations led to a coup in Kiev and a  pro-western faction ousted the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovcyh  --- to the civil war pitting the regime’s military against pro-Russian separatists in the east, the Times coverage of Ukraine has been atrocious.

   The reporting has been decidedly slanted against the Russian separatists and Russia, and has mirrored the U.S.government view on Ukraine. It’s been heavily tilted in favor of the new Ukrainian government, despite the questionable background of some members of that regime, fascist elements in their armed forces and the fact that the regime itself is illegal, having come about through a violent coup. There’s been one-sided reporting, misuse of photos and unprofessional editing.

  In one example, which recalled the Times’ stories in the lead-up to the Iraq War, an article was done which purported to show the presence of Russian military personnel in Ukraine fighting alongside the separatists. The story, featuring photos of Russian officers, bolstered the claim of the U.S. government that Russia is directly involved in the Ukraine civil war, and committing “aggression.”

   But later the story fell apart, when it turned out the identifications of the soldiers in the photos were incorrect, and there was no proof in fact that Russian fighters were in  Ukraine. The Times later published a back-page correction.

   Another example of the Times’ unprofessional coverage in Ukraine has been the paper’s virtual whitewashing of the role neo-Nazis and fascists have played both in the regime and in the military campaign against the separatists.

   The Ukrainian government forces and right-wing militias in the past year have waged brutal assaults against cities in eastern Ukraine, with hundreds being killed. In several of these attacks, young neo-Nazi fighters, with Nazi insignias on their shirts or helmets, have been involved in some of the fiercest fighting. In an attack on a trade union building last year in Odessa, dozens of separatists were trapped inside as militias fired on the building and threw stun grenades and tear gas cannisters. The building caught on fire, and when people jumped out, fascist militants from the Right Sector beat them with bats and chains, according to one person who survived. 

  All total, 39 people perished in the attack, either from injuries sustained after jumping from higher floors, suffocating from smoke inhalation or burning alive.

   In September of last year, members of the “Azov Battalion” --- fighters who have the wolfsangel, a Nazi symbol, emblazoned on their group banner --- played a central role in the fighting with separatists at Mariupol. The Azov Battalion is under the direction of the Ukrainian Interior Ministry.

   Papers such as the London Telegraph have documented the presence of Nazi elements fighting with the Ukrainian government forces, with articles and photos, but major press in the U.S., like the Times, have not. You would think that a paper like the Times that frequently has done stories in other parts of Europe detailing the rise of neo-Nazis and fascists --- such as in Germany or Greece --- would eagerly report on the substantial role that far-right extremists are playing in the Ukrainian conflict, but that hasn’t been the case.

     The Times has also avoided doing a major investigative piece on just how the coup in Ukraine took place in February of last year.  Abundant evidence has emerged showing how the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for Democracy worked to undermine the Yanukovych regime, and how State Department officials like Victoria Nuland and U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. openly fanned the flames of rebellion by meeting with and encouraging the demonstrators during the Maidan protests. When those demonstrations turned violent, right-wing militias took over government buildings, and Yanukovych fled for his life.

  

    But the Times has taken the position that the government overthrow in Kiev last year wasn’t really a coup. According to Robert Parry, the editor of Consortiumnews.com and a journalist who has done an outstanding job covering the Ukraine crisis, the Times in early January of this year wrote a long piece which claimed that the Yanukovych regime wasn’t really overthrown. Instead, the government just collapsed as allies deserted Yanukovych amid the rising tide of violence in the streets.

    The Times said that the idea that the government was overthrown in a coup as a result of attacks by fascist militants and western intrigue, was a propaganda line put out by Russia.

   As Parry pointed out, even the global intelligence firm Stratfor disagrees. The overthrow of Yanukovcyh was “the most blatant coup in history” according to Stratfor’s founder George Friedman.

   It appears during this whole process of reporting on Ukraine, The New York Times has swallowed the U.S. State Department line about events in Ukraine: Russia is a rogue nation bent on expansion; its dictatorial leader, Vladimir Putin, can’t be trusted; the Russian separatists are a ruthless group who were responsible for the shootdown of the MH-17 airliner over Ukraine last year, which killed over 283 people on board (although no investigation has confirmed who was responsible).

