Send Salon mailing list submissions to
salon@listserve.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mlm2.listserve.net/mailman/listinfo/salon
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
salon-request@listserve.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
salon-owner@listserve.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Salon digest..."
To access the full archive of posted links, visit the Salon Archive https://mlm2.listserve.net/mailman/private/salon/ If you never set up a password for your account (It’s optional), just enter your email address and click the Password “remind” button. The system will send you a randomly generated password that you can use to log into the archives.
Today's Topics:
1. How to Avert War in Ukraine (Chas Freeman)
2. Japan-Russia relations in perilous free fall (Chas Freeman)
3. The GCC states and the Abraham Accords (Chas Freeman)
4. Week after Biden-Putin meeting, crunch time is coming
(Chas Freeman)
5. The Great Awokening (Chas Freeman)
6. It?s official: Gaza is now a ghetto. , , In a prison they
incarcerate people for their crimes. In a ghetto they incarcerate
people for their genes. (Chas Freeman)
7. The paradox of US democracy. The US has consistently applied
double standards on democracy and human-rights issues (Chas Freeman)
8. The lion, the chip and the wardrobe (Chas Freeman)
9. Cheney outs Hypocritical Fox Anchors who Texted Trump
Hysterically to Halt Insurrection they later Denied (Chas Freeman)
10. Donald Trump and Megan Mullally singing the "Green Acres"
theme song at the 2005 Emmy Awards (Chas Freeman)
11. The U.S. Should Rethink Its Approach to Reviving the Iran
Nuclear Deal (Chas Freeman)
12. Australian Deputy Prime Minister Joyce: "Assange shouldn't be
extradited to US (Chas Freeman)
13. Walter Pincus: "My Questions for the Biden Administration on
the US? Nuclear Posture (Chas Freeman)
14. The Atlantic?s vital currents could collapse. Scientists are
racing to understand the dangers (Chas Freeman)
15. What I want for Christmas.... (Chas Freeman)
16. Never a More Unsettling Strategic Landscape (Chas Freeman)
17. United Arab Emirates Threatens to Pull Out of $23 Billion
F-35, Drone Deal With U.S. (Chas Freeman)
18. Climate change has destabilized the Earth?s poles, putting
the rest of the planet in peril (Chas Freeman)
19. The Execution of Julian Assange (Chas Freeman)
20. How the South Won the Civil War (Chas Freeman)
21. Ukraine: Tragedy of a Nation Divided (Chas Freeman)
22. Re: The U.S. Should Rethink Its Approach to Reviving the Iran
Nuclear Deal (ziaahari@comcast.net)
23. Challenges Facing Chile?s Next Government: Part 1 (Chas Freeman)
24. Re: The U.S. Should Rethink Its Approach to Reviving the Iran
Nuclear Deal (ziaahari@comcast.net)
25. China uses quantum satellite to protect world?s largest power
grid against attacks (Chas Freeman)
26. UAE suspends multi-billion dollar weapons deal in sign of
growing frustration with US-China showdown (Chas Freeman)
27. Why the UK was the Big Winner of AUKUS (Chas Freeman)
28. Fwd: FW: PacNet #58 ? Why the UK was the Big Winner of AUKUS
(Chas Freeman)
29. After he asked Biden to help his own state of Kentucky, Rand
Paul lashed out at critics who brought up his history of opposing
disaster relief bills (Todd Pierce)
30. Resolution 194 and the Palestinian call for justice ?
thoughts for Florida?s Jewish communities ? Mondoweiss (Todd Pierce)
31. Neocons bent on starting another disaster in Ukraine
(Chas Freeman)
32. Lithuania shows China?s coercive trade tactics are hard to
counter (Chas Freeman)
33. Re: Reminder: Empire Salon | Jeremy Kuzmarov & Ted Postol |
December 14th 7 pm (EST) (Todd Pierce)
34. China offshore listings clampdown threatens Wall Street
(Chas Freeman)
35. In federal ?China Initiative? case, Harvard might also be put
on trial (Chas Freeman)
36. Russia Threatens To Deploy Tactical Nuclear Weapons. A top
Russian diplomat has warned that Moscow will respond ?militarily?
and deploy tactical nuclear weapons, if NATO does not guarantee
an end to its eastward expansion (Chas Freeman)
37. Ukraine - Russia Makes Serious Demands, Warns Of
'Confrontation' (Chas Freeman)
38. Andrew Cockburn on the ghost of Georgia 2008 past vs. the war
yet to come (Kelley Vlahos)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>
To: "[Salon]" <salon@committeefortherepublic.org>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 11:38:09 -0500
Subject: [Salon] How to Avert War in UkraineHow to Avert War in Ukraine
The West should swallow a bitter pill.
Director of Asia Engagement, Defense PrioritiesDecember 13, 2021It is now quite conceivable that a major war will take place in Europe. Moreover, it is also possible that this war could spread quickly to Asia too, but we will put that grave issue aside momentarily. What are President Vladimir Putin’s war aims? How did it come to the brink of war? Is there anything that can stop this descent into darkness?
