John Bolton confirmed in a speech this week that New START is as good as dead.
Nikolas K. Gvosdev: The Great Oil War of 2020 Has Begun. Can Russia Win?
Russia enters this oil price war with two overarching objectives: drive U.S. producers out of business, and expose Riyadh to the limits of American support. Will Putin prevail?
VIDEO: Elaine Scarry, “Presidential First Use of Nuclear Weapons: Is It Legal, Constitutional or Just?”
Elaine Scarry is Cabot Professor of Aesthetics at Harvard and the author of Thermonuclear Monarchy. She was co-organizer of the “Presidential First Use” conference in Nov. 2017.
Marco Carnelos: Biden sticks to the notion of the US as an ‘indispensable nation’
Biden promises to “impose real costs on Russia for its violations of international norms and stand with Russian civil society … against President Vladimir Putin’s kleptocratic authoritarian system”. In other words, a policy bordering on regime change in Moscow.
Nikolas K. Gvosdev: Has a Color Revolution Come to Russia? Probably Not.
What do the latest protests in Moscow mean for Russia?
Paul Robinson: Putin 2036?
Valentina Tereshkova, best known for having been the first woman in space, proposed to the Duma that once the new constitutional amendments come into force, the count of how many times somebody can be president be reset to zero. This would allow Putin to stand once again for president in the election of 2024, and to serve two more terms as far as 2036.
Nikkei Asian Review: Russia and China romance runs into friction in Central Asia
US strategists call for driving wedge between the traditional rivals
Douglas MacGregor: Turkey and Russia Could Be Headed Towards a Crisis
It would be the gargantuan joke of the 21st Century if President Trump were to allow Secretary of State Pompeo to align American military power with Erdogan’s Sunni-led Islamist cause; the same cause that attacked New York City and killed thousands of Americans.
VICE Discovers Azov (5 Years Late)
Ukrainian ultranationalists, many with barely disguised neo-Nazi or white supremacist views, have been a driving force in the Ukrainian revolution.
Andrew Cockburn: Joe Biden’s legislative legacy
An ardent proponent of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, an ill-conceived initiative that has served as an enduring provocation of Russian hostility toward the West, Biden voted enthusiastically to authorize Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, was a major proponent of Clinton’s war in Kosovo, and pushed for military intervention in Sudan.
Re-posting: Interview with Tulsi Gabbard
On September 13, 2018, Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard took to the floor of the House to rebuke the administration, accusing President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence of protecting “al-Qaeda and other jihadist forces in Syria,” all the while “threatening Russia, Syria, and Iran, with military force if they dare attack these terrorists.”
“This,” continued Gabbard, “is a betrayal of the American people, especially the victims of Al Qaeda’s attack on 9/11 and their families, first responders, and my brothers and sisters in uniform who have been killed or wounded in action and their families. For the President, who is Commander in Chief, to act as the protective big brother of al-Qaeda and other jihadists must be condemned by every Member of Congress.” I spoke to Gabbard earlier this week about her opposition to Trump’s Syria policy.
James W. Carden: In June you and Republican Congressman Walter Jones introduced HR 922, the No More Presidential Wars Resolution, which would both define presidential wars not declared by Congress under Article I, section 8, clause 11 as impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors” as well as prohibit the president from perpetuating ongoing wars or from supplying, among other things, war materials, military troops, military intelligence, and financial support without first receiving congressional authorization.While the policy of attacking Syria clearly fails on a moral, legal, and consequentialist grounds, it also will likely backfire on realist grounds. What is your view in terms of who would benefit and who would suffer from a US-led attack on Syria?
Tulsi Gabbard: In the short term, President Trump would benefit the most. The president loves being adored and praised, and despite his rants against them, he especially craves the favor of the media. Trump remembers very well that the only times he has been praised almost universally by the mainstream media, Republicans, and Democrats, was when he has engaged in aggressive military actions. Brian Williams, Fareed Zakaria and others could hardly contain their delight. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria said, “Donald Trump became president of the United States” the moment the bombs started dropping. MSNBC’s Brian Williams praised the launching of US missiles, saying, “I am guided by the beauty of our weapons.” The Washington Post’s David Ignatius said that he thought that by taking this action, Trump “restored the credibility of American power.”Right now, President Trump’s approval ratings are dropping, and he craves positive reinforcement. He and his team are making a political calculation and looking for any excuse or opportunity to launch another military attack, so that Trump can again be glorified for dropping bombs.