    Meanwhile, according the American government view, the United States and leaders of the coup regime in Kiev are simply trying to reunite Ukraine, defend it from Russian aggression and create a more prosperous country more closely integrated with Europe.

   Why is this simplistic, black and white narrative --- which is clearly contradicted by the facts --- being presented by the Times?

   

    There can only be two conclusions. Either the reporters and editors working on the Ukraine issue are grossly incompetent, and ignore the facts, or they essentially agree with the neo-con policy being pushed by the U.S., aimed at pulling Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit, neutralizing Russia, and eventually forcing regime change in that nation.

   If the latter is the case, then we have so-called journalists engaging in deliberate propaganda on behalf of the U.S. government.

   Whatever the reason for what’s going on, the result has been the Ukraine reporting has been awful. It has been, as Parry calls it, “journalistic malfeasance.”

 

  

 

 

                   

Demanding Justice for Michael Brown

By Reginald Johnson

   Around the country, people are demanding justice in the Michael Brown case.

  Demonstrations have swept major cities like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago as well as dozens of smaller cities, with thousands expressing anger that a grand jury decided not to indict police officer Darren Wilson for fatally shooting Brown, an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Missouri last August.

  Hundreds of people are now marching to the Missouri State Capital of Jefferson City to show their concern for what happened to Brown, who was 18 at the time of the shooting.

  Last weekend about 100 people protested in Bridgeport, a city of about 150,000 in Connecticut.

 “Bridgeport could be the next Ferguson,” Rev. Mary McBride Lee told the crowd gathered outside the City Hall Annex, according to the Connecticut Post. “We have to stick together and stand up for what’s right.”

  It’s a good thing that so many people are criticizing the grand jury result in the Michael Brown case, because there’s a lot to be upset about.  The more you look at the facts of the case, it’s hard to understand how the grand jury came to the conclusion that there was no probable cause to indict Wilson.

  There are inconsistencies in the account Wilson gave to the grand jury and some legal experts, including a noted forensic pathologist, say Wilson’s version of how the fatal shooting took place, doesn’t conform with the physical evidence.

  Questions have also been raised about the quality of the local investigation of the Brown shooting and the way St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch handled the grand jury.

  A recent piece in Mother Jones magazine analyzed the testimony given by dozens of witnesses to the shooting, and compared that with Wilson’s testimony, and the statement by McCulloch announcing there was no basis for an indictment.  The article identified a number of discrepancies, relating to different accounts about an initial confrontation between Wilson and Brown, how it escalated into a fight, whether Wilson shot at Brown when he and his friend Dorian Johnson ran away, and whether Brown had his hands up when Wilson shot at him, after Brown had stopped running and turned around.

   Two findings are particularly noteworthy from the article, which drew in part from an analysis by PBS News Hour of 500 pages of witness testimony and Wilson’s statements:

·        While Wilson testified he did not shoot at Brown after he fled, a full 16 witnesses said he did. Only four witnesses supported Wilson on this point;

·        Though Wilson told the grand jury he shot Brown only after the teenager turned around with his hands down and began advancing towards the officer, 16 witnesses said Brown had his hands raised after he turned around. Only two witnesses said Brown did not have his hands up.

  In a recent interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett, well-known forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht said Wilson’s testimony that Brown had his hands down and was reaching into his waistband, does not comport with the physical evidence. Wecht, the one-time president of the American Academy of Forensic Science, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and a past consultant on many high profile crime cases, said the location and shape of the wounds sustained by Brown indicate that he could not have had his hands down at the time of the shooting. His hands had to have been raised, Wecht said.

  Wecht also expressed astonishment that a county medical examiner who came to review the Brown shooting scene on the day of the incident failed to take photographs, as required. The official said he couldn’t do so, since his camera was “out of batteries.” The medical examiner also failed to take measurements, another standard step.