In a leaked memo published by the Washington Post on Dec. 3, U.S. intelligence agencies said Russian forces are now poised for a multi-pronged attack with “100 battalion tactical groups,” comprising about 175,000 soldiers that are either deployed or now deploying. This is apparently double the size of the Russian forces that came to the border with Ukraine during the war scare of spring 2021. The report also notes ominously that Moscow has been calling up reserve forces. Some have said that the Kremlin’s legions are simply waiting for the mud to harden into ice, so that the Russian tanks can maneuver more swiftly. With a cold front now moving into the region, Russian military leaders may be looking for a victory that can be celebrated over the New Year holiday.
The Russian military has been equipping and training for such a blitz for the last two decades, and it may seem in retrospect that seizing Crimea in spring 2014 was merely the appetizer before the main course. It could certainly turn out that the Russian President seeks only to close the wound of Donbass, excising these small eastern regions of Luhansk and Donetsk to end that bleeding conflict once and for all. Russian nationalists have called incessantly for such a move since 2014.
Yet a larger and more ambitious operation cannot be ruled out. Viewing a “crisis as an opportunity,” in a similar way to 2014, Putin may opt for a full split of Ukraine into two halves. A simple glance at a cultural-linguistic map yields that all the southern and eastern provinces of Ukraine are majority Russian-speaking. For Russians, the very name “Poltava” (one of Ukraine’s eastern provinces) evokes a clarion call to war almost as meaningful as the name “Sevastopol” in Crimea. Indeed, it was Peter the Great, Putin’s idol and inspiration, who decisively defeated the invading Swedish army at Poltava in 1709, paving the way for the creation of the modern Russian state.
Even more ambitious, Russia may lunge for Odessa, the remarkable city on the Black Sea founded by the Russian empress Catherine the Great in 1794. The site of an anti-Russian atrocity in May 2014, Odessa would not only provide Russia’s proud Black Sea Fleet a new home, but would also end the frequent and affronting visits by NATO warships. (The seizure would come with a side of irony, a special attribute of Russian humor, in that American taxpayers have footed the bill for a recent upgrade of Odessa’s naval piers.) If Putin chooses to kill two birds with one stone, he may authorize his armies to venture even as far as Moldova, since that post-Soviet country already has an enclave in Transnistria, where Russian tanks are guaranteed to be greeted with garlands of flowers.
It is perhaps beyond diplomacy to avoid tragedy at this late point. Over and over, Washington has chosen confrontation over compromise with Moscow over the last two decades. During the 1990s, the Clinton administration pushed through NATO expansion, despite the warning of America’s most experienced diplomat George Kennan, who predicted that the move would plant the seed for a new Cold War. As usual, Kennan was right. The Bush administration aggravated the situation by letting in a whole new raft of countries and tearing up a string of arms control treaties. While Obama tried bravely to reset the relationship, his incompetent diplomats failed miserably to bring peace and stability to eastern Europe. Trump, under constant attack as a “Putin stooge,” upped the ante by granting lethal aid to Ukraine’s military, recklessly expanded the pace of U.S. military exercises on Russia’s borders, and scrapped nearly all that remained of arms control with Moscow.
What peace offering could Washington now offer? To state the obvious, it could quickly and publicly agree to close the NATO door to both Georgia and Ukraine. That might stave off the looming conflict and save Ukraine, but a lasting peace for the region would have to go several steps further: by re-entering crucial arms control agreements like the Open Skies and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaties, and even more foundational pacts like the Anti-Ballistic Missile and Conventional Armed Forces in Europe treaties.
Yet to truly transform European security away from the new Cold War, NATO countries need to bury the hatchet, halt the unceasing buildup in Eastern Europe, and—bitter a pill as it may be—recognize Russian sovereignty in Crimea, the real source of the region’s ongoing tensions. As an intermediary step toward these goals, it might be advisable for NATO Secretary General Jan Stoltenberg and various senior Biden advisors to take some basic night courses on international relations that teach about “red lines” as well as “spheres of influence.” Such concepts, which have caused many wars, cannot be wished away with fine-sounding liberal rhetoric.
Returning to Asia, it seems possible that Beijing will find the opportunity of a Russian invasion of Ukraine too good to pass up and could opt to solve the Taiwan “problem” at the same time, while Washington is distracted. Please fasten your seatbelts for some significant turbulence.
Lyle J. Goldstein is Director of Asia Engagement at Defense Priorities.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>
To: "[Salon]" <salon@committeefortherepublic.org>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 11:41:04 -0500
Subject: [Salon] Japan-Russia relations in perilous free fallJapan-Russia relations in perilous free fall - Asia Times SecurityJapan-Russia relations in perilous free fall
Tokyo-Moscow ties are in steady decline as strategic troubles have taken precedence over commercial interdependenceby Lyle Goldstein and Vitaly Kozyrev November 21, 2021A Russian tank seen on Kunashir Island of the Kuril Islands. The island chain is contested by Russia and Japan. Photo: Vladimir Sergeyev / TASS
The perennially tense relationship between Tokyo and Moscow has taken a significant turn for the worse in recent months and Asia-Pacific strategists should assess the relevant dangers.
