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.”

 

 

   

      

   

  

Risking World War III

 

     By Reginald Johnson

     Commentary

  A United States senator has said something that should send chills down everyone’s spine.

    Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, said America may have to send troops to Ukraine, a step that would almost certainly start World War III.

  Speaking on the “Face the Nation” show, Coons said  “If Vladimir Putin, who has shown us how brutal he can be, is allowed to just continue to massacre civilians, to commit war crimes throughout Ukraine without NATO, without the West coming more forcefully to his aid, I great- I deeply worry that what's going to happen next is that we will see Ukraine turn into Syria.”

  He then said, “The American people cannot turn away from this tragedy in Ukraine. I think the history of the 21st century turns on how fiercely we defend freedom in Ukraine and that Putin will only stop when we stop him. “

 Coons’ remarks followed comments he made days earlier at the University of Michigan where he stressed the need for Congress and the administration to come to a “common position” where they agree “about when we are willing to go the next step and to send not just arms but troops to aid in the defense of Ukraine.”

  In an astounding lapse, the host of “Face the Nation” Margaret Brennan failed to follow up and ask Coons just what are the implications of introducing troops to Ukraine.

  The implications are mind-boggling. If troops are sent to Ukraine, this will certainly be seen by Russia as a declaration of war by the US and NATO. Then all bets are off.

  There are some deluded people out there who think we could fight a ground war with Russia and keep it limited to conventional weapons. This is fantasy. A major war in Europe between US/NATO and Russia --- both sides armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons --- would inevitably escalate to nuclear war. After that, it’s a serious question as to whether the world and humanity would survive.

  During an exchange of nuclear missiles, tens of millions of people would be killed instantly or within a few hours. Whole cities would be wiped out. For those who survived the initial blasts or lived far away from the explosions, they would not be lucky. Due to the massive amount of radiation fallout from the blasts, they would slowly but surely die from radiation sickness.

Nuclear bomb explosion. A nuclear exchange between the US and Russia would kill tens of millions of people. (Wikimedia Commons)

  This is obviously in an apocalyptic scenario, but it is not out of the realm of possibility.

   It is true that Biden administration officials distanced themselves from Coons’ remarks and reiterated that President Biden has no plans to send troops to Ukraine. Officials said the US will keep sending lethal aid to help Ukraine.  But you wonder if Biden's position might change, if the Ukraine War --- already ugly --- gets uglier.

   With each new report of an alleged Russian massacre or war crime, the calls will grow to “do something!” and “stop the slaughter!” More and more members of Congress and the media will likely say we have to bite the bullet and send troops, and that in turn could pressure Biden to support direct intervention.

  Already in Congress there is some support for acting a lot more aggressively toward Russia. Representative Adam Kinzinger, a Republican from Illinois also said that he would back sending troops to Ukraine. Two Republican senators, Roger Wicker of Mississippi and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, are on record as favoring sending troops and ---- incredibly --- saying the US should not rule out a first strike nuclear attack on Russia.

  It should be noted that while people in the political world generally said they didn’t agree with Coons’s comments about sending troops, you didn’t hear any harsh public denunciation of his suggestion, despite the grave implications of directly intervening in Ukraine.

  You have to wonder whether Coons wasn't floating the idea of sending troops on behalf of the administration, just to test public reaction. Coons is good friends with Biden.

  Public opinion will be key in terms of how far the administration is willing to go in helping Ukraine. A national poll in February found that a majority of Americans were not in favor of sending troops to Ukraine. But again, public attitudes could change as the media keeps uncritically reporting allegations of Russian atrocities, such as mass killings and indiscriminate bombing attacks.

 ( It should be noted that there has been no conclusive evidence offered to back up the sweeping claims of Russian atrocities such as the Bucha massacre, the missile strike on the Kramatorsk train station and the alleged Russian bombing of the maternity hospital in Mariupol. The US and Western media have failed to adequately check out these charges and instead have shamelessly accepted the claims of Russian responsibility as flat fact.)

   One public figure who has called out Senator Coons is former member of  Congress Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii. Gabbard, a member of the Army Reserve and an Iraq War veteran, said on the Laura Ingraham show on FOX that Coons’ comments were irresponsible and served to “undermine national security.”

   She added, “I think of my brothers and sisters in uniform who would be the ones whose lives that are put on the line in what would essentially kick off World War III and be a direct challenge to nuclear-armed Russia.

  “Risking nuclear war --- that’s exactly what he’s proposing and everyone should be very clear eyed as they hear this kind of rhetoric coming from Washington.”

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City criticized for taking high demolition bid

    

By Reginald Johnson

     BRIDGEPORT REPORT

      BRIDGEPORT --- Questions are being raised about why the city is paying a contractor more than $8 million to demolish buildings in the South End when another qualified contractor would have done the same job for $3 million less.

   The AAIS Company of West Haven is tearing down three dorms at the University of Bridgeport to prepare a site for the new Bassick High School, part of an overall $115 million project.

  AAIS won the bid for the work last Sept. 30,  after a vote by the School Building Committee. The company’s bid of $8.769 million won out over the $5.445 million offer by the Bestech company of Ellington, according to a report in the Connecticut Post.

 The contract award was not reviewed or voted on by the City Council, and demolition has been on-going since early this year.

  Since both firms are on a state list of pre-approved contractors to do the demolition and hazardous waste clean-up work for school construction projects, some people are wondering why the much less expensive offer by Bestech was rejected.

   “That’s concerning....they did another behind the scenes deal,” said Council Member Jorge Cruz, who represents the South End district where the new high school is being built.

 “It doesn’t make any logical sense on why they would take a bid that was $3 million higher,” Cruz said.

       

Bodine Hall at the University of Bridgeport was torn down to make way for a new Bassick High School.

  Council Member Maria Pereira, a frequent critic of the administration of Mayor Joseph P. Ganim, called the decision to take a bid that was $3 million higher than another qualified firm “unheard of.”

   “It’s outrageous,” she said.

  Justifying the selection, city officials apparently believe that AAIS would do a higher quality job than Bestech.

  “The opinion is that AAIS would provide a better, more completed job even though the initial price is higher overall,” wrote Michele Otero, a school construction manager for the city, in the minutes of the school building committee, according to the Post report.

   Criticism of the city’s selection for the UB demolition job is the latest controversy plaguing the Bassick High School project.

  Last year, both current and former members of the City Council claimed that the city’s payment of $6 million to the University of Bridgeport for the construction site was illegal, since it was never approved by the council.

  The School Building Committee --- a hybrid committee composed of administration officials, council members and school board officials that has special powers under state law--- approved that payment on its own.

  But Pereira charged that since the original bonding approved by the council for the Bassick project did not cover land acquisition, the committee could not unilaterally authorize the UB payment. The council had to approve it.

  Pereira further claimed that the FBI was looking into the transaction, although bureau officials would not confirm this.

  While she disagrees with the choice of the contractor, Pereira said in the case of the demolition work for the high school, the School Building Committee acted properly in awarding the bid without council review. She said that once bonding has been approved by the council for construction and related costs, the committee can act on its own to let contracts related to that phase, according to state statute.

    Cruz said he was going to be contacting other council members and discuss his concern about the city’s decision to select the much more expensive contractor for the UB demolition work.

  “This Bassick high project has been a damn headache,” he said.

 

  

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

  .

 

 

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

 

By Reginald Johnson

     Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

  

 

 

 

FBI probing Bridgeport?

 

 By Reginald Johnson

         

            BRIDGEPORT REPORT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 The amphitheater retains the seating from the old stadium.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

     

Why is the US spurning Ukraine peace deals?

 

    By Reginald Johnson

      Commentary 

 

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

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

  But you have to wonder.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 You have to be skeptical.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.