[Salon] Retitled to Conform with Reality: Will Trump Bring (even more ) War at the Eleventh Hour?



“How quickly they forget,” is a bit of a cliche, but this article below is ridiculous! And what the links I provide don’t even begin to describe what all Trump did to accelerate taking us not only to the abyss, but a deep dive into it. Which Biden as a Goldwater Democrat has dutifully, for the most part, followed his Goldwaterite “Traditional Conservative” predecessor, Trump. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/12/24/donald-trump-is-a-nuclear-president-his-legacy-is-more-nukes-fewer-controls/
BLUF: "In his single term in the White House, Donald Trump expanded America’s nuclear arsenal and undermined decades of arms-control efforts.
. . . 

"For that reason alone, Trump’s atomic legacy will be a meaningful one. “He drove the final few nails in the coffin for the first era of arms-control,” said Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in California.

"Kingston Reif, a missile expert at the Arms Control Association in Washington, D.C., neatly summarized Trump’s nuclear initiatives on Twitter in mid-December. To paraphrase:

"1. Trump nudged the Pentagon to double the number of low-yield nuclear weapons, which according to experts raise the risk of nuclear war by making nukes seemingly more “useable” in an armed clash between major powers. At the same time, Trump’s nuclear doctrine expanded the list of external threats that officially justify nuclear retaliation. Perhaps most notably, the list of threats now includes a major hacking event. The U.S. Navy subsequently deployed the low-yield W76-2 variant of its Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile.

"2. At the opposite end of the yield spectrum, the billionaire president accelerated development of high-yield SLBMs and canceled a Pentagon plan to decommission the megaton-class B83-1 gravity bomb.

3. To arm these new weapons, Trump took steps to restart production of plutonium cores for nuclear warheads, despite arguments that the United States already possesses plenty of cores. The core-production falls under a roughly $9-billion budgetary boost that Trump helped push through for the U.S. National Nuclear Security Agency, which oversees America’s nukes.


Here’s a general review of so much that Trump did to heighten tensions with Russia and China, far above what Obama had, and leaving intact for Biden to continue Trump’s war-making schemes. Of which Russia finally realized we were serious about annihilating them, along with China and Iran. With everybody’s favorite think-tank here, Heritage Foundation, calling for even more in another term: 

"While the country has been coping with the COVID-19 pandemic, economic decline,and the election, President Donald Trump’s administration quietly and steadily steered America’s nuclear weapons industry to its largest expansion since the end of the Cold War, increasing spending on such arms by billions of dollars with bipartisan congressional support.
“"

image/svg

This story also appeared in The Los Angeles Times

"Overall, the budget for making and maintaining nuclear warheads has risen more than 50 percent since Trump was elected in 2016, substantially outpacing the rates of increase for the defense budget and overall federal spending during his presidency before the pandemic. On Monday, Congress approved Trump’s proposal to increase spending next year alone for the production of such weaponry by roughly $3 billion."

You thought there was mass hysteria in the US with the so-called “Missile Gap,” cooked up by the Rand Corporation, and always a central propaganda meme against Eisenhower by  . . . Conservatives, get a load of this  and get ready to kiss whatever well being we have left, good-bye: https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-world-becoming-ever-more-dangerous-the-president-must-revitalize-the-us

US formally withdraws from nuclear treaty with Russia and prepares to test new missile - August 2, 2019                                                                                                       BLUF: "The United States formally withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia Friday, as the US military prepares to test a new non-nuclear mobile-launched cruise missile developed specifically to challenge Moscow in Europe, according to a senior US defense official.                                                         

"The US withdrawal puts an end to a landmark arms control pact that has limited the development of ground-based missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers and is sparking fears of a new arms race.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     . . . 

"The Trump administration casts the forthcoming test of the new ground-based missiles as necessary to US national security, even as it seeks to tamp down any suggestion that the US is triggering an arms race, a claim that’s met with skepticism in the arms control community.”

 https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-09/news/us-completes-inf-treaty-withdrawal                                                                                                                                               “In October 2018, on the sidelines of a campaign rally, Trump stated that he planned to “terminate” the INF Treaty. Since then, U.S. and Russian officials held only a few unsuccessful meetings to discuss the treaty."