On October 19, ten Russian and Chinese warships passed through the Tsugaru Strait, a relatively narrow sea passage separating the main Japanese islands of Hokkaido and Honshu.
While the passage was not illegal, since the course was in designated international waters, the show of force serves as an unambiguous reminder to the Japanese that they have powerful, not especially friendly neighbors with their own agendas concerning the regional and global order.
Meanwhile, Russia has been making steady improvements to its Pacific Fleet, announcing a slew of new upgrades to shore facilities, and the intention to deploy more conventional and nuclear submarines to the region.
Moscow has indicated its displeasure with both the AUKUS submarine deal, as well as the evident inclination of NATO to become more involved in Asia-Pacific security issues.
When Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said on November 10 that Japan would deal firmly with both China and also Russia, therefore, this was not terribly surprising.
Russia-Japan relations have been in steady decline for over a year. A visit by Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin to the contested Kurile Islands during July 2021 accentuated this trend. In addition, Moscow has taken steps to increase its fortifications on the contested islands.
So what is going on? Japan-Russia ties have formed a distinct anomaly in Northeast Asia for at least the last two decades.
After the end of the Cold War, the two nations took many steps to improve ties, making progress on demilitarization, as well as building up cozy commercial relations, for example with respect to both energy and also fisheries.
Above all, it was then-prime minister Shinzo Abe who kept Russia-Japan relations moving in a positive direction. Altogether, Abe and Putin met 27 times, an extraordinary record of persistent dialogue.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe developed a strong report that is now missing. Photo: Agencies
Abe boldly overruled the explicit objection of US President Barack Obama and went to Russia to meet with Putin in May 2016, helping break Russia’s international isolation following the acute Ukraine crisis in 2014-15.
Abe could not quite pull off the breakthrough with Russia over the fraught island dispute. However, their cordial and intensive relationship enabled noteworthy economic and cultural achievements.
A considerable side benefit, moreover, was to help dampen tensions on the neighboring Korean Peninsula during the exceedingly volatile period of 2017-18.
Of course, Abe’s long courtship of the Kremlin did not result from his fondness for Russian caviar or Matryoshka dolls, but rather his determination to ensure Moscow did not slide more into Beijing’s orbit.
Japanese nationalists, seeking the return of Iturup and Kunashir to the north of Hokkaido, have long been critical of Abe’s overtures to Putin. Moreover, Russia has seemingly shut the door on any territorial concession with the constitutional revision of 2020.
Yet, these critics may have failed to see the larger stakes that Abe had been pursuing, namely the very future of the Asia-Pacific. In the absence of Abe, the critical Japan-Russia relationship seems to be left twisting in the wind – a situation that is plainly advantageous to China.
On October 26, a Russian paper, [Military Review], ran a story under the headline, “… Japan Is off the Leash.” The article begins: “Perhaps, in the light of recent events, it is time to talk about our peculiar neighbor, with whom we have not yet signed a peace treaty, that is, we are almost at war.”
The article also notes that Japan is the only country in the world that has a constitution prohibiting it from having an army and a navy.
It is explained that US General Douglas MacArthur wrote the constitution in this way due to the “warlike Japanese [so as to] once and for all restrain their ardor,” but today they have “revanchism in their heads.”
Coming out about the time of the first joint Russia-China fleet patrol into the North Pacific via the Tsugaru Strait, the article seems to correspond to a new and disturbing pattern settling upon Northeast Asia. Moreover, a third China-Russia strategic aviation exercise is likely also in the offing.
Russian and Chinese soldiers take aim in a 2018 joint military exercise. Image: Twitter
As China’s influence in Moscow grows rapidly, Japanese strategists may be forced to contemplate some rather dark scenarios, including the dreaded “two front war” – simultaneous threats from both north and south.
Indeed, a rather troubling possibility these days is a Taiwan scenario in which Russia effectively neutralizes Japan by suddenly developing an aggressive posture in and around Hokkaido.
To prevent such a dangerous situation from developing, Tokyo should continue to woo Moscow, pursuing the tradition laid down by Abe that prioritizes commercial interdependence (the Eight-Point Cooperation Plan) over an unlikely territorial deal.
Two promising vectors for Russia-Japan coordination are North Korea and also the Arctic. Since it is abundantly clear that North Korea will not denuclearize, Japan and Russia should now coordinate and use their own niche capabilities to help gradually ease Pyongyang’s re-integration into the wider Northeast Asian community.
Meanwhile, the Northern Sea Route to Europe through the Arctic would clearly benefit Japanese shippers, and Russia would no doubt appreciate additional support.
Instead of playing symbolic games with NATO countries, Tokyo would be wise to focus on improving its rapidly declining relationship with Moscow, before it’s too late.