   “This is absolutely unacceptable,” said Wecht.

 While no criminal charges will be forthcoming from the local grand jury, there is still the possibility that the federal government could file criminal charges against Officer Wilson. Officials from the Justice Department are conducting a separate investigation of the case.

Travesty in Michael Brown Case

                                      

By Reginald Johnson  

  

   There’s no question in my mind that a St. Louis County grand jury had enough information to indict Officer Darren Wilson on charges of murder or manslaughter in the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

  The fact that they didn’t is a travesty.

  The grand jury, overseen by Prosecutor Robert McCulloch, met for weeks to review the case of Wilson, who shot the 18-year-old Brown, who was black, in Ferguson last August.

  The case has been fraught with racial overtones, since Wilson is white and Brown was unarmed at the time of the shooting.

  Many African-Americans maintain that the shooting is one more example of a pattern of unjustified killings of young black men by white police officers.

  In the incident, Brown and a friend were walking down the street in Ferguson, when Wilson pulled up in a squad car and asked the two to walk on the sidewalk. According to Wilson, the two refused, and words were exchanged. When Wilson pulled his car ahead and tried to get of his car, he said Brown slammed the door on him, and a tussle occurred. Wilson maintained that Brown reached for Wilson’s gun. In the struggle, Wilson got control of the gun and fired two shots, with one grazing Brown.

   Brown then ran, and Wilson got out of the car and pursued him, apparently with gun in hand. He told the grand jury he shouted to Brown to ‘get down the ground’ but Brown refused. Then, the officer claimed, Brown turned around and began running at him. This claim, however, is disputed by eyewitnesses who said Brown stopped and put his hands up.

  Wilson said he fired several shots, with one striking Brown’s forehead, killing him.

  Though Wilson never testified that he “feared for his life” before shooting Brown, he said in his testimony that he was frightened by Brown who was bigger and who he said had a “crazed” look on his face and looked like a “demon.”

  Frightened or not, Wilson had an obligation as a trained police officer to use all methods or means at his disposal short of using deadly force to deal with Brown. By his own testimony, he had Mace in his car. Why didn’t he attempt to use it? He also had an asp (like a blackjack) in his car. Using a blackjack is not very nice, but it’s generally not going to create fatal injuries. Why didn’t he prepare to use that? Finally, all officers are trained in self-defense without a weapon. Why didn’t he plan to deal with Brown using those fighting techniques if need be, until backup help arrived?

  Why was there such a ready willingness to use deadly force?

 Contrary to the blather I’ve heard on FOX news, that the officer was “presumed innocent” from the get-go in this case, I think there was a heavy burden on Wilson and the Ferguson Police Department to show that Wilson absolutely had no alternative but to use deadly force on Brown, who did not have a weapon  The burden was clearly on the police to prove Wilson’s actions were appropriate.

  When you consider that Wilson had other non-lethal means of dealing with Brown, and that some witnesses even contradicted Wilson in his claim that he was being threatened,  I don’t think this burden of proof was met.

  Certainly, District Attorney McCulloch had enough probable cause to bring an indictment.

   It is troubling that apparently McCulloch did not try to direct this grand jury, as prosecutors usually do. Instead he just threw a lot of information to the grand jurors, who are ordinary citizens, and said in effect, ‘you decide.’

  It’s pretty clear McCulloch didn’t want to bring charges against Officer Wilson.

  What a disgrace. Hopefully, federal prosecutors will step in and do justice in this case.

  

  

U.S. breaking the law? Who cares?

                  By Reginald Johnson

               

                 Aided by a compliant media, President Obama and top administration officials keep successfully peddling the lie that while other countries violate international law, the United States never does.

       This fact was again on display during the recent “60 Minutes” interview with Obama.

    In a question and answer session at the White House conducted by Steve Kroft, Obama talked about the U.S. campaign to roll back the the terror group ISIS and later about American relations with Russia and the U.S. economy.