And,

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-openskies/u-s-says-pulling-out-of-open-skies-treaty-citing-russian-violations-idUSKBN22X1TK/

"U.S. to pull out of Open Skies treaty, Trump's latest treaty withdrawal

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States said on Thursday it would withdraw from the 35-nation Open Skies treaty allowing unarmed surveillance flights over member countries, the Trump administration's latest move to pull the country out of a major global treaty.”

. . .

"Trump's arms control negotiator mounted a full-blown defense of the administration's arms control policies, focusing on the president's proposal that China join the United States and Russia on a replacement for New START. (TP- a poison pill to an agreement.) 

"We know how to win these races and we know how to spend the adversary into oblivion. If we have to, we will, but we sure would like to avoid it," Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control Marshall Billingslea told the Hudson Institute think tank.” (TP-see above, so they include a poison pill requirement.) 

That Trump didn’t withdraw from any more Arms Control Treaties was only because after Republicans GWB and Chaney got done with them, there were only three left, with Trump withdrawing from 2 of the 3 remaining treaties, with New START being allowed to expire on its own.

Not always a fan of Just Security, but this is just stating actual facts!

BLUF: "It is now clear that the Trump administration has waged an assault on international law unparalleled in the post-war era. It has embraced what has sometimes been called the “new sovereigntist” critique of international law. (TP-as demanded by his closest allies, the Israeli Fascists, and arcticulted constantly by National Conservative Yoram Hazony!)
According to this view, international treaties give too much authority to foreign States and international organizations, taking away power that should instead belong to domestic political institutions. To those who hold this view of international law, almost any constraint is too much, even if entirely voluntary and revocable and even if the agreement promises to bring significant reciprocal benefits.
. . . 

"Specifically, Trump has withdrawn from an unprecedented five Article II treaties in three years:

  • Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty: The United States signed in December 1987 and ratified in June 1988. The Trump administration announced its intent to withdraw in October 2018. The United States formally withdrew in August 2019, pursuant to Article XV of the treaty, after providing six months’ notice.
  • Treaty on Open Skies: The United States signed in March 1992 and ratified in November 1993; the Treaty did not enter into force until 2002, 60 days after the deposit of the 20thinstrument of ratification. The Trump administration filed formal notice of withdrawal on May 22, 2020. The withdrawal will become effective six months from that date (November 22, 2020).
  • Optional Protocol of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations: The United States signed in June 1961 and ratified in November 1972. The Trump administration announced its intention to withdraw from the Protocol in October 2018. The Protocol does not explicitly state rules for withdrawal. The United States has stated that this means that withdrawal is immediate, whereas the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) (to which the United States is not a party, but which is considered indicative of customary international law) provides that withdrawal would only be allowed if the treaty by its nature implies that withdrawal is permitted or the parties intended it. The VCLT also provides that in such cases, parties must give at least 12 months’ notice of intention to withdraw.
  • Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights with Iran: The United States signed in August 1955 and ratified in September 1956. The Trump administration announcedS. withdrawal in October 2018, following a decision by the International Court of Justice that the United States had violated the treaty. Withdrawal was effective October 3, 2019, because there was a one-year period for the treaty to end following written notice under Article XXIII.
  • New START: The United States signed in April 2010 and ratified in February 2011; the treaty is up for extension on February 5, 2021. The Trump administration has signaled that it does not intend to extend the treaty, but it has not yet withdrawn.
It was abundantly clear that Trump intended to let New START expire, and blame it on the Russians as he did with his Treaty withdrawals!

Do facts and truth not matter at all anymore when it comes to getting Trump back as POTUS to “finish the job” of turning the US into an even “Greater Authoritarian Ultra-Militarist State” than it already is, which he bears a lot of responsibility for from the first time he was in office. Evidently not. 




On Jun 24, 2024, at 4:59 PM, Chas Freeman via Salon <salon@listserve.com> wrote:


Will Trump Bring Peace at the Eleventh Hour?