Lyle J. Goldstein is Director of Asia Engagement at Defense Priorities.
Vitaly Kozyrev is Professor of Political Science at Endicott College and Associate in Research at the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard University.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>
To: "[Salon]" <salon@committeefortherepublic.org>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 11:48:07 -0500
Subject: [Salon] The GCC states and the Abraham Accords
![]()
The GCC states and the Abraham Accords
Summary: despite Trump’s bold claims last year, other than the UAE and Bahrain no other GCC state has stepped forward to recognise Israel.
This is a transcript, edited for length and clarity, of the 26 November podcast with Arab Digest editor William Law and Giorgio Cafiero, the founder and CEO of Gulf State Analytics. The podcast is available here.
When then president Donald Trump proclaimed the Abraham Accords on September 15 of last year, he said that several other Arab nations would normalise relations with Israel. And in the case of two, Morocco and Sudan, with the transactional tactics that he used, Trump was able to bend the arms of those countries. With Sudan, it was to drop the sanctions. In the case of Morocco, it was to acknowledge their sovereignty over the Western Sahara. But he also claimed that Saudi Arabia would sign up, it hasn't happened, at least not yet. Do you see it happening anytime soon?
There definitely is a trend toward normalisation that we see in the Arab world and there's no doubt that Saudi Arabia is a part of this trend, even though Riyadh has not yet joined the Abraham Accords. Maybe Riyadh will later, maybe not. Time will tell. But nonetheless, Saudi Arabia is in support of this trend toward normalisation. But in my opinion it is unlikely that at any point, at least with King Salman, still on the throne, that Saudi Arabia would announce, in a public manner, that it has joined the Abraham Accords.
What I think is more likely is that we are going to see Saudi Arabia, taking some mini steps toward normalisation. And it's important to realise that from the Saudi leadership's perspective, making any moves which would signal an official abandonment of the Palestinian cause comes with real risks. Saudi Arabia, unlike the UAE, or Bahrain is a large country, large in terms of geography, population. And there could be anger among maybe Saudi clerics or just even average citizens in Saudi Arabia, if the Saudis were to enter into the Abraham Accords. This is not what the Saudi leadership wants right now. So that has to do, of course, with the domestic landscape in Saudi Arabia.
At the same time when we're talking about the issue on the regional or the global level, you need to keep in mind that since the 1980s the King of Saudi Arabia has formally been the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. Saudi Arabia has a leadership role in the Islamic world. And there are other countries such as Iran and Turkey, which represent challenges to Saudi Arabia's position as the self-anointed or the supposed leader of the Islamic world. And I think the Saudi leadership understands that Riyadh entering into the Abrahamic Accords could give more ammunition to Iran or Turkey when trying to challenge Saudi Arabia's position vis a vis the Islamic world. Now, there are certain ways in which the Saudis could benefit from joining the Abraham Accords, the ways in which the four countries that normalised relations with Israel last year have benefited from defence cooperation with Israel, trade investment, energy ties, high tech is obviously a big part of the picture. I think Mohammed bin Salman would like to see his country have those gains and those benefits that could come with a normalised relationship with Israel. But again, as I said, those other factors, all those risks, I think are going to result in Riyadh being quite cautious on this issue.
And meantime, the Israelis and the Emiratis are getting on like a house on fire. And it seems to me, Giorgio, they're very much on the same page. Still the Emiratis do argue that it was they who halted the West Bank annexation and therefore protected the Palestinians. I'm wondering what you make of that argument?
This idea that the UAE, entering the Abraham Accords and pushing it throughout the region, was going to be of any benefit to the Palestinians was absurd. Obviously, the UAE has not stated that they're abandoning the Palestinians. They're framing it that the Abraham Accords helps the Palestinians. But that's absolutely absurd. This notion that Arab countries normalising diplomatic ties with Israel would result in the Israelis treating the Palestinians any better is ridiculous. We saw what happened with the conflict in May 2021. We've seen settlements continue to expand all the time. It's clear that the Palestinians have been a loser from the Abraham Accords. What Israel has taken away from the Abraham Accords is that they can become increasingly integrated into the Middle East's diplomatic fold without making a single concession to the Palestinians. I would argue that this has only encouraged the worst of the worst of Israeli behaviour.
What about other Gulf states? We've talked about Saudi Arabia and your sense - and I agree with you that it's unlikely that, in the near future, the Saudis would recognise Israel - but what about Oman, Qatar, Kuwait? What is the level of their current engagement with Israelis? And do you see them moving forward with recognition?
I don't think that any of these three GCC states that you mentioned, Kuwait, Qatar and Oman would join the Abraham Accords.
