051 The Erickson Report for March 31 to April 13

 

 

 

051 The Erickson Report for March 31 to April 13 

Issue 51 of The Erickson Report

- Some observations about the war in Ukraine

     Negotiations?

     Real cancel culture

- Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages

     Clowns: Sen. Rick Scott; Sen. Mike Braun; Irvington, NJ

     Outrage: SCOTUS takes another bite out of VRA

- Hero Award: Gov. Spencer Cox

- Noted in Passing

     states push to end limits on gay and bi men donating blood

     towns in western MA using alternatives to police on mental health crises

     the real reason for GOPper opposition to Ketanji Brown Jackson

050 The Erickson Report for March 17 to 30, Page Two: Ukraine

050 The Erickson Report for March 17 to 30, Page Two: Ukraine

In 1965, Donovan recorded a song called "The War Drags On." I was reminded of that song thinking about Ukraine and how it has dropped from the absolute number one spot in the news in a number of venues - not that it's being ignored or downplayed or that it's being treated as unimportant, it's still being regularly and intensively covered - but that's it's no longer the automatic story one of the day and it's happening because this war, as the song says, "drags on," in the day after day crushing grind of, again quoting the song, "a sea of blood and bones / Millions without faces, without hope and without homes."

We are able to, we often do, keep up with the war almost literally minute by minute, exposed to it in a way that was not possible earlier - I can recall Indochina being called "the first television war," perhaps we can call this "the first Internet war" - as our compassion is grated away by the on-going visions of bombed-out hospitals and desperate refugees but is pushed and stretched again by the undeniable reality of war from which we usually have shielded ourselves by distance and time, grated and pushed until we just desperately, desperately, feel we have to do something, something, and I fear we are being, intentionally or otherwise, stampeded into a spiral of war.

It sometimes seems - it's not true, but it does sometimes seem that - every proposal coming out of the mouths of the supposed experts, the foreign policy professionals, the analysts, the commentators, every proposal to stop or even just limit this war, all seem to involve stepping further into this war. A no-fly zone. A "limited" no-fly zone, whatever the hell that would mean in practice. A "safe zone" on the ground in western Ukraine, patrolled by UN - or maybe even US - troops. Providing not just defensive weapons like anti-tank or anti-aircraft missiles or drones but long-range offensive weapons - like those Migs.

I can't help but recall the infamous words of a US commander in the Indochina War: “It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it.”

Mike Mazarr, a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation had a Twitter thread on, quoting him, "Acting on the basis of imperative-driven thinking, especially under time pressure in a crisis, is a common prelude to disaster."

And that, I fear, is the possibility we face as the images of pain and desperation assault our eyes and ears and Volodymyr Zelenskyy's emotional, moving, and quite understandable pleas strike at our consciences.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22967674/russia-ukraine-no-fly-zone-limited-nuclear-war
Happily, which sounds really creepy in this context but is intended to express mere relief, not any degree of joy, at least for the moment calmer heads are prevailing. For one thing, despite his pleas, Zelenskyy is not getting his no-fly zone.

It all sounds so easy. It's just protecting lives, that's all. Until you ask how you enforce it and what happens when you do. And how do you deal with the fact that this puts your jets in the line of fire of Russian anti-aircraft batteries. And how do you deal with the fact that most of the airstrikes - which are not even the main source of the destruction, artillery is - are coming from jets flying within the borders of Russia, just lobbing missiles across the border?

The reality is that as humanitarian as it sounds, a no-fly zone accomplishes very little while creating chances, in fact the near certainty, of escalation extending far beyond Ukraine with casualties that would dwarf those seen so far - even if you assume nuclear weapons would not be used.

For the same sorts of reasons, the same sorts of considerations, foreign troops, especially US troops, on the ground is a non-starter and the Migs, regarded by the US Department of War as too much potential risk for too little potential gain, are not coming.

Knowing all that does not make what we witness any easier to bear, but at least we can take whatever minuscule comfort there is in that those with the power (and the responsibility) to actually make those life-and-death choices are resisting the urge to think we can end the horror by adding to it.

Which also makes me wonder what Zelenskyy is thinking. Does he really believe, for example, that a no-fly zone would work, that it would not escalate the war? Is he thinking, just as the US and NATO falsely thought before the war began, that Pukin' could just be bullied into retreat? Or is he, as is more likely, and in the face of what his people are suffering, getting into that "imperative-driven thinking" that Mike Mazarr warned against? If that is true, then the caution of others is even more necessary.

Still, there is hope to be found. There are actual negotiations - well, talks, anyway - going on between officials of Russia and Ukraine, with both sides projecting some optimism. After the last round, the day before I do this, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and representative Dmitry Peskov both said a neutral military status for Ukraine similar to Sweden or Austria was being “seriously discussed,” a major step back from previous demands for the "demilitarization" of Ukraine, while for his part, Zelenskyy said Russia’s demands for ending the war were becoming “more realistic” while also acknowledging that there is no prospect of Ukraine joining NATO.

This does not by any means say that peace is breaking out all over - but it is progress and it starts to offer hints of what a settlement could be. In the meantime, there are a number of groups offering direct aid to the Ukranian people. Two I can suggest because I know they have a presence in Ukraine are Doctors Without Borders at www.doctonrswithoutborders.org and World Central Kitchen at wck.org.

049 The Erickson Report for March 3 to 16, Page One: Ukraine

049 The Erickson Report for March 3 to 16, Page One: Ukraine

Our top story, as it has been, is Ukraine.

But I'm not going to talk about current events there; it's just not possible. Once the invasion started on February 4, there is no way a show like this, on once every two weeks, can even try to keep up with events that you can watch live changing minute to minute.

So I have no idea what the situation will be when you see this. So instead I'm going to offer some general comments and observations that I think could be of merit or future use no matter the facts on the ground.

First, I said last time that if my predictions about events proved to be wrong, I would own my failure. The problem in doing that is that I'm not sure to what degree I failed because my prediction was that Pukin' would not invade unless....

The "unless" was important. I referred to an old quote that "faced with the choice of humiliation and war, nations historically have preferred war" and so in a confrontation, if you don't want a war, you have to give the other side a way to back out without appearing to backing down; a graceful exit, some have called it; or as I put it, a way to back down without appearing to be kneeling down.

That point was actually widely discussed, widely referenced in the days before the war; more - considerably more - that one analyst said we have to find something to give Pukin' something that he can point to as a victory. Even the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee said just that. And they're still saying it now as a way to stop the war, even as it becomes harder to find what such a thing could be.

The last time out I mentioned a few ideas that had been proposed. One was declaring a moratorium on new members of NATO. Another, related one, was Ukraine declaring itself neutral. Some proposed the idea of insisting that Ukraine live up to the agreement it made in 2015 for self-rule for the breakaway provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk in the Donbas region of southeast Ukraine.

To that I added my idea: That, plus plus a passive acknowledgement - nothing direct, more like a soap opera character who leaves a scene and then no one ever mentions their name again, just a passive acknowledgement - that Crimea is gone, that there is no way it will again be part of Ukraine in the foreseeable future. I suggested that those things together could be enough because while Pukin' could claim a victory about the self-rule and maybe even Ukraine, Ukraine could say no, it's just doing what it already committed to, it's just that negotiations are taking longer than expected. Meanwhile, neither side gives up anything over which it actually had control nor does either side gain anything over which it did not already have control.