Others who would gain the most are Al Qaeda and all the terrorist organizations who are wanting to keep alive the regime-change war against Assad. Their war to overthrow Assad is about to end. They’re finally facing defeat. A US attack that significantly weakens the Syrian military would be a gift to these terrorist groups who want to overthrow the government and set up a Sunni extremist theocracy in Damascus. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar would be the beneficiaries.The military-industrial complex and others who profit from the continuation of these regime-change wars will benefit.Who would suffer the most? The Syrian people, who are pleading to be left alone so they can try to rebuild their country. When I visited Syria, people shared their desperation with me, asking me to share their message with the American people: “We’re not begging for your money or your help. We are simply begging you to stop supporting the terrorists who are destroying our country. Please let us live in peace!”A US attack will increase the likelihood of more US troop casualties, injuries, and suffering, and billions more dollars of taxpayer money wasted, that could instead be used to improve the lives of the American people
JC: One of the problems with the conflict in Syria is in the language that is used to describe it. The media and many policy-makers tend to use deliberately vague or opaque language when describing what has been going on there for the past six to seven years. So today we hear that Idlib province is “rebel held” that is “holding out” against an imminent attack (possibly with the use of chemical weapons) by Assad. But describing those who control Idlib today merely as “rebels” seems to obscure more than it illuminates: Is it a peaceful, moderate band of rebels who are currently in control of Idlib? What do you suppose would happen to Christians, Druze, Alawites, and the non-practicing if such “rebels” were able, with the help of the US and Turkey (among others) to overthrow Assad and expand their control over Syria?
TG: I believe it would strike most Americans as absolutely insane that the president of the United States, his vice president, UN ambassador, secretary of state, and the mainstream media describe the very terrorist entities that were responsible for the attack on 9/11 as “rebels.”Since we know that they know Al Qaeda is the primary force in control of Idlib, we can only conclude that they no longer consider Al Qaeda to be a terrorist organization or the enemy.General Joseph Dunford, as well as the UN, have confirmed that Idlib is controlled by 20,000 to 30,000 Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Brett McGurk, the administration’s special envoy to counter ISIS, said that “Idlib is Al Qaeda’s largest safe haven since 9/11.”So there is no ambiguity about the situation: The United States is acting as the big brother and protector of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Syria.The real question is why.We’ve been waging a regime change war in Syria since 2011. Central to that war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad, along with our allies Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar, has been providing direct and indirect support to terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda who are effectively serving as our ground force in that regime-change war, enabling them to grow in numbers and strength in Syria.Now, President Trump and his cabinet of warhawks are concerned that if Al Qaeda is defeated in Idlib, then our regime-change war to overthrow the Syrian government will be over.There is no doubt that if the United States and its allies are successful in their war to topple Assad, the most powerful forces on the ground (Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups) would take over, and religious minorities or anyone who disagreed with Al Qaeda’s theology/ideology would be targeted. When I visited Syria, I met with Christian leaders in Aleppo who took me to a few of their historic churches that had been targeted and bombed to rubble by terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS who adhere to the extreme Wahhabi Salafi ideology, propagated by Saudi Arabia around the world, believing that unless you adhere to their extremist exclusivist ideology, then you must be killed or enslaved.
Just last week, President Trump and Vice President Pence delivered solemn speeches about the attacks on 9/11, honoring the victims of Al Qaeda’s attack on our country. Yet they continue to protect Al Qaeda and other terrorist forces in Syria, and have threatened “dire consequences” and an illegal war against Russia, Syria, and Iran if they dare attack these terrorists—potentially putting our country on a path towards World War III. The Trump administration’s continued protection of Al Qaeda is a betrayal of the American people, especially the victims of 9/11, first-responders, my brothers and sisters in uniform who have been killed or wounded in action, and their families. It’s a betrayal of the American people who have had trillions of dollars taken from their wallets, ostensibly to defeat the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, only to find Al Qaeda is stronger today than ever before.This is not a partisan issue. Every American—Democrat, Republican, independent—must condemn this betrayal by our commander in chief. This regime-change war in Syria and US alliance with Al Qaeda and other terrorists must end now.
JC: One will often hear neocons and liberal interventionists (surely by now a distinction without a difference) warn against over-learning the lessons of Iraq. Which is kind of an odd concern. In your years in Congress have you seen any evidence that those lessons have been actually been learned by the political and media establishments in the first place?