I would argue that the last GCC state which would enter the Abraham accords is Kuwait. Kuwait's foreign policy is firmly pro-Palestinian; anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist sentiments are very strong in Kuwait. There is no appetite among any figures in the Kuwaiti government or Kuwaiti society for normalisation. Kuwait has been extremely vocal in opposing the Abraham Accords. And one reason why this is the case has to do with the fact that Kuwait is a semi-democracy. There is a legislative body there, the National Assembly which does represent the people of the country, and therefore this democratic aspect of the Kuwaiti political system helps us understand why leaders need to be vocally pro-Palestinian. It's because they are more accountable to citizens in the country's political system. So, as I said, I think Kuwait could possibly even be, maybe with the exception of Algeria, the Arab League member I have the most difficult time imagining entering the Abraham Accords. Now to be sure, Kuwait would formalise diplomatic relations with Israel within the context of the Arab Peace Initiative. But we all know that Israel is not going to go back to the 1967 borders so I think we can be quite comfortable in ruling out the possibility of Kuwait following Abu Dhabi's lead on this front.
When it comes to Qatar the situation is not necessarily all that different. The Palestinian issue is one that matters to the leadership in Doha. It's also an issue that matters to average Qatari citizens. Of course, we should keep in mind that Qatar has engaged Israel a lot over the years. The Qataris are pragmatic, they understand that Israel is a reality in the region and they don't see any reason to pretend otherwise. But a formalisation of Qatar’s relationship with Israel, I don't think will happen and this, again, has to do with public opinion, as well as elite opinion in Doha. Also Qatar has a foreign policy that relies on soft power to a large extent. Qatar’s narrative is that it is a GCC country that stands for human rights, human dignity and the Palestinian cause is important to this narrative. In international forums Qatari officials always raise the issue of Palestine and for Qatar just to abandon the Palestinian cause in favour of a normalised relationship with Israel, is just a little difficult for me to imagine. I would also add one more point when we're talking about Qatar and Israel: the Israelis might actually have their own vested interests in keeping Qatar outside of the Abraham Accords. Why is that? Well, it boils down to Qatar and their relationship with Hamas. While there have definitely been a number of Israeli commentators, politicians, and in the US, there are many pro-Israel politicians and commentators who blast Doha for having a relationship with Hamas, it's not lost on the Israeli leadership that Qatar has been able to, at times, keep a lid on things in Gaza by providing assistance to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. And Qatar has been able to be somewhat of a diplomatic bridge between Hamas on one side and Israel and the US government on the other. If the Qataris were to enter the Abraham Accords, I think that would throw off Qatar’s relationship with Hamas, which as I said, both the US and Israel have incentives to see stay alive.
And Oman?
Lastly, when talking about Oman, we should keep in mind that the Omanis, like the Qataris have had a pragmatic relationship with Israel for decades. We remember in October 2018, then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to Oman. He was also not the first Israeli prime minister to visit the Sultanate. So there's definitely engagement between the Omanis and Israelis. But Oman believes that the Palestinian issue is important and believes that the issue needs to be resolved before Muscat can join other Arab capitals in terms of formalising diplomatic relations with Israel. The Omanis I know believe that their country should always be a potential platform for Israelis and others in the region to come to, to discuss peace. If the Israelis want to be serious, one day, about making peace with the Palestinians I am positive, they will always be welcome in Muscat, to come there and to have talks, which are aimed at resolving issues in the region. So Oman is definitely not hostile to Israel. But Oman, in my opinion, will not be abandoning the Arab Peace Initiative. And just as the case in Kuwait and Qatar we have in Oman, ruling figures in the government who care about the Palestinian cause. And there's widespread support for the Palestinian cause among the average Omanis on the streets, so it would be very unpopular domestically to abandon the Arab Peace Initiative. And a final point. Oman has always been the GCC country that has the warmest relationship with Iran. The Omanis and Iranians definitely disagree about certain things and have different perspectives. But the Omanis have always been sensitive to Iran’s security and the interests of Iran are ones that Oman’s government has cared about. Oman has over the years avoided taking actions that would result in Iran feeling increasingly insecure. And Tehran absolutely views the Abraham Accords as a threat to Iran security, as well as Iran's geopolitical position in the region. So in the interest of creating serious problems for Muscat’s relationship with Tehran, Oman is further incentivised to stay out of the Abraham Accords. But again, I will also say, the case for Kuwait and Qatar is also the same for Oman. It's a country that fully supports the Arab Peace Initiative. And if the Israelis would ever go back to the 1967 borders, I'm sure they would welcome an opportunity to normalise relations with Israel. But that is so far away from where we are today.
Members can leave comments about this newsletter on the Today's Newsletter page of the Arab Digest website
Copyright © 2021 Arab Digest, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email as you are subscribed to the Arab Digest.
Our mailing address is:
Arab Digest
3rd Floor
207 Regent Street
London, W1B 3HH
United Kingdom
![Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp]( "Mailchimp Email Marketing")
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>
To: "[Salon]" <salon@committeefortherepublic.org>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 11:52:13 -0500
Subject: [Salon] Week after Biden-Putin meeting, crunch time is coming"The crunch time is coming now that Russia has learnt a bitter lesson the hard way that the Westerners verbal assurances have no sanctity. The supreme irony is that Gorbachev and Baker are still alive. "- - - - - -Week after Biden-Putin meeting, crunch time is coming
Russia is reiterating its ‘red lines’ seeking long-term legal guarantees against NATO’s further advancement to the east and the deployment of weapons on Russia’s western borders.
