Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

4 Russian territorial disputes that have not resulted in hostility

Russia is more than capable of handing a wide variety of territorial disputes in a calm and mature way. The same cannot be said for the fascist regime in Kiev.

Published

on

1,416 Views

Many in the EU and US fail to accept that Crimea is today, as it was for centuries, a peaceful and integral part of Russia. They seem obsessed by a short aberrational period of history between 1991 and 2014 where the people of Crimea and Sevastopol engaged in a protracted struggle for autonomy and independence from Kiev after the peninsula was transferred to a new state of Ukraine following the illegal break-up of the Soviet Union.

For those who think that the struggle of the Crimean people to return home only began in 2014, they simply do not know history.

In 1992, Crimea proclaimed its full-self governing status, but pressure from Kiev and little support from a totally compromised Russia, led to the indefinite postponement of a referendum that was to have decided the fate of an independent Crimea.

In 1993, autonomous Crimea created a new office of Crimean President, but this was abolished a year later, again under pressure from Kiev.

In 1995, Kiev abolished the autonomous Crimean Constitution all together, leading to vastly renewed tensions. The tensions were temporarily eased with the ultimately failed and totally flawed 1997 Kharkov Agreement. However, throughout the 2000s and long before the Kiev coup of 2014, things remained deeply tense  between Crimea and Kiev. The people of Crimea never wanted anything to do with Kiev, even before Kiev went fully fascist in 2014.

Donbass too has never been happy being part of a post-Soviet Ukrainian state. The 2014 fascist coup was merely the straw which broke the camel’s back. Unlike Crimea, the two independent Republics of Donbass have not yet reunited with Russia, something that has saddened and worried many in both Russia and Donbass.

But do all territorial disputes result in open conflict, sanctions and strains to international relations? More specifically, do all territorial disputes involving Russia lead to such things?

The answer is no. The combination of militarism in Kiev which is itself encouraged by the US and EU’s desire  to turn Ukraine into a kind of geo-political football, has made the disputes involving the fascist regime of Kiev take on a violent nature that are simply not present in other such territorial disagreements involving Russia.

Here is a list of territories in which Russia and another state have a dispute that has not resulted in any kind of violence or international hostility.

1. Estonia-Russian border 

Estonia is not known for its warm feelings towards Russia, quite the opposite is the case. Russophobia is part of the narrative of successive Estonian governments and Estonia always rolls out the red carpet for NATO tanks and other military hardware.

In spite of this, protracted negotiations over the modern border between Estonia and the Russian Federation have not erupted in the kind of violent hell that Kiev is reigning down on Donbass, nor have they resulted in the kind of collective western hysteria that erupted when Crimea peacefully and democratically returned home.

Ever since 1991, some in Estonia have wanted the Estonian-Russia border to be defined by the 1920 Treaty of Tartu signed between Soviet Russia and the Finnish and Estonia states of the post-First World War era. As it was, the 1991 borders of Estonia reflected the borders of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic which existed between 1940 and 1991.

After years of often tedious negotiations, both sides agreed to exchange an equal amount of land in border regions, totalling a swap of 126 hectares of land.

It all had the ring of ‘much ado about nothing’, but ultimately both sides were placated without resorting to the insane measures surrounding post-fascist coup Ukraine.

2. The Kuril Islands

Ever since the end of the Second World War, Japan and the USSR have contested ownership of the largely uninhibited chain of islands.

After the Yalta Conference, it was agreed that the Soviet Union would take control of the entire archipelago.

In 1956, the Soviet Union and Japan agreed to settle the conflict by giving Japan sovereignty over two of the islands whilst the USSR would retain the rest. However, the United States intervened to prohibit Japan from formalising the deal.

Today, Japan still seeks sovereignty over two of the islands in their entirety as well as partial control over two others.

The apparent good personal relationship between current Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe (in power since 2012) and Russian President Vladimir Putin has done a great deal to ease tensions. Both sides have agreed to take a calm and cooperative approach to the islands as two mature powers ought to do.