    In the last month, U.S. warplanes have been bombing targets in both Iraq and Syria, with the avowed aim of destroying ISIS, which Obama and other officials maintain is a “grave threat” both to Iraq and the greater Middle East. ISIS stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

  

    Kroft asked a number of questions --- including why the U.S. is seemingly getting involved in another war in the region after years of following a policy of withdrawal, and also how it was that the U.S. was caught off guard by the sudden rise of ISIS, which has taken over whole areas of both Iraq and Syria.

   At no point, however, did Kroft ask the president whether the bombing of Syria, a sovereign country, was legal. He should have asked, because clearly the air strikes are not legal under international law. Syria has not attacked the U.S. and America has not secured either Syria’s permission or the United Nations Security Council permission for the strikes.

  An attack on a nation’s homeland or Security Council authorization are the only legal bases for a nation taking military action against another state.

    Clearly, under UN law and the Nuremberg Principles, the American attack qualifies as “aggression” against Syria.  Checking Dictionary.com, we see the very first definition of the word aggression is this: “The action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights.”

    While the subject of aggression and the legality of one nation attacking another didn’t come up during the discussion on Syria, it was a different story when the interview turned to Russia and the situation in Ukraine.

    After some diplomatic comments about his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Obama accused the Russians of  “aggression” in Ukraine.

   “Russian aggression violated the sovereignty and terroritorial integrity of a smaller weaker country and violates international norms,” Obama said, in an apparent reference to Russia’s incursion into and takeover of Crimea in the spring, following a coup in Ukraine led by anti-Russian forces.

    There is some validity to the claim that Russia broke international law with respect to Crimea. While the people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to rejoin the Russian Federation following the change in government in Kiev, it is also a fact that Russian security forces, not in uniform, had entered Ukraine prior to the vote and basically taken over the area. This was not authorized by the UN, or in any way agreed to by Ukraine. So it was not legal.

 But if the Crimean action by the Russians was illegal, then certainly our attack on Syrian terrority was illegal.

  It should also be noted that the Russian grab of Crimea was done without bloodshed, which hasn’t been the case with American attacks on Syria. Already, U.S. bombing has caused civilian deaths, according to a human rights group.

  The clear hypocrisy of Obama’s claim about aggression, however, didn’t prompt a question from Kroft. No, he just let Obama’s claims slide, without challenging the president over the double standard.

  The “60 Minutes” interviewer also failed to question the president on whether the Syria attacks are legal under domestic law.

    According to Constitutional provisions and the War Powers Act, Obama needed to get approval from Congress before sending U.S. military forces into action in another country. This never happened.

  Both the violations of international law (the treaties of which are ratified by the U.S. and are part of our law) and of the Constitution with respect to Syria, should form the basis for an impeachment proceeding against Obama. He has failed to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” as stated in his oath of office.

  Unfortunately, while some members of Congress are grumbling over the president’s failure to get congressional approval for the Syria attacks, it is unlikely that a large number of lawmakers would ever move towards impeachment over this policy.

  Too many Democrats are playing politics and turning a blind eye to Obama’s failings, while Republicans always want to look “tough” on issues of war --- whether laws are being broken or not --- and support the Syria attacks.

  So the air strikes will go on and civilian deaths will pile up just like they did in the illegal Libyan intervention three years ago. And there’s always the danger that the Syrian intervention could touch off a wider war.

 But does anyone care in Congress or in the mainstream media? Apparently not.

 

 

 

  

Shut Down a Cold War Relic

By Reginald Johnson                                      

    Nearly 25 years after the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, many people are wondering, why is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) still around?

   NATO, an alliance of nations including the United States and western European countries formed in 1949 to deter any potential aggression by the Soviet Union and its allies, is not only still around, but has increased its membership and been involved in several military interventions.

   NATO forces led the intervention in Serbia in 1999, took part in the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and aided in the bombing of Libya in 2011.

   Defenders of  NATO say the alliance is still needed to provide vital help in combatting terrorist forces around the globe and countering perceived expansionism by Russia.

  But critics, both in Europe and the U.S., claim NATO has become a point organization for protecting western imperial interests around the world.  The bombing of Libya, for instance, they say, was done to make sure that western oil companies could regain access to Libya’s rich oil fields, something they had lost when former dictator Mohammar Quaddafi came to power.