The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement on December 10 putting on record its expectation that long term legal guarantees must be given “within a specific timeframe and on the basis of the principle of comprehensive and indivisible security.”
Moscow senses that Washington is turning the argument around and maintaining that the issue is about the so-called build-up on Russian territory that might presage an invasion of Ukraine.
This has been repeated by Biden himself on December 12 who once again neatly sidestepped the issue of NATO deployments and preferred to dwell instead on what happens if Russia were to invade Ukraine.
Meanwhile, the US has rallied the G7 countries behind it. The G7 statement of December 12 basically echoes the US stance. The G7 also chose to sidestep Russia’s “red lines” regarding NATO expansion spelt out in the December 10 foreign ministry statement.
The US state department has announced that Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Dr. Karen Donfried will travel to Kiev and Moscow on December 13-15 “to discuss Russia’s military buildup and to reinforce the United States’ commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity.”
Donfried will then travel to Brussels on December 15-16 to consult with NATO Allies and EU partners “on efforts to pursue a diplomatic solution.”
The West is being hypocritical by turning this into an issue of territorial aggression by Russia, forgetting conveniently that there is a complicated background to all this dating all the way back to the western leaders (including then US secretary of state James Baker and German foreign minister Genscher) promising to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that in the downstream of a Soviet approval for German unification, the West would guarantee that NATO would not move “an inch” eastward toward Russia’s borders.
Indeed, by the mid-1990s, the Bill Clinton Administration West proceeded to ignore that assurance, which was fundamental to Russia’s security, and the NATO embarked on the expansion path in a sequential way, expanding first to Central Europe and then to the Baltic region and the Balkan countries that previously formed Yugoslavia.
The numerous Russian protests against the NATO expansion were simply ignored. Moscow wasn’t in a position at that time to assert its national interests.
A defining moment came when the NATO announced in 2008 that the door was open for membership of Ukraine (and Georgia). Russia once again protested, as NATO membership of these two countries would bring the alliance’s deployments right to its western and southern borders. Once again, the US refused to pay heed.
However, there was a paradigm shift by 2013-2014, when the West successfully overthrew the established pro-Moscow government of President Viktor Yanukovich in Ukraine (who was, incidentally, an elected leader) and installed in his place a pro-western leadership in Kiev. Thereupon, a systematic project to transform Ukraine as an anti-Russian state commenced.
Today, the challenge that Russia faces is that even without admitting Ukraine as full member, the NATO has begun deploying to that country, taking advantage of the standoff in Donbas and the poor relations between Kiev and Moscow.
The Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson disclosed on December 12 that NATO is pumping massive quantities of arms into Ukraine and “militants are being sent there under the guise of military instructors.” read more
On the face of it, a showdown cannot be ruled out anymore, much as Moscow disavows any intention to use force.
The “known unknown” is how far the US domestic politics is driving Biden’s future course of action. (Putin has sought a face-to-face meeting with Biden.) Post-Afghanistan, Biden’s rating has plummeted drastically and fewer than three in 10 Americans approve of Biden’s handling of the US inflation crisis, and most give him low marks on every major issue other than the Covid-19 pandemic.
An ABC News poll found after Biden’s video summit on December 7 with Putin that only 15% of respondents said they have a “great deal” of trust in the president to negotiate with Putin on America’s behalf. (That compares with 26% rating in an ABC June poll.)
Put differently, it may suit Biden to project that he is “tough” on Russia. Leaders with lacklustre record in office tend to use foreign policy issues to boost their image. 2022 is a crucial election year in the US with forecasters predicting that Democrats may lose control of the Congress, which would indeed seriously affect Biden’s presidency and affect his re-election bid in 2024.
Biden may stand to lose face if he were to sit down at the negotiating table to discuss Putin’s “red lines.” More importantly, this is one of those situations where having waded into the mid-stream, it becomes too late to turn back now.
The point is, Ukraine is “unfinished business” and the whole Western project to take on Russia may flounder if the NATO is stalled on its expansion track. Demonising Russia has gone far and deep already in the western rhetoric. Meanwhile, the West is watching with alacrity that Russia has regained strategic parity with the US and is striding ahead of the US in the conventional forces by developing advanced hypersonic weaponry. Putin himself touched on this in a weekend media interview.
The signs are that Russia still prefers a diplomatic / political solution but is highly unlikely to water down its demands and accept once again another NATO expansion, this time right up to its borders. The MFA’s December 10 statement touches on core issues of Russia’s national defence.
In an interview with Izvestia newspaper today, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said, “It’s not as if the problems began yesterday. They are related, for the most part, with the US aspiration to negate Russia as an independent key factor of international life, and impose on us its own approaches to a whole range of issues, including how we should live in our own country.”