READ MORE: Abe and Trump discussed Russia, agreed on need to boost ties with Putin

3. The Arctic

While not the most unforgiving piece of real estate in the world, the melting of the Polar Icecaps as well as the potential for oil exploration in the region has led to a little discussed ‘race for the Arctic’ between Russia, Canada, the United States, Norway and Denmark.

Various conflicting international treaties as well as disputes over whose continental ridges extend into the Arctic, carries the potential for a conflict between several large nations, including two nuclear super-powers (the US and Russia).

However, few people seriously believe that competition for Arctic claims will seriously result in war or total geo-political conflict.

Thus far, no such things have happened.

4. Ukatny Island

Ukatny is a small uninhabited island in the North Caspian sea. But like many uninhabited places which are of interest to various countries, Ukatny has oil. Currently, the island is the subject of a relatively small dispute between Russia and Kazakhstan.

Russia and Kazakhstan are post-Soviet allies who are both members of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Eurasian Economic Union. This helps explain why there has not been and almost certainly will never be open conflict over Ukatny Island.

These four very different examples of disputes over different kinds of territory, between different kinds of nations, demonstrate that Russia is more than capable of handling disputed territorial claims with anyone, whether a post-Soviet ally like Kazakhstan, a former adversary turned country with generally good relations like Japan, a country that is politically hostile like Estonia or even a  superpower like the United States and its allies Canada, Denmark and Norway.

The fact that the fascist regime in Kiev sees Ukrainian territory in places where it does not exist and further seeks to subjugate populations literally dying to get away from Kiev, is proof positive that the faults for the western spasms over Crimea and Donbass are due to a combination of Ukrainian extremism combined with western geo-political greed.

Russia is frank and upfront about its geo-political relations. Extremism is never an option for Russia but nor is the capitation that defined 1990s. Mature countries understand this, politically hysterical failed states like Ukraine cannot.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

White House planning to proceed with State of the Union

The White House is still planning to move ahead with next week’s scheduled State of the Union address, but the details remain up in the air.

The Duran

Published

on

Via Fox News


According to multiple sources, it remains unclear whether the address scheduled for Jan. 29 will in fact go forward, or what venue it would be in. The White House is even planning for the possibility of a speech outside of Washington.

“We are still in a holding pattern,” one senior source said.

But Fox News has learned that the White House sent a letter to the House Sergeant at Arms asking to schedule a walk-through for next week’s planned address. This comes after a previously scheduled walk-through last week was canceled at Pelosi’s request.

At the moment, President Trump intends to be at the Capitol next Tuesday to deliver his speech as scheduled, sources said. White House officials told Fox News they essentially are preparing for two tracks for next week’s speech. The preferred track is an address, as per custom, at the Capitol. The second track is a backup plan for a speech outside of Washington, D.C.

Ultimately, whether the speech is given on the House floor is up to Pelosi. In an appearance on Fox News on Tuesday, White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley suggested the president could move the location of the speech should Pelosi block it in the House.

“There are many ways he can deliver the State of the Union address,” Gidley said on “America’s Newsroom.” “I’m not going to get ahead of anything he would announce.”

Gidley accused Pelosi of “trying to play politics with that venue.” He also dinged the speaker for suggesting it may be difficult to provide security for the event because of the partial government shutdown.

“If the Secret Service can protect the president of the United States on a trip to Iraq, chances are they can protect the American president in the halls of Congress,” Gidley said.

A spokesman for Pelosi did not immediately return a request for comment. Neither did the House Sergeant at Arms office.

On Capitol Hill, there is immense uncertainty about what will happen. The offices of other congressional leaders referred questions about the speech to Pelosi.

“We are standing by to stand by,” one senior congressional official told Fox News when asked if the State of the Union speech would still unfold.

For that to happen in the House, both chambers of Congress must approve a resolution to use the House chamber and to have both bodies meet in a Joint Session of Congress. This has not happened yet.

Should the Senate move to host the president instead, a resolution would still be needed.

The White House and Pelosi have time to figure things out. Fox News is told Congress can actually put together the event rather quickly, though they would prefer to have at least 72 hours advance notice.

Last week, Pelosi urged Trump to delay his State of the Union address until the partial government shutdown ends, or submit the address in writing.