Will Trump Bring Peace at the Eleventh Hour?
00:00 / 04:47

The armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine is claiming more and more human lives, while the U.S. political leadership continues to reject the peace proposals of authoritative experts, including Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs. Will there finally be a politician who will put an end to the war madness...

As the drumbeats of war sound loud and the warmongering rhetoric gets shrill, everyone is wondering if there is anyone around who will save this planet from Armageddon. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban sees only one individual who can do it: Donald Trump. That is, if he wins the upcoming elections next November, keeps the word about his intention to end the war in Ukraine, and overcomes expected sabotage from the war party. Placing all bets on one individual is not very reassuring, but at this point, we don’t see anyone else who can do it. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. could try, but he has no chance of winning.

In the meantime, what is left for those not ready to face the end of the world? Facing the absence of anyone else who claims to be our savior, many folks reply positively to the daily avalanche of Trump’s fundraising letters. Some are joining the growing chorus of prominent experts with large audiences demanding that Washington and Moscow start peace negotiations.

For example, Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs’ appeal, “For goodness’ sake, negotiate!” made a huge social media splash and was also noticed in the mainstream media. He reminded us of five Moscow attempts from June 2008  – June 2024 to invite Western leaders to start the dialogue. All of these attempts, which included provisions to honor the February 9, 1990, Western pledge to Soviet President Michail Gorbachev “not to expand NATO one inch East”, were dismissed.

Author Benjamin Abelow‘s book “How the West Brought War to Ukraine” was translated into many languages. In it, he explains “why the United States and NATO bear much responsibility for the Ukraine crisis, and it is they who are subjecting their citizen and the rest of the world to the risk of nuclear war.”

University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer agrees, and so do many other US foreign policy experts, retired military. Intelligence, and some Members of Congress. Still, one has to admit that all of them and their followers together didn’t reach a critical grassroots level to resist the war party like during the Vietnam War.

Instead of accepting Russia’s peace proposals, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

In closing, I’d like to mention two other missed chances to avoid this crisis, which were undertaken with the help of “people’s diplomacy” but are largely forgotten.

The first was in the spring of 1991 when Washington insider Republican Paul Weyrich visited President George Bush, Sr. in the Oval Office to suggest  developing a joint US-Soviet strategic missile defense as a foundation to build trust between the former rivals. Earlier, Paul asked me to convey this idea to Moscow, which I did through my friend Academician Yuri Ossipyan, Gorbachev’s science advisor. Ossipyan was highly respected in both countries as Vice-President of the Soviet Academy of Sciences and a Member of the US National Academy of Engineering. He requested opinions in high political and military circles, including Gorbachev, who welcomed this initiative.  Weyrich told me after the meeting that Mr. Bush listened attentively until Condoleezza Rice had walked into the room and practically dismissed this idea.

Another one was in November 2001 when Republican Congressman Curt Welson assembled a large group of public activists and over 100 Members of Congress to prepare a document, “New Time – New Begining,” with concrete several dozen proposals and projects for US-Russia cooperation in many fields, from science, education, and medicine to space, military, and again for missile defense.  This document was handed over to President George Bush, Jr. and Russian President Vladimir Putin during his visit to Washington. This was a time of high expectations after the first successful US operation in Afghanistan in October 2001, when Russia offered significant logistical and intelligence support to the US. Bush welcomed Putin with a red carpet treatment and praised him as a new Russian leader with whom America will build a brighter future for both countries and the world. In turn, Putin said Russia is ready to join America for this noble cause.

Regrettably, George W. Bush, soon after, ungratefully repaid Putin with the unilateral abrogation of the ABM treaty, the promotion of “color” revolutions in post-Soviet space, and a push for further NATO expansion, including into Ukraine and Georgia.

I mentioned all this because although no one can answer the question posed in the headline of this article, knowing history might help to clear the fog of the current crisis. 

President and Founder of the American University in Moscow

Edward Lozansky



--
Salon mailing list
Salon@listserve.com
https://mlm2.listserve.net/mailman/listinfo/salon



This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail (Mailman edition) and MHonArc.