At this point I have to interject that it must be said the the US intelligence was good. The Russian buildup was described accurately and the timetable, with the likely time for an invasion being set for between February 20 and March 1, was spot on.

We're not used to this, especially those of us schooled on Indochina and Iraq. But we need to remember that American intelligence is actually pretty good; it's when that intelligence is massaged for political ends that it gets screwed up. This time reporting it accurately served the political purpose, so it was done that way.

Which means that ultimately, it's possible that none of the ideas for a graceful exit would've worked and we would have found ourselves right where we are anyway. We just don't know.

What I do know is that they weren't tried. We, that is, the US and NATO, the West, did not offer Pukin' a way out. Instead, our entire policy could be summed up in just four words: stand down, no concessions.

Which raises another question: Why wasn't a way out offered? If the intelligence was as good as it seems to have been, a real prospect of a war within a limited time frame if nothing changes, why the unyielding stance?

I gave my reasons, the only four reasons I could think of. The US and NATO - I'm just going to say NATO from now on - either were ignorant of that history of nations preferring war to humiliation, they actually wanted a war, they thought Pukin' wouldn't actually pull the trigger and they could bully him into just backing down, or something was being negotiated in secret.

I think events since have shown I was right in thinking that third alternative was the right one: They though they could bully Pukin' into a humiliating political surrender.

That, with the hideous addendum that they also believed that if war came, it would be over almost before it started. Indeed, a number of analysts outside the government were talking in terms of a war measured in hours, not even days much less weeks.

And it appears that's what Pukin' thought.

Analysts say that the strategy that was seen had been based on the premise that an initial barrage of missile strikes and a thrust toward Ukraine’s capital coupled with the rapid seizure of a few key objectives would bring about the quick collapse of President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government, which would surrender or flee, after which a pro-Russia puppet government could be installed.

Other proof can be found in a statement slated for release on February 26 but instead of being withheld was put out on schedule, supposedly accidentally. The statement reads as though it was intended as a celebration of victory in Ukraine, indicating the Kremlin thought the war would be over in less than two days.

And we can see that expectation within the reports just from the first day that the invaders had not gotten as far as they expected - in other words, they expected to have accomplished a good deal more - and soon after that reports of Russian military vehicles abandoned on the road because they had run out of gas.

The importance of those latter reports is that this is not like some medieval battlefield where you walk to wherever you're going, carrying for the most part your weapons with you, either across your back or strapped to your waist, and if you need food or other supplies you just steal them from the surrounding countryside.

A modern army requires food, fuel, technical and technological support, communications, ammunition, a supply line far more extensive and complex than even a 19th century campaign. It requires large-scale logistics. And it certainly appears that the Russian attack gave little thought to that because they thought it unnecessary.

That expectation of near-immediate collapse may also explain why even now Russian officials can't agree on purpose of invasion.

Before the invasion, Pukin' made claims of "genocide" against ethnic Russians in Luhansk and Donetsk. Then there was the claim that the government in Kyiv was a drug cartel of neo-Nazis and it was about "de-Nazification," about being peacekeepers and arresting the criminals. Then at the UN on March 1, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Ukraine of having "made territorial claims against the Russian Federation" and of seeking to acquire nuclear weapons - which considering the reason Ukraine doesn't have nukes is that it voluntarily gave them up in 1994 in exchange for security guarantees from the US, the UK, and Russia to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine, maybe bringing that up wasn't the smartest thing for Lavrov to do.  

But speaking of nukes, that brings up something else. Pukin' said something about putting Russia's “deterrence forces” - its nuclear weapons - on a “special regime of combat duty.” The result was a spate of new stories claiming he had put Russia's nukes in a state of "high alert."

He didn't. A higher state, yes; "high," no.

Pavel Podvig, a senior researcher with the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, described it as "normally, under the day-to-day status, the system is not capable of transmitting orders" to launch nuclear weapons. But, he added, "you can bring it into the status where it is capable," which is what he felt had been done.

Meanwhile, former Russian military officer Konstantin Eggert told the German news outlet Deutsche Welle there are four levels of alert in the Russian military: regular, heightened, the threat of war, and full or complete.

It could be compared to the US's DEFCON system for nuclear weapons, which has five levels, DEFCON 5 to DEFCON 1, ranging from what's called "Fade Out" or day-to-day level of operations up to "Cocked Pistol," where we are or soon will be in a nuclear war.

Despite some confusion about just what Pukin' meant since the term “special regime of combat duty” is not used by the Russian military, the consensus came down to a move from "regular" to "heightened." But not "high."

That, however, does not mean that the threat of nuclear war is not higher than it was a week or two ago. But it does mean you need not have sleepless nights over it.

At least not yet. The danger of World War III now lies in the question of what happens if Pukin' essentially - as some are now with unnecessary glee are predicting will happen - loses in Ukraine. Not just doesn't get all he wants, but outright loses, fails, the whole thing collapses. What happens then?

You need to realize this is very personal, very emotional, with Pukin'.

Go back to that February 26 statement that read like a celebration of victory in Ukraine. These are some quotes from that statement:

"A new world is being born before our eyes. ... Russia is restoring its unity.... Yes, at a great cost, yes ... but there will be no more Ukraine as anti-Russia. Russia is restoring its historical fullness, gathering the Russian world, the Russian people together - in its entirety of Great Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians [i.e. Ukrainians]. ... [Referring to Russia's relations with the West:] Not even Russia, but the Russian world, that is, three states, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, acting in geopolitical terms as a single whole. ... Even the deaf could hear - Russia is returning. ... This is Russia's return of its historical space and its place in the world."

Contrary to what some have asserted, his dream is not to reassemble the Soviet Union. He's not thinking back to the 1980s before the breakup of the Soviet Union, he's not thinking back to the 1960s or '50s or even the Stalin era of the '30s. He's thinking back to the Czars.

He dreams of restoring the old imperial Russia, one of the great empires of history, which at its peak ranged from the border of Poland to the Pacific Ocean and from the Arctic Ocean to the border of Afghanistan. He's thinking back to the palaces and the glitter and the gilt and the glory, the glory of Mother Russia. This is what this is about, this is his dream.

So what happens if the result of invading Ukraine is it all blows up in his face, with military defeat combined with a cratered economy, a growing internal unrest and opposition - opposition now also popping up in Belarus - and the resulting humiliation in the eyes of major parts of the world? Would he think "If I'm going down, if everything I wanted is lost, if everything I dreamed of is ashes, I'm going to take the world down with me?" It seems unlikely, it probably is unlikely, but it is possible. In that event, would he be restrained by those around him? Could he be?

So don't have sleepless nights but maybe toss and turn some before you do sleep.

And part of the reason for that tossing and turning goes back to the "unnecessary glee" at the prospect of Pukin's defeat I mentioned. Because something else I raised last time to which I think events have added emphasis and backing is that there are those in the West, in NATO, and even in Moscow who are secretly delighted at recent events heralding a return to the good old days of the good old Cold War and its clear lines and seeming lack of complexity and its, in the eyes of the various foreign policy establishments but creepily to the rest of us, "stability" despite all the proxy wars where the Cold War wasn't all that cold for the people in those places.