“Sadly, given the security concerns and unless the government re-opens this week, I suggest that we work together to determine another suitable date after government has re-opened for this address or for you to consider delivering your State of the Union address in writing to Congress on January 29,” Pelosi wrote.

A senior Homeland Security official later told Fox News, however, that they have been preparing for months for the State of the Union event.

“We are ready,” the official said. “Despite the fact members of the Secret Service are not being paid, the protective mission has not changed.”

The official added: “It is a ‘no fail’ mission.”

On Tuesday, an official confirmed to Fox News that DHS and the Secret Service are continuing their plans for a State of the Union on Jan 29.

After Pelosi called for a delay in the speech, Trump abruptly denied military aircraft to her and other Democrats for a foreign trip just minutes before the congressional delegation was set to depart.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Sweden: New Government, Old Policies

Swedish political leaders are opposed to the policies of the Sweden Democrats concerning immigration.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Judith Bergman via The Gatestone Institute:


  • Keeping the Sweden Democrats away from any kind of political influence seemingly became the main reason the government crisis lasted so long. Swedish political leaders are especially opposed to the policies of the Sweden Democrats concerning immigration.
  • “Sweden needs to build a migration policy from scratch, with fixed rules, and respect for the country’s borders, citizens and laws… Fire brigades and ambulances cannot move into immigrant-dominated areas without armed escort. Those who live and work in our suburbs get their stores robbed, broken or taken over by criminals. The few perpetrators who are actually sentenced for serious crimes escape with mild punishment, while their victims do not receive support or redress. As a result of the uncontrolled immigration, terrorists… walk freely on the streets and squares and utilize our welfare and asylum systems.” — Sweden Democrats.
  • There is not a word in the new agreement about terrorism and internal security, even though the Swedish Security Service (Säpo), in a January 15 press release, stated, “The level of the terror threat remains elevated, a three on a five-point scale. This means that a terrorist act is likely to occur”.

On January 18, more than four months after Sweden’s September elections, Social Democrat leader Stefan Löfven became prime minister for a second term, when he won the backing of the Swedish parliament: 115 parliamentarians from his own party and its coalition partner (the environmentalist Green Party) voted for his proposed government coalition, while 77 parliamentarians abstained and 153 voted against. There are 349 seats in the parliament.

Under Swedish parliamentary rules, a prospective prime minister can form a government even if he has not secured a majority of votes, as long as there is not a majority against him in parliament. Löfven was far from winning a majority of votes, prompting the question whether, despite becoming prime minister for a second term, he actually won the election.

The question is actually debatable: Löfven’s Social Democratic party experienced its worst election result ever, gaining only 28.3 % of the vote. It is the first time the party has ever received less than 30% of the vote; its government coalition partner, the Green Party, barely made it above the electoral threshhold, with only 4.4 % of the vote. (The electoral threshhold is 4%).

The prolonged coalition wrangling began after the results of the September 9 elections made it clear that Sweden’s traditional center-left and center-right blocs had each gained around 40% of the vote, yet were unable to find ways to build a government coalition without either involving the opposing bloc or the Sweden Democrats (SD). Keeping the Sweden Democrats away from any kind of political influence, seemingly became the main reason the government crisis lasted so long. Throughout the government’s negotiations, the Sweden Democrats, with 17.5 % of the vote, and now the third-largest party in parliament, representing the more than one million people who voted for them (out of 6.5 million votes in total) remained an isolated outsider, shunned by all political leaders.

“It is … about decency, a decent democracy. A government led by the Social Democrats guarantees that the Sweden Democrats — an extremist and racist party — do not get influence”, Löfven said on September 9, as he was casting his vote.

“My values are not SD’s”, said the leader of the center-right bloc, Ulf Kristersson, a year ago, about whether he would be willing to talk to the Sweden Democrats. “I will not cooperate, converse, collaborate, [or] co-ordinate with SD”. He repeatedthe same message in November, two months after the September 9 elections: “I do not speak to, or negotiate with, the Sweden Democrats”, he told Swedish television. “That is not because I do not respect their voters but I want to talk to those with whom I would like to cooperate.”