TG: No. Based on our country’s continued counterproductive regime-change war policies, it is clear that leaders on both sides of the aisle have not learned the painful lessons of decades of interventionist regime-change wars, most recently in Iraq, Libya, and now Syria. The result has been costly for the American people, in human lives and taxpayer dollars, and devastating for the people of these countries, where countless lives have been lost, humanitarian crises created, with refugees’ being forced from their homes, and the utter destruction of their way of life.I recently fought to strip a provision from the 2018 defense-authorization bill that essentially authorizes the secretaries of state and defense to go to war with Iran. Only 60 members of Congress supported my amendment.While many members of Congress and the Trump administration rail against Iran and are calling for US troops to remain in Syria indefinitely to counter Iran’s influence and presence there, they refuse to acknowledge the fact that the United States regime-change war in Syria has greatly strengthened Iran’s presence and influence in that country. In other words, the Syrian government of Assad has become much more dependent upon and beholden to Iran and Russia, due to our efforts to overthrow their government. This obviously does not serve the national interests of the United States or Israel.Furthermore, Iran’s presence and influence in Iraq was zero before we overthrew Saddam Hussein. Now Iran is the dominant power in Iraq.The problem is that our leaders are either extremely shortsighted, or they’re consciously working against the interests of the United States and our allies. The undeniable truth is that the direct result of our overthrowing the regimes of Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and our efforts to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, has greatly increased the presence and influence of Russia and Iran, as well as Al Qaeda and other jihadists, in all three of those countries.In short, we have spent trillions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of American lives in order to help those we consider to be our enemies or adversaries. Who needs enemies when we have leaders like this?
JC: President Trump has, over the past year with the addition of John Bolton and the elevation of Mike Pompeo to secretary of state, assembled what might fairly be called a “war cabinet.” Yet, with the notable exceptions of yourself, Representative Ro Khanna, Representative Walter Jones, and Senator Rand Paul, some, but not too may, voices have been raised against the specter of yet another disastrous war in the Greater Middle East. What do you think explains the the silence?
TG: I think there are a number of reasons for this. Some people mean well—they see pictures of children suffering and are moved to want to do something to try to alleviate that suffering. But too often they are shortsighted, waging regime-change wars and dropping bombs, without realizing their actions will likely increase the suffering of the very people they say they want to help.Others simply do not care that they will cause unnecessary suffering.Others may be concerned about how speaking out against regime-change wars may impact their political “career” or campaign. They don’t want to be slandered as being “pro-dictator” by the media and on social media. If you were against the regime-change war in Iraq, you’re a Saddam lover. If you were against the regime change war in Libya, you’re a Gaddafi lover. If you ask for evidence before launching a US military attack against a sovereign nation without congressional approval, you will have leaders like Howard Dean saying, “This is a disgrace. This person should not be in Congress!” Our politicians see leading Republicans and Democrats joining hands to smear anyone who stands up against regime-change wars.Some remain silent because they don’t have the strength to stand up against the corporate lobbyists.Every politician wants to see themselves as great humanitarians. But sadly, and dangerously, many fail to realize that all too often the path to hell is paved with good intentions.These well-meaning people make decisions based on emotions, without considering the consequences of their actions. If they see children suffering, and are told by the media that Mr. X is responsible for that suffering, they feel a moral responsibility to get rid of Mr. X.But they do so without thinking through the consequences of their actions and the likelihood that their decisions will end up causing infinitely greater human suffering.Just look at the situation in Libya. In order to “save” the Libyan people, we completely destroyed their country. It’s a failed state. They are under the domination of terrorists and slave merchants where women and children are publicly sold in marketplaces. It’s hell on earth. Yet we have not heard a single apology to the Libyan people from any American or European leader who was responsible for this regime-change war. These leaders are not interested in the wasteland that they left behind—they’re too busy planning and promoting new regime-change wars.The proclamations being made by President Trump, Ambassador Nikki Haley, Secretary Mike Pompeo, and John Bolton about trying to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and civilian casualties in Idlib, Syria, ring especially hollow. They seem to have completely forgotten our attacks on Mosul and Raqqa—which resulted in many thousands of civilian casualties.The Trump administration’s proclamations of humanitarianism are just a pretext to protect Al Qaeda and other terrorist forces we have allied with in our quest to overthrow the Syrian government. The bottom line is we don’t want them killed because they work for us. Their interests are our interests, and vice versa.If the Trump administration and leaders in Congress really cared about preventing civilian casualties, they would end all US support for Saudi Arabia and condemn their genocidal war in Yemen that has killed thousands of civilians with bombs, caused millions to suffer due to forced starvation and cholera, creating the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.If they were truly concerned about human suffering, they would most certainly not take action to increase the likelihood of direct conflict with Iran or Russia—which could lead to World War III and suffering beyond our imagination.If they were truly concerned about the suffering of the Syrian people, then they would recognize that intervening to protect the terrorists who are trying to overthrow the Syrian government will simply prolong the war and lead to more suffering for the Syrian people.
Daniel Larison: Sanders’ Commitment To Peace And Diplomacy
There was a silly story in The New York Times last week that tried to portray Bernie Sanders’ sister-city relationship with Yaroslavl as an opening for Soviet propaganda
Dimitri Alexander Simes: Is Russia Worried About China’s Military Rise?
Strained relations between Moscow and Washington are making Russians more accepting of Chinese military power.
Brian Milakovsky: Economic Relations with Uncontrolled Territories in Moldova and Ukraine
It is still too early to gauge the chances of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s push for a negotiated settlement of the Donbas conflict which could lead to the political re-integration of the Russia-controlled portion of that region. However, it is increasingly clear that his administration is seeking an alternative economic policy to the current economic blockade for these territories.
Paul Robinson: A Tale of Two Museums
It’s a common among critics of the ‘Putin regime’ to complain that it encourages Soviet nostalgia, has failed to properly denounce communist rule and disassociate itself from it, and so in the process has facilitated the continuation of authoritarian attitudes and systems.
Daniel R. DePetris: Donald Trump Has Less Than a Year to Save the Last Nuclear Arms Treaty
At a time when U.S.-Russia ties are in danger of falling off the cliff, saving New START will preserve some desperately needed stability in the broader relationship.
Amb. Tony Kevin: East-West strategic temperature is rising in the Asia-Pacific
My former professional background as a policy planner ( 1985-90) in the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and related areas where I worked for 30 years enabled me to hone the skills of ‘joining the dots’ between apparently disconnected facts. It was particularly easy to do so, as I read three stories about China on page 11 of the AUstralian Financial Review on Wednesday 24 July.. The first story concerned the significance of the latest Chinese Government defence white paper (the first in four years), which unusually singles out by name Australia as a country which ‘is seeking a bigger role in Asia-Pacific security affairs’ , and as a country that China sees as ‘a new source of uncertainty in the region’.
Rory Medcalf of ANU National Security College and a former senior Australian Government defence planner was reported by AFR as commenting that he thinks this naming of Australia in the Chinese defence paper is a good thing, ‘because it acknowledges Australia is a country to be taken seriously. It doesn’t mean we are a target.’ This is one of the sillier things Rory Medcalf has said publicly about Australian national security since becoming a respected part of this public conversation , from which I am excluded because of my radical global political views. There is no possible way in which it is a good thing to be named by China in this negative way. It shows that China has finally rejected Australian claims , of provenance going back to Prime Minister John Howard’s time, that Australia can be a good economic partner of China and at the same time a strong military ally of the US against China.
Our attempts since Howard’s day under successive Labor and Coalition governments to ride these two horses have been correctly understood by China as self-deceiving hypocrisy and doublethink. The Chinese government has come to despise Australian efforts to pretend, on the one hand , that it truly values China as an investor , our largest export market, and major source of property investment and education mega dollars: while thinking that we can without punishment from China increasingly lock ourselves into the American -led attempts to contain China strategically, as seen in myriad ways in the strategic decisions and expressed attitudes of Australia’s defence planning and national security sectors of government .
Every decision like the Huawei 5G rejection, noisily stepped-up US military basing in Darwin, singling out of China and Russia as the main targets of the Australian 2018 foreign influence legislation, declared strategic competition with China in the South Pacific, expressed enthusiasm for the unviable Quad strategic grouping , the kind of defence procurement decisions Australia makes aimed at helping the US to project longrange military power in the Asia-Pacific region, and reliably hostile mainstream media commentariat reaction to every Chinese or Russian assertion of strategic interests – with no Australian counter-opinions ever permitted to be expressed in mainstream public debate – sends the same Australian elite message to China and Russia: that however much we are happy to take their money in trade and investment, we see them au fond as the strategic enemy.
Now China, after being immensely patient for many years , giving our elites far more time than they deserve to come to see the error of such inconsistent indeed hypocritical strategic thinking, has served us up in their latest defence white paper the most unambiguous warnings of the consequences of our fecklessness. But Rory Medcalf, in one of his more idiotic statements, thinks this is ‘a good thing’. And nobody in the mainstream Australian strategic world challenges him. The second report on page 11 of the AFR last Wednesday was that important China-US bilateral trade talks are about to resume after dramatic suspension in May. This resumption is a consequence of the degree of US-China civil dialogue re-established between Xi and Trump at the June G20 summit in Osaka. The resumption of these vital trade talks, after their abrupt breakdown in May, means both sides are seriously contemplating the renewed possibility of reciprocal bilateral trade concessions, whose negotiation will focus primarily on the self-interest of both sides.
Trump, a transactional president, will not worry about the interests of third parties like Australia. And why should China do so, when we are now officially listed by Chinese defence planners as a new source of strategic uncertainty in the region , and a country that seeks a bigger military role for itself? Not a friend, clearly. And our trade diplomats would be naive to expect otherwise. The third news story on page 11 of Wednesday’s AFR reported the first Russian-Chinese joint longrange air patrol in the Pacific , by three Russian and three Chinese military aircraft. They flew together through a ‘South Korean Air Defence identification zone’ (a zone whose legality is not recognised by China) and they flew over an island whose sovereignty is contested by South Korea and Japan.
Reportedly, according to South Korean officials, ‘hundreds of warning shots’ were fired at them by South Korea. Russia’s Defence Ministry said the Russian planes had been airborne 11 hours and covered 9000 km, and that ‘foreign fighter jets had escorted them on 11 separate occasions’. It did not deign to report any shooting. Perhaps warning shots were fired from a prudent distance, and ignored by the visiting aircraft? Clearly this flight did not lose its way and accidentally stray into South Korean airspace. Its route was a major test of resolve and can be expected to be followed by other such flights in future . The route would have been carefully planned and executed in unison by both highly expert airforces. These were no ‘air space incursions ’ as alleged by a US Defence spokesman , but deliberate assertions of Chinese and Russian freedom to fly in international airspaces as close as possible to Korea and Japan, as a demonstration of Chinese and Russian military capacities to operate as allies in the North Pacific.
The joint flights show how quickly Russo -Chinese military cooperation at the high- tech level is progressing. This is a lot more impressive than driving tanks together around the snowy Siberian tundra, and swapping friendship pancakes in military headquarters as Putin and Xi did a year and a half ago.. This was a delicate precision navigational exercise to fly a fleet of three Chinese and three Russian military planes (I note equal parity of forces , which itself sends an important diplomatic message) just outside Western alliance territorial borders. It would have required mutual Russian- Chinese military trust and mutual cool heads to ignore the warning shots and fly on together, an Impressive and significant military demonstration by any measure. To the extent this was reported at all, as in the AFR article, it was reported as an escalation and a provocation of the Western alliance by Russia and China. It was neither : it was a legitimate assertion of determination to protect mutual strategic interests close to Russia’s and China’s nearby borders in the North Pacific, through forward projection of both nations’ high – tech military power.
But do not expect Australian atrategic planners, defence academics, or mainstream media elites, to join these three important dots and discuss their significance for Australia’s national security. And do not expect me to be invited to speak or write on these matters in any mainstream forum anytime soon My writing will continue to be safely confined to the silos of my Facebook Page and personal email contact list. Our reading and listening public, which fondly assumes it will read and hear truth and freely contested views in our mainstream media on important issues of national security, will continue to be deceived by our elites.
Tony Kevin is an Emeritus Fellow of Australian National University and a former Australian diplomat and foreign policy analyst 1968-98. He is the author of ‘Return to Moscow’ (UWA Publishing, 2017)https://www.uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/return-to-moscow
Paul Robinson: Constitutional Update
Since Vladimir Putin suggested amending the Russian constitution and set up a commission to discuss proposals, some 900 amendments have supposedly been submitted to the commission.
Elaine Scarry: Sleeping Through the Alarm
With virtually no democratic oversight and over 6,500 missiles in the United States alone, the use of nuclear weapons is almost inevitable. So why is it so hard to think about nuclear war?
Col. Ann Wright: Americans are unaware of the largest U.S. war games in Europe in 25 years
In an effort to generate U.S. national support and publicity for the revival of the Cold War, U.S. military units will come from 15 U.S. states, including important electoral states of Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia to take part in Defender 2020, the largest military exercise to take place in Europe in a quarter century.