It's an attitude reflected in the language of President Blahden's State of the Union address, with its references to it all being about "freedom versus tyranny" - even if we do have people like Viktor Orban on our side and we have increasing reports of bigotry and racism in Ukraine directed against non-white people trying to flee the fighting - language harking back to the rhetoric of decades earlier.

So expect, no matter what happens in (or to) Ukraine, years of heightened, on-going tension between Russia on the one hand and the US and Europe on the other and for all you young folks, welcome back to the world your elders grew up in. Welcome back to a world where peace activists knew about Alcems and Slickems and Glickems, knew the difference between MRVs and MIRVs and MaRVs, where "throw weights" and "ceps" were meaningful terms and the advice to "duck and cover" was a source of bitter amusement. Toss and turn indeed.

Which makes it relevant to raise this here. The "no-fly zone" now being pushed by Ukraine is a terrible idea, so terrible there should be active pushback. Ukrainian officials - including Zalenskyy - should be asked what they think would happen in that event: "Do you think Russia will just go 'Oh, ok, we didn't know it is a no-fly zone, we won't do that any more?' And when that doesn't happen, how do you enforce such a thing?

"You are asking for NATO to shoot down Russian jets; you are asking in fact for the US and NATO to effectively declare war on Russia. That is insane. And if that means that there are limits on how much support the West will give Ukraine, then that’s what it means."

It's one thing to want NATO to accept the risk of World War III - which it is already doing in its current support if things really do go south for Pukin' - but it's quite another to demand that NATO be the one to start it.

048 The Erickson Report for February 17 to March 2, Page 1: Ukraine

048 The Erickson Report for February 17 to March 2, Page 1: Ukraine

I start with a warning that as I write this, events in Ukraine are in serious flux, with Russia saying it's pulling back some troops and NATO countries saying they see no signs of it and one even suggesting a drawdown could be a trick while hints about talks on other topics are being bandied about on both sides.

As I do this, the February 16 "day it will happen" is passing but the "it'll be by February 20" deadline is still ahead. Russia says it is pulling back troops but the US and NATO call b.s. So maybe tension is easing except maybe it isn't.

But it doesn't matter because as Politico's National Security Daily would have it today, February 16 was always "overhyped" and the real important day is February 20. Or soon after February 20. Or March 1. Or it doesn't matter because as one person they quoted said "Just because these dates come and go doesn’t mean the risk is any less." Just be worried all the time.

Things could be - in fact very likely will be in at least some ways - quite different by the time you see this: the difficulty of trying to discuss changing current events in a two-week time frame.

So I decided to plunge ahead with what I intended to say and if events prove that I got things totally and disastrously wrong, so be it and I won't hide from my failure. So onward.

Last time amid the growing drum beat of war at any moment, I made the prediction that Putin not invade Ukraine. 

Among the reasons were my contention that if he intended to invade he would have done it already rather than this extended slo-mo buildup giving both Ukraine NATO plenty of time to prepare a response and that his real intention was to make a declaration that NATO could not continue to act on matters of European security as if Russia did not exist, that is, to remind the West that Russia is still a player in these matters and it does have what it regards as legitimate security concerns about NATO expansion.

And in fact, that has recently been made more explicit, with Putin complaining the US and NATO have “freely interpreted” the principle of the "indivisibility of security," the idea that no country should strengthen its security at the expense of others, a principle that is enshrined in international agreements involving both sides. That is, he is sarcastically accusing NATO of interpreting the phrase in whatever way it finds most convenient at the moment, without regard to any concerns of objections Russia may have.
 
Another reason I gave was that an invasion would be a bloody and difficult undertaking,
the biggest Russian military operation since World War 2, and that includes Afghanistan.

And I also noted that I had some backup of my doubts to be found in statements from various diplomats and officials of non-US countries.

So my conclusion was that Putin would not invade - unless.

Which is where I left it, saying if the following two weeks had not yet proved that I am a lousy prognosticator, I'd finish that sentence this time. Time has not yet proved my failings, so here we are.

Simply put, the "unless" revovles around the NATO - which really means the US - response to Putin's posturing.

Putin is trying to lay down a marker, saying "We will be heard, we will not be ignored." Putin is regarded by some analysts as a gambler in foreign affairs, as being "risk-tolerant" as it's put, but in laying down his marker in this case, he's taking the risk he's making a bet he can't cover.

The risk can be seen most easily and clearly in the frankly bellicose words of US officials.

For one, there was the statement by Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark Milley, who said late in January, quoting, “We strongly encourage Russia to stand down and to pursue a resolution through diplomacy.”

For another, that same week the Biden administration and NATO told Russia there will be no US or NATO concessions on Moscow’s main demands, which revolve around Ukraine being kept out of NATO and the withdrawal of NATO forces from near Russia's border.

Some years ago I read a statement - I can't remember who, I'd like to give credit where it's due but I can't - that "faced with the choice between humiliation and war, nations historically have shown a depressingly persistent preference for the latter." The point and the relevance here is that if you don't want a war, you have to give the other side a way to back out of a confrontation without appearing to back down, a way to say at the very least "OK, I can live with that; it's not everything I wanted but I can live with it." Lacking such a way out, nations historically prefer war to humiliation. That concern is central to where we stand now.

And realize this notion of giving the other side a graceful exit is not an out-there idea: On February 14, Rep. Adam Smith, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, told MSNBC that “If we're going to prevent a war, Putin has to get something out of this. He has to have some sort of diplomatic face-saving mechanism to back down."

The idea has even been mentioned in mainstream news articles, often coupled with claims that the US is now offering Putin such an off-ramp. Unfortunately, that off-ramp consists of saying if Putin totally backs down, that is, withdraws all his troops from near Ukraine and drops all his other demands, including any objection to Ukraine joining NATO, we would be willing to talk about some tangentially-related issues outside the bounds of those demands. It's hard to think of that as being an acceptable alternative to Russia. Such discussions and even some decent results arising from them are certainly not out of the question - on February 15 Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made specific reference to them - but they will not address the central questions.

Which just brings us back to the US-NATO position of "stand down, no concessions."

There are really only four reasons they would say such a thing.
- They are totally ignorant of that history of nations preferring war to humiliation.
- They actually want a war.
- They are really convinced an attack won't happen and taking the opportunity to look tough because they are convinced they can bully Putin into retreat.
- Or there is something going on behind the scenes of which no one is talking about even on background and so of which we know nothing.

Of those, the last is the most hopeful, although hard to credit considering how many potential leaky points there are. Nonetheless, I can hope it's true; it certainly wouldn't be the first time some back-channel deal proved to be the way out of a crisis.

The first reason I simply cannot believe to be true and the second one I have to believe and fervently hope is not true.

Which leaves what I think is the most plausible reason: They think they can bully Putin into backing down. In fact, a hint of that confidence can be seen in that at the same time the US was declaring "no concessions," NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg declared that Russia should not only pull its forces from in and around Ukraine but also from Georgia and Moldova.

Frankly, if that's the game being played here, it is an insanely dangerous one, particularly when you bear in mind that Putin holds the 1990s as a "decade of humiliation" for his country, an experience he is unlikely to be willing to repeat.

Okay, so what can be done? There have been several ideas advanced; let's run through a few.