Swedish political leaders are especially opposed to the policies of the Sweden Democrats concerning immigration. According to the Sweden Democrats election platform:

“For decades Sweden’s migration policy has been handled in an irresponsible and ignorant way, with serious consequences for Swedish society A very high number of asylum seekers and their relatives has divided society, cultivated exclusion and eroded welfare state. At the same time, safety has been compromised… Today tens of thousands of people are staying illegally within the country’s borders and Sweden is internationally known for unrest and citizens who are active in terrorist networks… Sweden needs to build a migration policy from scratch, with fixed rules, and respect for the country’s borders, citizens and laws”.

As part of such a policy, the Sweden Democrats say they want “to stop receiving asylum seekers in Sweden”, as well as “sharpen the requirements to become Swedish citizens” and “enable revocation of citizenship that has been granted in error”. They also say they want to give the police “tools and resources to search for people who are staying in the country illegally… and allow for longer stays in detention if expulsion cannot be enforced immediately”. In addition, they say they would “Strive for agreements with other countries to be able to expel more people…”

The Sweden Democrats also note that they want a tougher approach to law and order:

“Current and former governments have seriously harmed confidence in the judicial system. Police quit [their jobs] as a result of poor working conditions and growing threats. Fire brigades and ambulances cannot move into immigrant-dominated areas without armed escort. Those who live and work in our suburbs get their stores robbed, broken or taken over by criminals. The few perpetrators who are actually sentenced for serious crimes escape with mild punishment, while their victims do not receive support or redress. As a result of the uncontrolled immigration, terrorists… walk freely on the streets and squares and utilize our welfare and asylum systems. Jews flee Swedish cities while anti-Semitism grows stronger. The social contract is about to be broken on the part of public Sweden”.

To counter this, the Sweden Democrats want to introduce, among other things, “wide-ranging penalties and, in particular, raise the minimum penalty for repeated and serious crimes”. They also want to introduce “compulsory expulsion of grossly criminal foreigners and the possibility to recall citizenship in case of terrorist offenses”. The Sweden Democrats would also like Sweden to leave the EU, and to have a referendum on the issue, something to which almost all the other political parties are strongly opposed.

None of the other parties wants even to consider a dialogue about these issues with the Sweden Democrats. Prime Minister Löfven, in fact, on January 18, spokeas if Sweden’s political leaders, in keeping the Sweden Democrats politically isolated, had just pulled back from the edge of an abyss, the extreme irony of his words clearly lost on himself:

“More and more governments around the world are becoming dependent on parties with an anti-democratic agenda. In the 2018 election, Sweden stood before a similar threat: getting a small right-wing government in the hands of the Swedish Democrats. But in Sweden we stand up for democracy and the equality of people. Sweden chooses a different path and it is historic.

“It has not been easy, but Sweden’s centrist parties have gathered and done what is required. Through the January agreement, Sweden gets a new government based on collaboration in the center of Swedish politics. Sweden gets a powerful government that is not dependent on the Sweden Democrats… The biggest winner is Sweden”.

The January agreement to which Löfven is referring formed the basis of a new political alliance between Löfven’s party and his environmental coalition partner on one hand, and two small parties from the center-right bloc, which decided to break with traditional bloc politics and support the Social Democratic government. It will also form the basis for the new government’s policies. Annie Lööf, the leader of the Center Party (one of the two breakout center-right parties), explained why she had chosen to support Löfven’s government, which, during the elections, she had campaigned to replace:

“The 2018 election was a choice of values. The Center Party chose to stand up for humanity, equality and tolerance. We fought against xenophobia… With this agreement we stand up for our values, while at the same time putting a government in place. It is a solution where neither the Sweden Democrats nor the [far-left] Left Party is given influence over politics.”

Swedish voters appear unimpressed with the way the collective of Swedish political leaders have handled this period of coalition squabbling. A January opinion poll revealed that if elections were to take place now, the Sweden Democrats would go from 17.5% to 19.9% of the vote, becoming the second-largest party in Sweden. The Green Party, the Social Democratic Party’s government coalition partner, would not even make the electoral threshold; neither would one of the two breakout center-right parties that supported Löfven’s government. The other center-right party would lose 30% of its voters.