   “NATO is an extension of the Pentagon,” said Henry Lowendorf, a leader of the New Haven Peace Council. “The U.S. calls the shots, and these other countries go along.”

   “Everybody thought, when the Soviet Union fell, that would be the end of NATO. Instead they grew. NATO grew,” Lowendorf said.

    Acting in violation of the agreement U.S.officials struck with the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev --- that NATO would not take on any more members and move its borders to the east towards Russia --- NATO did just that in the last two decades, picking up new members out of the former Iron Curtain group, such as Poland, Lithuania and Hungary.

   The eastward advance has caused great distress among Russian officials, and is fueling the crisis over Ukraine. That country, which borders Russia, is now led by a western-oriented government, which took power after a coup in February. Government forces have been fighting a civil war against pro-Russian dissidents in eastern Ukraine who are refusing to be under the control of the new regime. The Ukrainian government recently applied for NATO membership.

 Lowendorf and a small group of others recently held an anti-NATO protest in downtown New Haven, handing out leaflets to passersby and holding placards that said “NATO, U.S. War Puppet” and “Dissolve NATO.”

Protests are also taking place in Wales, where NATO countries are holding a summit this week. President Obama will be attending.

Nancy Eberg, Mary Compton and Henry Lowendorf protest NATO.

  The Ukraine situation is expected to be a chief topic of discussion, as well as a push by the U.S. and the UK to make other member countries increase their defense spending and meet the NATO requirement that each nation spend at least 2 per cent of their GDP on the military.

 

   Lowendorf and others say it’s time to fold up NATO.

  “We’re asking that countries of NATO decide that NATO has no positive value in the universe and be dissolved,” he said. “We’re looking for the people of the United States to join the people of Europe, who know more about NATO than we do, and call for its dissolution. Shut it down, get rid of it.”

Drifting Towards War?

                                            

 

 By Reginald Johnson

 

        As violence spreads in Ukraine, the danger grows of an eventual confrontation between the U.S. and Russia.

     Forces loyal to the pro-western regime that came to power in Kiev in a February coup have been waging a brutal military campaign against pro-Russian separatists in the east, who do not recognize the new authorities.

  Dozens of fighters on both sides, as well as civilians, have been killed. There have been some horrific incidents with pro-government neo-Nazi fighters setting fire to buildings where separatists have fled, and burning people alive. Rebel fighters also been accused of accused of atrocities.

    The separatists, many of whom are ethnic Russians, have taken over whole cities in eastern Ukraine and say they won’t take part in a national election set for this Sunday.

   There’s concern on the part of some observers that the on-going fighting could turn into a full-fledged civil war, prompting Russia --- which borders Ukraine --- to intervene. At some point NATO and the U.S. could get involved, too.

   Given that NATO countries like the U.S. are nuclear-armed, and Russia is nuclear-armed, this is a frightening scenario.

   Unfortunately, it’s not a possibility that is totally remote, says the widely respected expert on Russia, Prof. Stephen Cohen.

          “It is not inconceivable that we may be creeping, crawling, drifting towards war with Russia,” Cohen said on the Counterpoint radio show on WPKN hosted by Scott Harris.

    Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at New York University and Princeton said that in the chaos in Ukraine, “anything can happen….I think it’s the worst crisis since the Cuban missile crisis.”

          The Cuban Missile Crisis, for those not alive at the time or who don’t know, saw the U.S. and Russia (then the Soviet Union) almost start a nuclear war over American demands that Russian missiles be removed from Cuba. Fortumately, catastrophe was averted when Premier Nikita Krushchev of
Russia and President John F. Kennedy worked out a deal, whereby Russian missiles would be taken out of Cuba in return for American missiles being removed from Italy and Turkey, together with a pledge that the U.S. would not invade Cuba.