Ryabkov said Ukraine “is above all Washington’s geopolitical project, an attempt to widen the sphere of its own influence, expanding its tools to enhance its positions which, according to US aspirations, will help them dominate in this region of the world. This is, of course, a method to create difficulties for us, impinging on our security. We are saying openly: we have certain red lines that we won’t allow anyone to cross; we have a very clear requirement… Moscow needs maximally reliable legal guarantees of its safety.”
He concluded with the warning that Moscow will continue to highlight for NATO members that the alliance’s security won’t increase in the event of its expansion and the consequences of this step would be grave. (Read here the full transcript of this important interview by Ryabkov with Izvestia.)
Separately, Ryabkov has also been quoted as saying to the state-run RIA Novosti news agency today that “Our response will be military” if the NATO does not guarantee to Moscow an end to its eastward expansion. “There will be confrontation. There’s basically no trust in NATO. Therefore, we’re no longer playing this kind of game and don’t believe NATO’s assurances.”
Plainly put, Russia rejects the US’ sophistry regarding a threat of Russian invasion of Ukraine in order to divert attention from what is truly at stake here — namely, Moscow’s refusal to accept any further NATO expansion eastward in the post-Soviet space.
The crunch time is coming now that Russia has learnt a bitter lesson the hard way that the Westerners verbal assurances have no sanctity. The supreme irony is that Gorbachev and Baker are still alive.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>
To: "[Salon]" <salon@committeefortherepublic.org>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 12:03:16 -0500
Subject: [Salon] The Great AwokeningThe Great Awokening
by William Reinsch, Senior Adviser and Scholl Chair in International Business
This week, the Scholl Chair comments on the issues at the forefront of the Biden administration's agenda, including gender, forced labor, and climate. Are socially woke provisions trade enhancing or trade limiting?
Tuesday, December 14, 2021
My column several weeks ago, “Where’s the Beef,” lamented, among other things, the absence of market access goals in the proposed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF). That will turn out to be a mistake because it signals to potential framework partners that the United States does not intend to offer them anything. The idea that there can be a successful negotiation where we give nothing and all the others agree to do what we want is delusional.
It is also a signal to our own business community that there may not be much for them in this framework. New rules are nice—and in areas like digital trade they are badly needed and will be welcomed—but for many sectors of the U.S. economy, including agriculture, more market access would be nicer. If, at the end of the day, the framework is submitted to Congress, it will live or die based on private sector support for it. In short, if you don’t have a lot of farmers telling their representatives they need the agreement, you should not expect it to be approved. The administration currently says it does not intend to submit the agreement to Congress, so what the U.S. private sector thinks may be irrelevant, but that very decision tells the other potential partners that the United States does not see this as an agreement of great consequence.
So, for the Biden administration, what is of great consequence? The answer is found not only in the IPEF but in other administration actions as well. Opposing forced labor is important. The administration’s main, if not only, contribution to the World Trade Organization fisheries negotiation is a proposal on forced labor. Gender is important. The administration just announced it is creating the Global Partnership for Action on Gender-Based Online Harassment and Abuse, which will be “dedicated to improving the response to technology-facilitated gender-based violence and promoting effective prevention strategies.” (The Scholl Chair addressed this issue in a report last spring that focused on how promoting the role of women in trade will lead to more trade and more economic growth.)
Climate is important, although the administration appears to believe that trade rules are obstacles to decarbonization rather than possible facilitators. Worker rights and labor standards are important, although I don’t think we’ll ever know whether that is due to a moral imperative or the belief that improving labor wages and conditions elsewhere makes foreign products more expensive and thus less competitive with ours. Probably both. Attempting to address social issues through trade agreements is also not confined to the United States. Protection for Indigenous communities, for example, has been a priority of the Canadian and New Zealand governments.
This is not all new. Older trade agreements addressed worker standards, deforestation, and illegal logging, and countries have spent decades arguing about sanitary and phytosanitary standards in agriculture, like how you process a chicken to make sure it is safe to eat. Canada and Chile have negotiated agreements addressing women’s rights.
It has probably not escaped your notice that the countries mentioned are Western developed economies. These issues don’t get very far with authoritarian states like China and Russia or with countries in the Middle East whose views on the role of women in society are very different from ours. That explains why progress on these issues is going to be plurilateral rather than multilateral and likely limited to countries that are already sensitive to them.
The increasing appearance of these issues in trade negotiations signals the arrival of “woke” trade policy, which is virtue signaling at its finest. This is both sincere and politically expedient. Activists have prioritized these causes and opposed trade agreements that do not adequately address them. Politicians have gone along, either out of conviction or expediency. Doing so, however, leaves a number of important questions unanswered:
- Is trade policy the best venue for dealing with social problems?
- Do negotiators focus on these issues at the expense of the economic issues that have historically been the core of trade negotiations?