A different January poll showed that 70% of the Swedes have lost confidence in politicians. “The low level of confidence is startling but not completely unexpected”, said Torbjörn Sjöström, from Novus, the company behind the poll.

“There has been a crisis of confidence for quite some time. The high voter mobility that we have had during the last mandate periods and that SD [Sweden Democrats] has increased so strongly is a sign of a reduced confidence in the political system.

“During the four months that have passed, politics has shown that power seems to be most important, and that political solutions are subordinate. [Politicians] talked about a fateful election but then the country managed and kept on managing for four months without a government, so [politicians] have also shown that politics is not as important as they claimed”.

The loss of confidence in politicians was particularly high — 93% — among people who had voted for the Sweden Democrats. “They think they have seen evidence that democracy does not work. They are the third-largest party, but have been completely outmaneuvered,” said Sjöström, referring to the fact that every single political leader in Swedish politics refused even to talk to the Sweden Democrats.

So, what does the new government promise to do on the most pressing issues, such as immigration and law and order? According to the January agreementbetween the Social Democratic government and its center-right supporters:

“Sweden is a fantastic country but we are facing great challenges together: climate change, lack of integration, segregation and dependency, globalization, which continues to test our competitiveness… increased polarization and racism, gang crime… housing shortages … The proposals in this agreement can vigorously meet these challenges by untying old knots and bringing about systemic changes… Our parties have different ideological starting points but are united in the defense of the liberal foundations of democracy; a strong rule of law, an unwavering protection of the individual’s freedom and rights, resistance to xenophobia, independent free media, equality and equal conditions regardless of background”.

The agreement mentions the issue of migration on page 15 of its 16 pages. It does not, however, mention any of the problematic issues that migration has brought upon Sweden — although it does talk about ideas to get more immigrants into the job market and learning Swedish, as well as proposals to deal with honor killings. Ironically, it actually creates a basis for even more immigration. According to the agreement, Sweden will reintroduce the right to family reunion for those people granted asylum in Sweden who do not have refugee status. This means that they will be able to bring their spouses and children to Sweden, while unaccompanied children will be able to bring their parents. This repatriation is estimated to bring at least 8,000 more people to Sweden in the coming three years. According to Henrik Emilsson, Ph.D of international migration at Malmö University, the change will affect asylum immigration:

“Family reunification is something that is very important for people seeking asylum. The information about which countries have which rules spreads quickly and affects where people apply”.

The issues of “safety, security and democracy” are mentioned only on the last page of the agreement, perhaps indicative of the assigned priority. (By comparison, there are two pages about climate change and the environment).

Here is what the new government plans, but without a word as to how it intends to do it:

“Security throughout Sweden will increase… We take action against organized crime, strengthen the police and combat both crimes and causes of crimes. Democracy must be safeguarded, both here and in the world. The work against violent extremism, anti-gypsyism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, and any other forms of racism must be strengthened”.

The agreement also promises “ten thousand more police officers” and pledges, “Sweden’s [foreign] aid will be raised to 1% of the gross national income”.

There is not a word in the agreement about the threat from Islamic terrorism, even though the Swedish Security Service’s (Säpo) January 15 press release stated, “Violence-promoting Islamist extremism currently constitutes the biggest threat to Sweden” and, “The level of the terror threat remains elevated, a three on a five-point scale. This means that a terrorist act is likely to occur”.

Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Fake news media FREAK OUT over Trump and NATO (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 172.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the media meltdown over remarks that U.S. President Trump may have made with regard to NATO, and how neo-liberal war hawks championing the alliance as some sort of foreign policy projection of peace and democracy, are really just supporting aggression, war, and the eventual weakening of the United States.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Top 10 Reasons Not to Love NATO, Authored by David Swanson:


The New York Times loves NATO, but should you?

Judging by comments in social media and the real world, millions of people in the United States have gone from having little or no opinion on NATO, or from opposing NATO as the world’s biggest military force responsible for disastrous wars in places like Afghanistan (for Democrats) or Libya (for Republicans), to believing NATO to be a tremendous force for good in the world.

I believe this notion to be propped up by a series of misconceptions that stand in dire need of correction.