          Cohen said that to defuse the present crisis, there is an urgent need for dialogue between the Kiev regime and the east Ukrainian separatists. He said the group in east Ukraine is demanding a greater level of autonomy, possibly a form of independence in a federalized system. “This is negotiable,” said Cohen.

    At the urging of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, “roundtable” talks involving officials from Kiev, and political and business leaders in east Ukraine got started last week, but little was accomplished. More talks are planned. Separatist leaders did not attend, partly because they distrust the authorities in Kiev, and partly because the Kiev leaders said they would not talk with people “with blood on their hands,” which would exclude a number of separatists.

          It should be noted that these meetings were not suggested by the United States. The Obama administration said they didn’t object to the talks, but there was no public endorsement for the negotiations by either President Obama or Secretary of State John Kerry.

          In general, Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin has offered a number of steps to try to ease the crisis, while the United States has done nothing. Putin announced he was pulling his troops back from the Ukrainian border, although the west says he is lying; he asked the separatists not to hold independence referendums recently; and he’s now given support for the national election and will respect the results; and he advocated for a dialogue between the Kiev government and the eastern protesters.

     The only contributions coming from the U.S. have been a string of belligerent statements by Obama and Kerry, blaming Russia for arming and encouraging the rebel groups, and saying Russia would be hit with more economic sanctions for its alleged bad behavior.

 There’s been little apparent effort by the administration to make sure that verified neo-Nazis are not being used in the civil strife.  The fascist thugs, who spearheaded the fighting in the February coup, have now been incorporated into the National Guard, and have been reportedly carrying out atrocities in east Ukraine.

          It would be nice if President Obama would change course, tone down the rhetoric and start taking the steps to bring about a constructive dialogue between the factions in Ukraine, and settle the crisis.

          But I don’t think that is likely to happen, because the Ukraine crisis serves the United States. This is part of a long-range plan, developed probably by hawks in the Pentagon and neo-cons in the White House --- and you have to conclude now that Obama is one of them --- to undermine Russia, and ultimately force regime change.

          The noted author and war critic John Pilger wrote recently in The Guardian (“In Ukraine, the U.S. is dragging us to war with Russia”) if the civil strife continues and there’s more attacks on ethnic Russians, Putin may be provoked into coming to their aid. Then, Pilger writes, Putin’s  “pre-ordained ‘pariah’ role will justify a NATO-run guerilla war that is likely to spill into Russia itself.”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger/

  A war that Russia has to fight next door, similar to the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, would be tremendously draining. That cost, together with the sanctions, could seriously undermine Russia in the long term, and might force regime/leadership change. The annoying Mr. Putin, who has aided two enemies of the U.S., Syria and Iran, would be out of the way. This may be the neo-cons’ dream scenario.

  But this dream plan is fraught with unbelievable risks. If Russia is backed into a corner fighting the Ukrainian regime aided by NATO weaponry, they might consider striking back with nuclear weapons. Someone’s dream scenario becomes a nightmare.

   Obviously, this is all speculation. I don’t know if such a neo-con plan is afoot. But I do know neo-cons and hawks seem to be holding sway in the White House, and Russia is certainly deemed to be a problem nation, given their alliances. So some sort of geopolitical power scheming is going on.

  We have no business in Ukraine. This is in Russia’s backyard, and their actions to date are understandable, if not always legal. They feel threatened by the eastward advance of NATO, and with Ukraine becoming a western ally (and possibly a NATO member later), Russia feels encircled.

  American policy to date in Ukraine is irrational and risks, possibly, a world war.

  People need to get involved in opposing this policy. They need to call and write their congress people and push them to take a stand against this. Congress so far has been asleep at the switch on Ukraine, with too many members unthinkingly going along with the administration. There should be hearings and a debate on Ukraine.

  As Prof. Cohen said, “I don’t remember in my lifetime there ever being a situation in America where war was on the horizon and there was no debate inside the beltway, the mainstream press, or in Congress.

          No debate at all! That’s not democracy. That’s a failure of democracy. Whether I’m right or wrong, everybody should agree we should have a debate about this.” 

    Get involved.

 

    

 

 

         

     

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

  

 

  

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

.