You have to realize the Ukraine is the key. So one idea is to simply accept Moscow's insistence that Ukraine be permanently barred from NATO. Now, that's actually not a bad one and I'd even go beyond that which I'll get to later, but right now it's not politically viable. It would be almost as much a humiliating retreat for NATO as the one being pushed on Russia by NATO. So in the present, it's a nonstarter.

However, what could be done is to emphasize the fact - and it is a fact - that there is no reasonable prospect for Ukraine to be part of NATO any time in the foreseeable future, if in fact ever.

The prospect of its joining what is a Cold War military alliance is based on a 2008 NATO statement which in the nearly 14 full years since has not produced what's called a Membership Action Plan - a pathway to eventual membership - for Ukraine. And Germany and France were and remain opposed to Ukraine's membership and getting in requires unanimous support from existing members. So Ukraine may never be able to join NATO.

Even Ukranian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy has essentially acknowledged that. During a meeting with German chancellor Olaf Scholz on February 14, Zelenskyy said membership in NATO would take “longer than expected" and described it as a "dream," something Kyiv hopes to get to someday, but who knows when or, bluntly, if.

But instead of pointing that out except occasionally in passing, NATO and the US keep banging on the "anyone can join" drum as if it were a done deal and it's just a matter of some details.

Admittedly, President Blahden did say that Ukraine does not have the go-ahead to join NATO - but that was last June and is not found in the current rhetoric, at least as how anyone would notice. It's dispiriting and indicative of the idea that the US thinks Putin can be bullied because it is pushing pride over practicality, made clearer by that last week Jean-Marie Guehenno, former UN under-secretary-general for peacekeeping operations, described NATO’s non-stop enlargement as a "mistake" and said the 2008 promise was "hypocritical to claim that NATO enlargement was compatible with the development of real friendship with Russia."

Another related idea of what could be done is for NATO, rather than barring Ukraine or emphasizing membership is only long-term possibility, to declare a moratorium on new member states, a way to finesse Ukrainian membership without directly acknowledging the connection. Yet another proposal is the so-called "Finlandization" of Ukraine, which has a bad air about it because it has implied being subject to informal domination by Russia, but would really mean Ukraine declaring itself neutral and trying to maintain contacts and good relations with both Russia and the West, which wouldn't be popular with the pro-Europe western parts of Ukraine and would require a formal change in Ukrainian policy but still could be a viable option and over time become the normal state of affairs.

Yet another potential off-ramp for Putin, a way for him to, if you will, stand down without appearing to kneel, something that would give him that "face-saving mechanism" would be for the US and NATO to insist that Ukraine fulfill its obligations under a 2015 peace deal regarding two breakaway pro-Russia provinces in the Donbas region in the southeast of the country, a deal that was brokered by France and Germany and required Kyiv to offer self-rule to the rebel-held territories. Its implementation has stalled because of domestic opposition in the anti-Russian western Ukraine, but granting that self-rule plus surrendering even if not formally to the reality that Crimea is gone could well be enough to provide the "flexibility" to avoid a major war without anyone on either side giving up anything over which they actually have control.

Personally, I think that is the best option available and could be made even better if only because more saleable is for Ukraine to be admitted to the European Union - something to which it appears Russia has not objected - which would to some degree satisfy Kyiv's desire to closer ties to the West without involving any commitments of Europe or the US to the military defense of Ukraine or allowing for the stationing of any NATO forces or bases within it.

In fact, I'm going to go way out on a limb here. On February 15, Putin declared, without offering any evidence, that what is going on in Donbas is "genocide" - that is, genocide against the ethnic Russians there. Analysts are as you'd expect claiming that this is intend as a pretext for an invasion. Which, I have to acknowledge, it could be. However, he has been saying the same thing since 2014. It has served as the excuse for Russian military support of the rebels. Which prompts me to think that raising it right now, in this context, is a tell that what I just raised - a deal involving self-rule to the breakaway provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk - could be the key to a settlement.

As events unfold, we'll see how I do.

048 The Erickson Report for February 17 to March 2

The Erickson Report for February 17 to March 2

This episode:

- "Putin will not invade - unless..." explained

- Government pushes, media embraces, unquestioning acceptance of official claims

- Disband NATO

- "The Threat" to public education

(Sources to follow)

047 The Erickson Report for February 3 to 16, Page 1: War in Ukraine?

047 The Erickson Report for February 3 to 16, Page 1: War in Ukraine?

I was going to do a big thing about Ukraine, including going into some of the background, including the divisions within Ukraine between the anti-Russian western parts which resent a history of Russian domination and the ethnic Russian eastern parts which for that reason are more oriented toward Russia. We'd have to look at the Orange Revolution, the Euromaiden protests and the Revolution of Dignity, the Russian seizure of Crimea, the on-going slow-motion war in eastern Ukraine involving two breakaway provinces, none of which even gets to the competing great power claims about the present day situation.

It soon became clear that all that was too much. So I'm going to pass on that.

Instead, I'm going to make a bold prediction. Which by the time you see this could already have proven me disastrously wrong. But - I predict that Russia is not going to attack Ukraine.

Frankly, I think that if Putin was intending to attack, he would have done it. The seizure of Crimea came within days after the Revolution of Dignity had forced the resignation of the pro-Russia president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych. In the case of Georgia in 2008, Russian forces invaded within hours of government forces seizing the capital of the pro-Russia breakaway province of South Ossetia. Instead, we have this dragged-out posturing and looming presence but no direct action.

Rajan Menon, director of the grand strategy program at Defense Priorities and a senior research fellow at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University, had I think a much likelier vision of events than the "Omigod, it's war any moment" version: “Some of this," he said, "is Putin saying, ‘We matter as a country, and you can't do in European security whatever you want, pretending that we don't exist.’” In other words, "We will not be ignored, our concerns will not be waved off."

Could Russia legitimate security concerns? Or could they at the very least honestly feel such concerns?

Okay. On February 9, 1990, US Secretary of State James Baker told both Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze and President Mikhail Gorbachev that in exchange for Soviet cooperation in the reunification of Germany, that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward" out of respect for Soviet security concerns. In fact, he apparently said the same thing three different ways.

Look at the second map.

You can see it's a map of Europe with this funny purplish line through it. The countries in blue are members of NATO. Every one of those blue countries to the east, to the right, of that line joined NATO after that promise was made. The pale blue country is Bosnia and it is in the process of entering NATO. The green nations are Ukraine and Georgia and the plan is for them to also join NATO.

So if you were a Russian government official, could you feel that you had been tricked or lied to, that you had security concerns which had been ignored?

Now for the sake of completeness I'll add that US officials have striven mightily to insist that "one inch eastward" didn't mean that, it only applied to the former East Germany, not anywhere else, which bluntly is a real stretch but even at that doesn't address the fact that the Russians could honestly feel differently, honestly feel betrayed, honestly feel that NATO can't be trusted and despite all the pretty words is not actually interested in mutual security but in dominance.

Okay, given that, why no invasion? Because even if Putin intended to - which I say he doesn't - he has to know it would be hard and bloody. It wouldn't be like when Russians rolled into Georgia. Ukraine is nearly 10 times the size of Georgia and its military is seven or eight times bigger. We keep hearing about the 100,000 troops Russia has along its border with Ukraine. The Ukranian army has 150,000 members plus another 50-100,000 in a navy, air force, and National Guard, plus the arms and equipment that has been coming in from NATO nations. There are those who say that's irrelevant because Putin would attack with cruise missiles and other long-range weaponry which is a stupid argument because first then what's the big deal about the 100K troops and second, that would provoke the same sort of NATO response that a ground invasion would.

And it's not just me that has doubts.

Ukrainian authorities have projected calm. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has urged Ukrainians not to panic, saying "There is no reason to pack your bags." A week ago, Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov told parliament that “as of today, there are no grounds to believe” Russia will invade imminently.

Meanwhile, Newsweek reports that several current and former US, Russian, and Ukrainian officials have said that US intelligence of an imminent Russian invasion is being exaggerated, a number that apparently includes some within Zelenskyy's inner circle.

In fact, Newsweek says, the US intelligence community has yet to establish a consensus on whether Russia was truly preparing to take on what would be an intensive military operation.

Even US Sec of War Lloyd Austin has said publicly that we don't know if Putin has actually decided to go to war and White press secretary Jen Psaki says the administration will no longer use word "imminent."

Well, I maintain he hasn't intended to, that he doesn't intend to, that his real concern is to make the declaration that Russia and its concerns are still something to which the West must pay attention, and that he won't invade Ukraine - unless...

And I'm going to leave you hanging there. If in two weeks I have not yet been shown to be a lousy prognosticator, I will go into what the greatest threat of war here is - except to say as a teaser that, as is so often true, it will not be as the result of someone's or some nation's unforced choice.

The Erickson Report, Page 3: Heroes and Villains

The Erickson Report, Page 3: Heroes and Villains

Alright, now for one of our occasional features, called Heroes and Villains

You may have heard about the massive protests in Moscow demanding free and fair elections in gthe wake of opposition candidates being barred from running in the Moscow city council elections.

The police response, to what should be no one's surprise, has been brutal. Hundreds arrested this past weekend, 1000 the weekend before, with many reported beaten, as crowds called out "We are unarmed," and "Our blood is on your hands."

In the midst of the state violence, 17-year-old Olga Misik sat down on the ground in her bulletproof vest in front of Putin's armed goons and read aloud the Russian Constitution, including Article 31 affirming the right to peaceful political assembly, creating a quiet but potent symbol of peaceful defiance.

Olga Misik

In what again should have been a surprise to no one, Misik was allowed to leave the demonstration only to be arrested later when there were no witnesses. She was held overnight and beaten before being charged with "attending a public event [held] without filing a notice" and fomenting "mass unrest."

For being a symbol of courageous nonviolent defiance that has been compared to the famous image of a single Chinese man facing down a tank in Tiananmen Square, Olga Misik is a hero.

As for our villain, well, of course it's Vlad Ptooie. You thought someone else?

29.5 - Clown Award: Donald TheRump

Clown Award: Donald TheRump

Now for one of our regular features, one we didn't get to last week but it's back and it seems may be our most popular feature, it's the Clown Award, given as always for meritorious stupidity.

We had some solid competition this week, some truly deserving applicants, so I will present to you the four finalists, presented in the order of finish.

Bringing up the rear, which is appropriate because he's a real ass, is Rep. Steve King of Iowa, a bigoted white supremacist who is surely in the running for the worst person in the world.

Not surprisingly, he wants to Build that wall! The House Appropriations Committee is proposing to allocate $1.6 billion toward it - but that's not enough IWouldBeKing. He wants an additional $5 billion for the wall - $500 million coming from Planned Parenthood's budget (which is nonsensical it itself since Planned Parenthood doesn't have an allocation in the federal budget, what it gets is reimbursement for services provided under Medicaid) and the rest coming out of Food Stamps, which KingMe says is double-plus good because Food Stamps, he says, are a leading cause of obesity.

If he really wants to reduce obesity, he could start with the fat in his head.

Next, there is Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California, who seems to have embraced the "I'm not a scientist" mentality of the right wing with a little more than the usual enthusiasm.

During the increasingly misnamed House Science Committee's hearings on NASA's budget for planetary exploration, Rohrabacher - who is, lord help us, on the committee - asked NASA scientist Kenneth Farley:

You have indicated that Mars was totally different thousands of years ago. Is it possible that there was a civilization on Mars thousands of years ago?

Farley politely noted that it was billions of years ago, not thousands, and when Rohrabacher persisted, gently, as you would with a child, said the chances of a Martian civilization in the past are "extremely unlikely."

Would that was equally true of people like Rohrabacher.

Here the competition gets stiff.

On July 12, long-time Clinton family ally and adviser Paul Begala was grousing on CNN that TheRump's supporters don't seem sufficiently outraged about claims of Russian meddling in US affairs.

He fumed that, quoting,

We were and are under attack by a hostile foreign power ... and we should be debating how many sanctions we should place on Russia or whether we should blow up the KGB or GRU,

which is Russia's foreign intelligence agency.

You got it right: He is proposing we bomb Russia because TheRump' rumpers aren't ticked off enough.

Donald TheRump, pointing to his loose screw

What could top that? Glad you asked. This week, the Big Red Nose, I genuinely didn't want to do this but I just can't not do it, the Big Red Nose this week, wait for it, goes to Donald TheRump.

Speaking with reporters on Air Force One the night of July 12, His High Orangeness said that his proposed wall along the US-Mexico border would need to be see-through. Thus sayeth he:

One of the things with the wall is you need transparency. You have to be able to see through it. In other words, if you can't see through that wall - so it could be a steel wall with openings, but you have to have openings because you have to see what's on the other side of the wall.

Why? Because

when they throw the large sacks of drugs over, and if you have people on the other side of the wall, you don't see them - they hit you on the head with 60 pounds of stuff? It's over.

So yes, you have to be able to see through the wall so you won't get hit on the head with a 60 pound bag of pot.

That's our commander in chief, our president, our national clown.

18.3 - The little Thing: US leads in cyberwar

The little Thing: US leads in cyberwar

Next is one of our occasional features. It's called "The little Thing" and it's when some there is something in an article, something passed over without comment or reference, that strikes me as much more significant or revealing than the way it's treated.

It this case, it came in a BBC report on the arrest in Spain of a Russian programmer suspected of large-scale hacking and of installing malicious software in hundreds of thousands of computers.

Much of Pyotr Levashov's alleged activity involved ransomware, the name given to computer viruses that block access to your computer or some portion of it and demanding some sort of ransom to unblock it, a release which is rarely if ever granted even if the ransom is paid.

Despite the claim of his wife Maria that his arrest had to do with a computer virus he created that was related to "Trump's win," the arrest more likely had to do with going after Russian cybercriminals who have been helping the Russian government with its cyberwar programs, which have included, it is alleged, state-sponsored cyberattacks on Russia's neighbors.

And this is where the little thing comes in. It was a comment quoted in the middle of the article with no mention of its meaning. It was from Milan Patel, managing director at a cybersecurity firm called K2 Intelligence and former chief technology officer of the FBI's cyber division. He said:

We've reached a boiling point with Russia. They are the closest competitor to the US when it comes to cyberespionage and cyberattacks. With Russia now, a lot is coming to the forefront and being made public about how they run their cyber activities.

Wait, stop. They are "the closest competitor to the US?" Doesn't that mean the US is ahead of them? Doesn't that mean that the US is the world's leader "when it comes to cyberespionage and cyberattacks?"

It's a little thing, but just another reminder that the NSA has an entire bureau dedicated to enabling the agency to hack any computer system anywhere in the world, operating under the slogan of - and this is real - "getting the ungettable."

What's the line about people in glass houses?

17.7 - For the Record: a brief comment on the gas attack in Syria

For the Record: a brief comment on the gas attack in Syria

For the Record, two quick observations on a topic which I have shamefully neglected and even now am not going to give the attention it deserves: Syria, specifically, the gas attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun, an opposition-held town in Idlib province in the north of that nation.

The death toll has risen to 89 at last report, with over 500 harmed and confidence is high not only from sources like the US government but more importantly from the World Health Organization and Doctors Without Borders that the weapon was a neurotoxin like sarin.

The first observation is that Russia's attempt to pin the blame on the Islamist forces in the town, claiming that a Syrian attack on a "terrorist warehouse" containing an "arsenal of chemical weapons" intended for fighters in Iraq doesn't pass the laugh test. It is utterly childish, one expert even calling it "infantile" and another "fanciful."

Approximate location of Khan Sheikhoun

What makes it especially nonsensical is that Russia claimed that the Syrian attack on this supposed warehouse took place at 4:30am Eastern Standard Time - but the first photos of victims were posted online at 2:28am EST, just over two hours before, if we believe Russia, the raid happened.

The other observation is that presidential mouthpiece and Melissa McCarthy impersonator Sean Spicer declared that we know who really is to blame for the attack: Barack Obama, because he was "weak and irresolute" after a chemical weapons attack in 2012.

So in other words, they are claiming that Bashar al-Assad felt he had a free hand to use gas on Khan Sheikhoun because of something Barack Obama did or didn't do five years ago - while the fact that just a few days before the attack Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, and Spicer himself all said that the US was no longer focused on getting Assad out of power had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Which goes to show that when it comes to infantile and laughable arguments, the Russians ain't got nothing on us.

16.3 - Good News: resistance to corruption in Russia

Good News: resistance to corruption in Russia

One more bit of Good News: Resistance grows.

On March 26, in the biggest show of defiance in five years, public opposition to corruption and rigged elections saw tens of thousands of people turn out in scores of demonstrations all across Russia.

Almost all of those rallies were "unsanctioned," that is, they had neither permission nor permits, but still people poured into the streets in cities from Vladivostok to St. Petersburg.

Moscow

The largest rally was, not surprisingly, in Moscow. Police estimated that 7000-8000 people took part there, with another 3000 in St. Petersburg, with crowds of hundreds or more in many other places.

It has to be said, though, that considering photos of the events it seems clear that those police estimates are woefully low and opposition estimates of 20,000 in Moscow and 10,000 in St. Petersburg are closer to the mark.

Nationwide, over 1000 people were arrested, with the bulk of the arrests in Moscow.

The demonstrations resulted from a call by anti-corruption campaigner Alexei Navalny, described as a complex and charismatic figure who has long been a thorn in the Kremlin's side.

St. Petersburg

He has alienated some of Russia's liberal democrats with his anti-migrant rhetoric and his participation in rallies organized by neo-Nazis and white supremacists, but he is highly popular among Russians critical of the corruption in the Kremlin.

By the way, as a quick footnote to that to be filed under "same as it ever was," or if you prefer, "mirror, mirror," is that when RT, a Russian state-owned media outlet, reported on the demonstrations, the lead comment on the story was "Soros and US have been busy then!!!" and yes, they did mean George Soros. Many other comments were along the lines of "Soros is behind it all," the protesters are "a small minority," Navalny is "a CIA stooge," and the protesters were "paid."

Made me feel right at home.

What's Left #16

What's Left
for the week of March 30 - April 5, 2017

This week:

Good News: victory on disability rights
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/22/high-court-bolsters-rights-learning-disabled-students.html
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-supreme-court-rules-for-children-with-1490202454-htmlstory.html

Good News: victory on the death penalty
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/28/supreme-court-rules-for-texas-death-row-inmate-over-iq-claim/22015198/

Good News: resistance to corruption in Russia
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/nationwide-protests-bring-thousands-to-russias-streets/2017/03/26/7e3af598-128b-11e7-bb16-269934184168_story.html?utm_term=.dcb767264b97
https://www.rt.com/news/382381-russia-opposition-protests-detentions/
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/26/521594477/russians-take-to-the-streets-in-nationwide-anti-government-protests
http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-russia-protests-20170326-story.html

Not Good News: $15 minimum wage vetoed in Baltimore
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/26/dem-mayor-vetoes-15-min-wage-bill/
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/pass-the-buck.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-actually-earns-the-minimum-wage/

Right-wing trying to change rules on minimum wage
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/11/minimum-wage-advocates-won-big-in-november-but-now-theyre-at-risk-of-losing-all-over-again/
http://www.thestand.org/2017/03/early-i-1433-results-are-in-raising-minimum-wage-boosts-jobs/
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/23/1645780/--SaveTheWage-Protect-Minimum-Wage-Raises-from-Corporate-Lobbyists-and-Lawyers
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/minimum-wage-supreme-court-backs-voters-over-business-interests-9163185
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2017/03/1511-update-repressing-protest.html

The love of profit is the root of all economic evil
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2015/10/2227-pursuit-of-profit-is-baseline.html
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Timothy-6-10/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-23/inside-alabama-s-auto-jobs-boom-cheap-wages-little-training-crushed-limbs
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/26/during-obamas-presidency-wealth-inequality-has-increased-and-poverty-levels-are-higher/
http://www.epi.org/publication/the-top-charts-of-2016-13-charts-that-show-the-difference-between-the-economy-we-have-now-and-the-economy-we-could-have/
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
http://fortune.com/2017/01/16/world-richest-men-income-equality/

Outrage of the Week: TheRump attacks the climate
https://thecorrespondent.com/6285/shell-made-a-film-about-climate-change-in-1991-then-neglected-to-heed-its-own-warning/692663565-875331f6
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/7/8/1400557/-Former-Exxon-scientist-says-Exxon-knew-about-climate-change-and-fossil-fuels-in-1981
http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/3/27/14922516/trump-executive-order-climate
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/06/2013-26785/preparing-the-united-states-for-the-impacts-of-climate-change
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/16/press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-3162017-25
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/trumps-war-on-the-climate-begins/519159/


For the Record: Daniel Pantaleo should have been fired long ago
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/22/1646219/-Leaked-documents-show-the-NYPD-officer-who-killed-Eric-Garner-should-have-been-fired-a-long-time-ago

For the Record: MakeTweetsGreatAgain
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/03/27/1647743/-Thanks-to-these-computer-developers-when-Trump-tweets-the-ACLU-gets-a-donation
https://maketweetsgreatagain.us/

For the Record: forum on trade with Africa included no Africans
https://www.indy100.com/article/africa-trade-meeting-african-visa-denied-us-travel-ban-global-economic-development-summit-7637666

Hero Award: Aramis Ayala
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/92813296-132.html
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-aramis-ayala-no-death-penalty-20170316-story.html
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2017/03/28/judge-backs-scotts-removal-of-prosecutor/amp/
http://www.wesh.com/article/florida-legislators-propose-cutting-budget-of-state-attorney-aramis-ayala/9196886

Clown Award: a majority of American men
https://www.scribd.com/document/342699692/PerryUndem-Gender-and-Birth-Control-Access-Report
https://thinkprogress.org/congress-is-more-regressive-on-womens-rights-than-most-voters-poll-finds-88efc93d7e59#.t6051vj6e

9.7 - Footnote: Russian "hacking"

Footnote: Russian "hacking"

There is an important Footnote to that, which is why I had put Outrage of the Year off until this week: The impact of that stretches into this year and continues, in fact will require more discussion than I can give it here.

There was one other place blame for the Democrats' failure was laid: Russia. Blame Russia! Blame Russia! They hacked the election! They hacked the election! They hacked the election! Scream it over and over and wait for the paranoia to set in.

Now, note at the top that this does not mean that the Russians did not hack the DNC. It also does not mean that what WikiLeaks released did not ultimately come from a Russian source with enough intermediaries to conceal its true origin from the group.

What is does mean - beyond the fact that there is no evidence that even if the charges are true that the hacking made any difference in the outcome - and this is important, it means that the Democrats are so determined to put the blame for their embarrassing failure in losing to the most unpopular major-party presidential candidate in US history on someone else that they would rather ignite a new cold war than look in the mirror.

While it may well be true that the Russians hacked the DNC and perhaps other computers related to political parties, the actual evidence presented thus far is thin and the rhetoric is getting overheated, complete with dark McCarthyist mutterings about other "foreign actors," panicked and totally false reports that the Russians had hacked into the US power grid - it turned out to be a piece of malware found on a single laptop that was never connected to the grid - and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper charging the Russians with the most "aggressive, direct campaign to interfere in our election process" we've ever seen.

But here we come up against two problems, one of judgment, one of context.

The judgement lies in the determination of the spooks that the hacking was the result of a campaign ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin for the purpose of helping TheRump win the election. But how certain is that?

In an interview with the Reuters podcast War College, Mark Galeotti of the Institute for International Relations in Prague denied that such hacking, assuming Russian guilt, was done to help TheRump. Galeotti, whose specialty is the Russian government, maintained that the Putin government, like most others, thought that Clinton was a lock and was aiming to have her enter office as a damaged and therefore weakened president. Part of his reasoning, which I find persuasive, was that what leaders of great powers want more than anything else in their international affairs is predictability. And one thing on which most people would agree is that TheRump is not predictable. Now that TheRump is going to be president, Putin will try to take best advantage of that, but that doesn't mean it's a situation he actively desired.

And in fact, contrary to the headlines, the evidence backs that up, even if you have to dig to find it as our national media gins up the fear machine and buries the lede.

Consider for one example that on January 5, the Washington Post began an article by quoting unnamed US officials as saying that intercepted communications showed Russian officials congratulating themselves on the outcome of the election; the paper described the reaction as "ebullient."

You have to read down to the 20th graph, farther down that most readers get, to find that "the messages also revealed that top officials in Russia anticipated that Clinton would win" and that "Russian officials 'were as surprised as the rest of the world'" by the election results.

Which would appear to make Mark Galeotti a better judge than our entire intelligence apparatus.

Speaking of that apparatus, there is the matter of context. It's not necessary to justify or approve any Russian hacking, again assuming guilt which I'm prepared to do, to note that when we present ourselves as shocked, shocked to find election interference going on, we should expect to face an entire world rolling its eyes.

For one thing, directly relevant, have we forgotten the NSA? Have we forgotten that the NSA has a unit called Tailored Access Operations, the very mandate of which is to enable the spooks to hack any computer anywhere, any time? "Getting the ungettable" is the NSA's own description of the unit's duties.

And have we forgotten our own lengthy history of interfering in elections in other countries?

According to a database compiled by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University, the US tried to influence the outcome of presidential elections in other countries as many as 81 times since 1946 - including, at least once, in Russia. Note well: That number does not include engineered coups such as in Guatemala and Iran, attempts to undermine disfavored governments such as in Chile or the Congo, or general (and open and legal) assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring. It is only cases of meddling in presidential elections.

Our history is so clear, our behavior so common, there's even a running joke in Latin America about it:

Q: Why has there never been a coup in the United States?
A: Because there's no US embassy in Washington.

So investigate -  calmly and carefully without all the rhetoric and overheated assumptions  - sure. Tighten your computer security against hacking, sure.

But ignite a new cold war because someone else wanted to play by our rules? I don't think so.

What's Left #9

What's Left
for the week of January 12-18, 2017

This week:

Not Good News: bumblebee listed as endangered
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-lists-first-bumble-bee-species-endangered-212930972.html
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/6045/20140215/ignores-petition-list-rusty-patched-bumblebee-endangered-species.htm

Not Good News: civil war in South Sudan continues
http://worldpress.org/link.cfm?http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article61350
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2014/01/1404-bad-news-south-sudan.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2014/01/1416-update-south-sudan.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2015/09/2184-more-tragedy-still-hope-in-south.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/03/2416-not-good-news-un-excoriates-south.html

Not Good News: internet consumer protection rules under attack
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/01/04/its-begun-cable-companies-are-pushing-to-repeal-obama-era-internet-privacy-rules/
http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/4/14167832/donald-trump-rupert-murdoch-fcc-chair-net-neutrality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCQTyheuvU4

Clown Award: Kellyanne Conway
http://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/07/nypd-captain-suggests-unsolved-rape-cases-are-not-a-trend-that/21649689/
http://gawker.com/5938849/a-recent-history-of-republicans-talking-about-rape
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/conway-trump-heart
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/11/26/donald-trump-mocks-reporter-with-disability-berman-sot-ac.cnn

Outrage of the Week: TheRump considering panel desired by anti-vaxxers
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2014/12/1844-footnote-invalid-immunization-fears.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2015/04/2006-clown-award-robert-f-kennedy-jr.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy
https://theoutline.com/post/870/trump-kennedy-anti-vaccine-meeting-wont-make-america-great
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/01/10/the-facts-about-vaccines-autism-and-robert-f-kennedy-jr-s-conspiracy-theory/
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2017/01/what_unites_trump_and_rfk_jr_is_a_scary_denial_that_they_re_anti_vaxxers.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/11/30/vaccine_skeptic_andrew_wakefield_is_excited_about_donald_trump_s_presidency.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-meets-anti-vaccine-activist-after-raising-fringe-theory-trail-n705296
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/10/509185540/despite-the-facts-trump-once-again-embraces-vaccine-skeptics

Outrage of the Year 2016: Democratic Party presidential race
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/02/2364-rare-and-potentially-my-only.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/04/2455-what-now-for-progressives.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/after-new-york-win-clinton-campaign-says-bernie-sanders-attacks-help-republicans
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/06/2485-disqualifying-change-by.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/06/2492-part-2-issues-that-wont-be.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/11/36-democrats-refusing-to-recognize.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/11/22-but-we-have-to-carry-on-as-best-as.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/11/34-importance-of-continuing-protest.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/12/45-excuses-for-failures-of-democrats.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/12/58-latest-clintonite-excuses-for-losing.html

Footnote: Russian "hacking"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-do-not-appear-to-have-targeted-vermont-utility-say-people-close-to-investigation/2017/01/02/70c25956-d12c-11e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html
http://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/05/russia-cyber-attacks-are-major-threat-congress-probe-hears/21648476/
http://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/06/us-intelligence-report-putin-ordered-a-hacking-campaign-to-har/21649595/
https://soundcloud.com/war_college/the-kremlin-had-a-plan-donald
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-intercepts-capture-senior-russian-officials-celebrating-trump-win/2017/01/05/d7099406-d355-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?postshare=2211483657557606&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.ff07e992b361
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-nsa-uses-powerful-toolbox-in-effort-to-spy-on-global-networks-a-940969.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-history-of-the-u-s-interfering-with-elections-elsewhere/?utm_term=.b2f193660bbe
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-us-has-been-meddling-in-other-countries-elections-for-a-century-it-doesnt-feel-good_us_57983b85e4b02d5d5ed382bd

6.10 - The end of the battle for Aleppo

The end of the battle for Aleppo

On December 13, Russian ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin told the Security Council that military action had ended in eastern Aleppo. A deal had been reached for the rebels to leave the city. The rebels confirmed the deal had been made.

The Battle of Aleppo, the battle and the siege that became the symbol for the humanitarian disaster that is Syria, the battle which since 2012 had pitted the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against an array of disorganized opposition rebels in what was essentially a standoff until massive Russian bombings turned the tide and enabled government troops and Iranian-sponsored militias to break through, that battle appeared to be over.

The news came in the wake of what UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called "reports of atrocities against a large number of civilians," including summary executions and even burning of people alive, atrocities committed by government troops and particularly by the militias in the final days of the battle.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights referred to "butcheries" carried out "every hour" and Jens Laerke of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs called it "a complete meltdown of humanity."

But at least it appeared it was over and the haunting question "What would you do about Aleppo," the question to which no one had a good answer, the question that could only bring the heart-shredding realization that sometimes there is nothing you can do, nothing that will not just increase the suffering, the death, the bloodshed, it appeared that question was finally silenced.

Except - the temptation is to say of course - it wasn't. The ceasefire agreement fell apart in less than a day.

It had been negotiated by Russia and Turkey and apparently Syria and Iran were ticked off they they weren't involved. As a result, the Iranian-backed militias refused to allow the evacuation even of the wounded, much less the rebels, to proceed.

The bombing, the destruction, the death, resumed, even intensified, only for another ceasefire to go into effect a day later, achieved after a concession to - notably - not Syria but Iran, involving arranging for a similar evacuation of two villages where Iranian-supported militias are under siege by rebel forces.

This time, it seemed to work. In the very early hours of Thursday, December 15, the International Committee of the Red Cross confirmed that the evacuation of the wounded from Aleppo had begun and Russia’s TASS news service said the evacuation of 5,000 Syrian rebels and their families was also under way.

So maybe it really is finally over. Over, that is, at least for the moment, at least for a few.

On a more if you will practical level, this is undeniably a military and perhaps more important political victory for Assad, for Russia, and perhaps even more for Iran. Aleppo was the last major urban center held by the rebels against the Assad regime.

But this does not mean in any sense that the war is over. Rebel forces in their varying forms, which include, we need to keep reminding ourselves, a variety of terrorist groups including some - such as the al-Nusra front - the US has supported as "moderates" solely because they say they oppose ISIS, still hold a significant amount of territory and the fact is, Assad is now almost entirely dependent on Russia and Iran for his survival.

Meanwhile, Daesh - that is, ISIS - has retaken the city of Palmyra and launched an attack on a major Syrian airbase.

The future of the war and the future of Syria is a very different question from the end of the battle for Aleppo. The blood continues to flow.

241.5 - Updates about Syria

Updates about Syria

Finally, something here that may be Good News. We'll have to wait and see. It involves developments in Syria.

First, contrary to all expectations, the limited ceasefire in Syria is holding into its third week, opening the possibility - and it as of now is only that, but it is a possibility - of peace. The violence hasn't actually stopped, even in the areas affected by the declared ceasefire, but it is down significantly and humanitarian aid is getting through - and in the context of Syria, that alone is enough to qualify as good news.

What's more, UN-mediated peace talks have actually - yes they have - started in Geneva. Success is far from assured, but this is further than things have gotten before.

Next, Russian president Vladimir Pukin' startled the world community by announcing on March 14 that "the main part" of Russian armed forces in Syria would start to withdraw, declaring that "the task ... has, on the whole, been fulfilled."

The question all along had been just what that task was. Pukin' said the bombing campaign was to attack Daesh, but in actual practice it was clear the purpose was to support his ally, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. Most of the attacks - 80% by one analysis - were on territory held by Syrian opposition groups where Assad's forces were launching an offensive.

Vladimir Putin

It's thought by many that Russia's bombing campaign has helped Assad regain the initiative against his opponents. But if that's true, then why is Pukin' pulling out now?

Actually, a more immediate question is, is he pulling out? Even after this withdrawal, there will still be a whole lotta Russian stuff in Syria, including two military bases, meaning he could direct his forces back into the war any time. Opposition groups in the rebel-held city of Aleppo dismissed the withdrawal as "propaganda."

On the other hand, and this is where prospects for peace start to brighten, we go back to the question of what it was Pukin' was trying to accomplish. And there are a number of analysts who are suggesting that his purpose was not so much to help Assad defeat the rebels as it was to insure Russia - meaning himself - a greater role in the Middle East. Put another way, the Russian footprint in the Middle East has been more of a toe than a foot of late, and he wanted to expand that. That was his concern.

So once his ally Assad was safe, was not threatened with the possibility of being overrun, that is, once there was a secure base for Russian influence in the region, and once, through that, Pukin' had established himself as a playah, one he had secured a seat at the grown-ups' table, well, as he said, "the task has been fulfilled."

So in that line of thought, why should he stay? Why shouldn't he withdraw? In fact, it would be in his interest to do withdraw.

Bashar al-Assad

What this ultimately means for Syria in not, of course, immediately clear. In the short term, what is does do, for one thing, is to increase pressure on Assad to reach a political settlement if he can no longer count on Russian air support in his war against the rebels, without which his regime had been facing defeat just months ago.

What such a political settlement might be is pretty much up for grabs. At this point, short of a renewed and all-out Russian war on the Syrian rebels - one that would prove to be protracted and very bloody at a time when Russian's own economic troubles put restraints on how many resources Pukin' could actually devote to such a war even as it would also raise the potential for international economic repercussions - short of such an unlikely event, one thing that seems likely is that Assad's new Syria will not look like his old Syria. Power-sharing, a coalition government, even one without Assad, and even more dramatic alternatives such as federated states or outright partition could be in the offing.

The cold, the hunger, the blood, the death, none of it is over for the Syrians. But by a rather bizarre confluence of big-power interests, for the first time in five years it may be possible to imagine an end to it.

And isn't that Good News.

Sources cited in links:
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/03/2391-good-news-partial-ceasefire-in.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-kerry-we-may-face-best-opportunity-in-years-to-end-syria-war/
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=53453#.VukCyNBSQVI
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/russia-withdrawal-syria_us_56e6f864e4b0b25c9182af57?utm_hp_ref=world
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/russia-syria-withdrawal-putin_us_56e6faa1e4b0b25c9182b51d
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/analysis-why-putin-picked-moment-pull-out-syria-n538671
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/03/15/analysis-russian-withdrawal-aims-pressure-assad-seek-peace-syria/81805610/