1. NATO is not a war-legalizing body, quite the opposite. NATO, like the United Nations, is an international institution that has something or other to do with war, but transferring the UN’s claimed authority to legalize a war to NATO has no support whatsoever in reality. The crime of attacking another nation maintains an absolutely unaltered legal status whether or not NATO is involved. Yet NATO is used within the U.S. and by other NATO members as cover to wage wars under the pretense that they are somehow more legal or acceptable. This misconception is not the only way in which NATO works against the rule of law. Placing a primarily-U.S. war under the banner of NATO also helps to prevent Congressional oversight of that war. Placing nuclear weapons in “non-nuclear” nations, in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, is also excused with the claim that the nations are NATO members (so what?). And NATO, of course, assigns nations the responsibility to go to war if other nations go to war — a responsibility that requires them to be prepared for war, with all the damage such preparation does.

2. NATO is not a defensive institution. According to the New York Times, NATO has “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is an article of faith, based on the unsubstantiated belief that Soviet and Russian aggression toward NATO members has existed for 70 years and that NATO has deterred it rather than provoked it. In violation of a promise made, NATO has expanded eastward, right up to the border of Russia, and installed missiles there. Russia has not done the reverse. The Soviet Union has, of course, ended. NATO has waged aggressive wars far from the North Atlantic, bombing Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Libya. NATO has added a partnership with Colombia, abandoning all pretense of its purpose being in the North Atlantic. No NATO member has been attacked or credibly threatened with attack, apart from small-scale non-state blowback from NATO’s wars of aggression.

3. Trump is not trying to destroy NATO. Donald Trump, as a candidate and as U.S. President, has wondered aloud and even promised all kinds of things and, in many cases, the exact opposite as well. When it comes to actions, Trump has not taken any actions to limit or end or withdraw from NATO. He has demanded that NATO members buy more weapons, which is of course a horrible idea. Even in the realm of rhetoric, when European officials have discussed creating a European military, independent of the United States, Trump has replied by demanding that they instead support NATO.

4. If Trump were trying to destroy NATO, that would tell us nothing about NATO. Trump has claimed to want to destroy lots of things, good and bad. Should I support NAFTA or corporate media or the Cold War or the F35 or anything at all, simply because some negative comment about it escapes Trump’s mouth? Should I cheer for every abuse ever committed by the CIA or the FBI because they investigate Trump? Should I long for hostility between nuclear-armed governments because Democrats claim Trump is a Russian agent? When Trump defies Russia to expand NATO, or to withdraw from a disarmament treaty or from an agreement with Iran, or to ship weapons to Ukraine, or to try to block Russian energy deals in Europe, or to oppose Russian initiatives on banning cyber-war or weapons in space, should I cheer for such consistent defiance of Trump’s Russian master, and do so simply because Russia is, so implausibly, his so-inept master? Or should I form my own opinion of things, including of NATO?

5. Trump is not working for, and was not elected by, Russia.According to the New York Times, “Russia’s meddling in American elections and its efforts to prevent former satellite states from joining the alliance have aimed to weaken what it views as an enemy next door, the American officials said.” But are anonymous “American officials” really needed to acquire Russia’s openly expressed opinion that NATO is a threatening military alliance that has moved weapons and troops to states on Russia’s border? And has anyone produced the slightest documentation of the Russian government’s aims in an activity it has never admitted to, namely “meddling in American elections,” — an activity the United States has of course openly admitted to in regard to Russian elections? We have yet to see any evidence that Russia stole or otherwise acquired any of the Democratic Party emails that documented that party’s rigging of its primary elections in favor of Clinton over Sanders, or even any claim that the tiny amount of weird Facebook ads purchased by Russians could possibly have influenced the outcome of anything. Supposedly Trump is even serving Russia by demanding that Turkey not attack Kurds. But is using non-military means to discourage Turkish war-making necessarily the worst thing? Would it be if your favorite party or politician did it? If Trump encouraged a Turkish war, would that also be a bad thing because Trump did it, or would it be a bad thing for substantive reasons?