- If the agreements reached are limited to countries that are already sensitive to these priorities, how much do they actually accomplish?
- Conversely, if they are not limited to the already woke, do they create such an additional burden on negotiators that agreements become impossible to reach?
And perhaps most important, are woke provisions trade enhancing or trade limiting?
I don’t have answers to all these questions, but I hope they will be debated as part of the administration’s reorientation of our trade policy, particularly the last one. I sometimes get the sense that the administration’s attitude is that trade agreements are only worth pursuing if they address these issues. In fact, there are many other legitimate reasons to pursue trade agreements, the main one being that trade overall produces more jobs and growth. The administration has been clear that it is concerned about the unequal distribution of the benefits of trade, but it needs to be equally concerned about the creation of those benefits, because without that there is nothing new to distribute. A woke trade policy, in contrast, risks making the perfect the enemy of the good by insisting on social policy outcomes at the expense of expanding trade. We need to make sure the Great Awokening does not mean the end of trade expansion.
William Reinsch holds the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
______________________________________________________________________Commentary is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).
© 2021 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>
To: "[Salon]" <salon@committeefortherepublic.org>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 12:11:46 -0500
Subject: [Salon] It’s official: Gaza is now a ghetto. , , In a prison they incarcerate people for their crimes. In a ghetto they incarcerate people for their genes.It’s official: Gaza is now a ghetto - Opinion - Haaretz.com
B. MichaelDec. 14The event was festive. Prison Guard First Class Aviv Kochavi delivered a speech. Defense Minister Gantz thanked barrier visionary Netanyahu. Brig. Gen. Eran Ofir, head of the Bars and Barriers Command, provided moving statistics about the length of the barbed wire and thickness of the concrete. Mazel tov.
And now it’s official: This is a ghetto. Not a prison. A ghetto. What’s the difference between a prison and a ghetto? In a prison they incarcerate people for their crimes. In a ghetto they incarcerate people for their genes. Over 2 million human beings are crowded into this ghetto, 99 percent of them innocent of any crime. But that doesn’t bother the ghettos and their builders. After all, ghettos have always been designated for the innocent. Who knows that as well as we do?
Anyone who looks at this barbed wire monster, the guard towers, the strip of death, the user-friendly lethal toys, the sensors, the spotlights, the cameras, the sirens, and isn’t horrified and isn’t reminded and doesn’t whisper “ghetto!” to himself, that’s a sign that his soul has become calloused and his heart has hardened. And if he is Jewish and in spite of that he doesn’t find it hair-raising, that’s a sign that his entire history has been wasted on him. He hasn’t learned a thing from it.
But beyond the abomination there is also the folly. There are 3.5 billion shekels, over a billion dollars, buried in this project. Its main source of pride is the “underground wall” against tunnels. Bravo. Since December 2004, when the first tunnel was activated, to this very day – 17 years – there have been six infiltrations into Israel by means of tunnels. The last time was on July 28, 2014. Since then – nothing. Kitchen knives have claimed more victims.
Even above-ground infiltrations are not a common sight. But in the face of the most routine threat bursting forth from the Strip, the rockets and the explosive balloons, all these billions are powerless and meaningless. Because rockets, alas, don’t fly beneath the ground, and balloons tend to float very far away, above the barrier, to the guard towers, the strip of death and the radar. Together they will view the underground wall and the above-ground wall from above, and continue on their way to their destination. In short, the residents of the “Gaza envelope” will gain nothing from all the billions buried around the Strip.
So why was this black elephant built anyway? Because Bibi was involved, and because those were the years 2018 to 2021, the years of Netanyahu’s trial and numerous election campaigns, it’s hard to avoid thinking that this is another Bibi-ist election stunt.
Are Israelis and the residents of the “envelope” afraid of infiltrations and tunnels? Are they angry about the helplessness? Are they insulted by every crack that a missile carves into their macho ego? Let’s build them something grandiose and electronic that will make them happy. We’ll collect their gratitude at the polling booth. That seems to be the only way to discover any method in this madness.
Unfortunately, within a short time the missiles and balloons will be flying again. That’s not so terrible. Maybe just the opposite. In advance of the next election, in which, as usual, Bibi will also run (because the government of change has once again forgotten to pass the law that would stop him), it will be possible to excite the nation with another brilliant project: building a steel roof above the entire Strip. No more missiles and balloons.
The roof will of course be installed on rails, so that it can be moved aside, for the convenience of the Israel Air Force bombers and drones. And on Sukkot it will also be possible to put thatch up there, so the Haredi Zionist soldiers, who will invade the Strip in Operation Divorcing the Ghetto, won’t have to eat, God forbid, without a kosher sukkah.
The nation will surely rejoice once again, its hunched over stature will become erect once again, and I am also apparently going crazy. It’s no wonder.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>
To: "[Salon]" <salon@committeefortherepublic.org>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 12:13:29 -0500
Subject: [Salon] The paradox of US democracy. The US has consistently applied double standards on democracy and human-rights issues