6. If Trump were elected by and working for Russia, that would tell us nothing about NATO. Imagine if Boris Yeltsin were indebted to the United States and ended the Soviet Union. Would that tell us whether ending the Soviet Union was a good thing, or whether the Soviet Union was obsolete for serious reasons? If Trump were a Russian pawn and began reversing all of his policies on Russia to match that status, including restoring his support for the INF Treaty and engaging in major disarmament negotiations, and we ended up with a world of dramatically reduced military spending and nuclear armaments, with the possibility of all dying in a nuclear apocalypse significantly lowered, would that too simply be a bad thing because Trump?

7. Russia is not a military threat to the world. That Russia would cheer NATO’s demise tells us nothing about whether we should cheer too. Numerous individuals and entities who indisputably helped to put Trump in the White House would dramatically oppose and others support NATO’s demise. We can’t go by their opinions either, since they don’t all agree. We really are obliged to think for ourselves. Russia is a heavily armed militarized nation that commits the crime of war not infrequently. Russia is a top weapons supplier to the world. All of that should be denounced for what it is, not because of who Russia is or who Trump is. But Russia spends a tiny fraction of what the United States does on militarism. Russia has been reducing its military spending each year, while the United States has been increasing its military spending. U.S. annual increases have sometimes exceeded Russia’s entire military budget. The United States has bombed nine nations in the past year, Russia one. The United States has troops in 175 nations, Russia in 3. Gallup and Pew find populations around the world viewing the United States, not Russia, as the top threat to peace in the world. Russia has asked to join NATO and the EU and been rejected, NATO members placing more value on Russia as an enemy. Anonymous U.S. military officials describe the current cold war as driven by weapons profits. Those profits are massive, and NATO now accounts for about three-quarters of military spending and weapons dealing on the globe.

8. Crimea has not been seized. According to the New York Times, “American national security officials believe that Russia has largely focused on undermining solidarity between the United States and Europe after it annexed Crimea in 2014. Its goal was to upend NATO, which Moscow views as a threat.” Again we have an anonymous claim as to a goal of a government in committing an action that never occurred. We can be fairly certain such things are simply made up. The vote by the people of Crimea to re-join Russia is commonly called the Seizure of Crimea. This infamous seizure is hard to grasp. It involved a grand total of zero casualties. The vote itself has never been re-done. In fact, to my knowledge, not a single believer in the Seizure of Crimea has ever advocated for re-doing the vote. Coincidentally, polling has repeatedly found the people of Crimea to be happy with their vote. I’ve not seen any written or oral statement from Russia threatening war or violence in Crimea. If the threat was implicit, there remains the problem of being unable to find Crimeans who say they felt threatened. (Although I have seen reports of discrimination against Tartars during the past 4 years.) If the vote was influenced by the implicit threat, there remains the problem that polls consistently get the same result. Of course, a U.S.-backed coup had just occurred in Kiev, meaning that Crimea — just like a Honduran immigrant — was voting to secede from a coup government, by no means an action consistently frowned upon by the United States.

9. NATO is not an engaged alternative to isolationism. The notion that supporting NATO is a way to cooperate with the world ignores superior non-deadly ways to cooperate with the world. A nonviolent, cooperative, treaty-joining, law-enforcing alternative to the imperialism-or-isolationism trap is no more difficult to think of or to act on than treating drug addiction or crime or poverty as reason to help people rather than to punish them. The opposite of bombing people is not ignoring them. The opposite of bombing people is embracing them. By the standards of the U.S. communications corporations Switzerland must be the most isolationist land because it doesn’t join in bombing anyone. The fact that it supports the rule of law and global cooperation, and hosts gatherings of nations seeking to work together is simply not relevant.

10. April 4 belongs to Martin Luther King, Jr., not militarism. War is a leading contributor to the growing global refugee and climate crises, the basis for the militarization of the police, a top cause of the erosion of civil liberties, and a catalyst for racism and bigotry. A growing coalition is calling for the abolition of NATO, the promotion of peace, the redirection of resources to human and environmental needs, and the demilitarization of our cultures. Instead of celebrating NATO’s 70thanniversary, we’re celebrating peace on April 4, in commemoration of Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech against war on April 4, 1967, as well as his assassination on April 4, 1968.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending