Connect with us
//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Latest

Huawei and Europe’s 5G Conundrum

In a world marked by growing geopolitical rivalry between Washington and Beijing, American allies will increasingly face a stark choice between the two.

Avatar

Published

on

Via The National Interest…


The recent controversy in the United States, Japan and Australia over the Chinese technology giant, Huawei, is also beginning to reverberate across Europe . Several European countries—including the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the Czech Republic —have all recently taken steps to scrutinize Huawei as they are preparing to hold auctions for awarding contracts to build out their respective 5G networks next year. Such steps are welcomed by Washington, which isactively pushing its allies and partners around the world to be more vigilant about Chinese 5G due to national security concerns.

In the UK, the country’s largest telecom provider, BT, has already announced plans to remove Huawei equipment from its existing networks. This is a far cry from the previous David Cameron government’s lax approach toward China. Even the screening mechanism it introduced, the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre (HCSEC), failed to provide complete assurances that all risks to British national security posed by Huawei’s involvement in the UK’s critical networks were “sufficiently mitigated.” Last summer, representatives of the “five eyes” (top intelligence chiefs for the United States, Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand) also decided to send strong warnings about risks presented by Huawei and ZTE, a state-owned Chinese telecommunications manufacturer.

In Germany as well, there are concerns around the Chinese National intelligence law, as the intelligence community fears that Huawei could be asked by the Chinese government to incorporate “backdoors” into their equipment, allowing access to encrypted data for spying or sabotage purposes. Deutsche Telekom has recently decided to review its vendor plans in light of recent debates of the security of Chinese network equipment whileFrance’s Orange has already severed ties with Huawei. Under the guidance of ANSSI (Agence Nationale de la Sécurité des Systèmes d’Information) , French security agencies have been warning ministers for over a decade about potential risks, barring Huawei from government contracts—despite very competitive offers from the Chinese manufacturer.

Yet, despite the recent uptick in the debate in Europe on Chinese 5G, many local providers are still working and testing with Chinese manufacturers, particularly Huawei. Huawei has signed MoUs with wireless providers in at least eight European countries andhas tested with local providers in at least twelve EU member states. Earlier this month, Portugal’s top wireless provider Altice signed a deal with Huawei to upgrade its networks to 5G.

Given this deep market penetration and the fact that Huawei is a global industry leader with highly competitive prices, simply banning Huawei from supplying 5G equipment or removing them from existing networks in Europe is unlikely . Some European operators are also concerned that the exclusion of Chinese firms would lead to fewer vendors and, consequently, higher costs. On top of this, Huawei has skillfully managed to leverage its inroad into smartphone devices to gain credibility with European consumers as a reliable network provider. Within five years, Huawei products have become popular on Europe’s retail market in a way few would have imagined. In 2011, it has also set up a business-to-business ecosystem focusing on supply, maintenance and providing technical advice for private sector companies and public institutions across Europe. Finally, Huawei is actively advertising across Europe and has hired lobbyists and consultants to help promote itself. Recently, Chinese manufacturers have been shifting their efforts towards the European market even more strongly.

Unlike in the United States, where Huawei’s role is far more restricted and skepticism surrounding Chinese technology is subject to far greater sensitivities, few European countries perceive China as a strategic rival. This means that for the time being, a coordinated transatlantic approach toward Chinese 5G is unlikely to emerge. That said, Europe may soon no longer have a choice. The Trump administration has made clear that it expects allies and partners to take steps to limit Chinese 5G , and to protect the security of telecoms networks and supply chains.

Notwithstanding such U.S. pressure, Europe also has good reasons on its own to take a more stringent approach toward Chinese 5G. First, the European Commission has established that Huawei was able to become the EU’s top telecommunication supplier in record time by receiving subsidies from Chinese state banks and other financial entities. Second, European officials acknowledge that critical infrastructure built with technology manufactured in China may give Chinese companies access to vast troves of sensitive data and industrial information—which ultimately might be turned over to Chinese authorities. Moreover, Chinese-manufactured infrastructure could make European countries vulnerable to Chinese spying, cyberattacks delivered through the network infrastructure, and overall national security threats . European Commission Vice President for Digital Single Market Andrus Ansip said earlier in December that “I think we have to be worried about Huawei and other Chinese companies,” recalling the mandatory collaboration between certain technology companies and intelligence agencies in China.

In the 5G era, these concerns are mounting as the number of connected machines and objects and reliance on fast data increases. Anticipating that 5G will transform the way humans communicate and operate supplies like power, water and health systems, the security risks connected to 5G infrastructure become significant. Other risks associated with relying on Chinese 5G equipment include intellectual property losses and a dependency on foreign infrastructure (China currently manufactures about 90 percent of the world’s IT hardware).

On top of these apparent national security concerns, there are also economic rationales to avoid becoming overly reliant on China in the digital age. 5G and its associated infrastructure are poised to be critical building blocks for the digitization of the global economy, enabling a wide variety of applications and new sectors such as advancing artificial intelligence systems and the Internet of Things. The potential payoffs of being a 5G leader are enormous —a European Commission study estimated that investing €56.6 billion in 5G networks could yield economic benefits of €113.3 billion annually and generate 2.3 million new jobs by 2025. Patent-holding companies are slated to make billions in royalties, and countries with large and reliable networks will be able to develop emerging and new technologies with faster speeds.

In this emerging competitive technological landscape, ensuring that Europe is a global leader in 5G is essential. China, South Korea and the United States are currently leading the race to 5G, with China pulling ahead. Although the EU and several of its member states are investing more in 5G and two Scandinavian companies (Nokia and Ericsson) are leading 5G technology manufacturers, the transition is not happening broadly or quickly enough . Losing the race to 5G would have significant negative repercussions on Europe’s economy, along with the strategic implications of falling behind on the development of emerging technologies.

Unfortunately, the current debate in Europe on how to enhance “strategic autonomy” is too narrow as it focuses mainly on carving out foreign policy independence from the Trump administration. How to ensure European sovereignty in the digital age deserves more attention. This starts with boosting European R&D spending, favoring European alternatives to Huawei, better understanding the security risks of Chinese 5G, and beefing up national and EU-wide investment screening schemes. Greater transatlantic information exchange and intelligence sharing with the United States on China is also called for.

Yet, even if Chinese telecom infrastructure companies like Huawei and ZTE are not formally curtailed, the combination of the EU’s forthcoming investment screening framework and growing U.S. pressure may see Chinese investments in European 5G decrease. Even though relying on European providers may be more expensive and potentially delay the 5G deployment, avoiding an over-reliance on any foreign companies could support the EU’s “strategic autonomy” agenda in the digital age whilst also benefiting the European economy long-term.

In a world marked by growing geopolitical rivalry between Washington and Beijing, American allies will increasingly face a stark choice between the two. Continuing to rely on Chinese 5G manufacturers could cause a rift in the already fragile transatlantic relationship. A split into China and non-China 5G networks could cause minor interoperability issues , but more importantly, the U.S. push for a “China-free” 5G deployment could eventually generate two politically divided spheres of technological influence.

How Europe should best navigate these stormy waters must be at the core of the European strategic debate in 2019.

Erik Brattberg is the director of the Europe Program and a fellow with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement //pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
15 Comments

15
Leave a Reply

avatar
12 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
12 Comment authors
PlatonfredTheCelotajsRegulaJovo Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Darryl Secret
Guest
Darryl Secret

More divide and conquer strategies. Europe must choose between the potential threat of Chinese telecom manipulation, or already being under manipulation by the U$A.

mijj
Guest
mijj

NSA will stand for no competition

JPH
Guest
JPH
gra gor
Guest
gra gor

Just substitute the word “US” meaning the United States and its allies for the word “China” in most of the sentences to get the gist of how the hazards pointed out in this article are interchangeable . . .

Bob Valdez
Guest
Bob Valdez

Another alarmist article designed to smear Chinese Huawei 5G.

Blue Pilgrim
Guest
Blue Pilgrim

Carnegie Endowment troll..
https://ebrattberg.com
… He is an experienced researcher and prolific writer with publications and commentary in both peer-review journals and various media outlets including The Washington Post, Foreign Policy, Politico Europe, Financial Times, The American Interest, The National Interest, Bloomberg, The Atlantic Monthly, Christian Science Monitor, The Daily Beast, The Washington Times, …

Not about security, but about hegemony, imperialist control, and corporate profits. What the empire’s spooks objects to is Huawei is too secure and western spooks can’t break into it to spy on everyone.

Platon
Guest
Platon

Maybe a Jew?

Olivia Kroth
Guest

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace? No.
Carnegie Endownment for International US Hegemony and WAR.
Get lost! This is a CIA writer sneaking in here …

Jovo
Guest
Jovo
Jovo
Guest
Jovo

Sorry for the previous post. Read this one and its comments instead:

Regula
Guest
Regula

It goes forgotten in all these discussions that potential backdoors installed if and maybe in the future are mostly based on smear propaganda by Trump who wants to “contain” China – in essence destroy its economy to force it under US hegemony. These smears have little to do with Huawei’s and ZTE’s actual work. The chips are made by Intel and backdoors installed by Intel are way more likely than backdoors installed by Huawei. Moreover, Huawei is the most advanced in 5G technology and owns a host of patents for which the west will have to pay dearly. That will… Read more »

TheCelotajs
Guest
TheCelotajs

That’s right buy US at 500% higher and it even comes with US CIA Spyware per installed.

fred
Guest
fred

Such steps are welcomed by Washington, which isactively pushing its allies and partners around the world to be more vigilant about Chinese 5G due to corporate profits

Platon
Guest
Platon

With Chinese manufacturing and Russian technical skills the Eurasians will destroy the real Axis ov Evil – us – with practically no losses on their side.

Platon
Guest
Platon

Good! Eurasia will have 5G and obliterate the Talmudo Satanists without losing a single life.

Latest

Airline wars heat up, as industry undergoes massive disruption (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 145.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris examine the global commercial airline industry, which is undergoing massive changes, as competition creeps in from Russia and China.

Reuters reports that Boeing Co’s legal troubles grew as a new lawsuit accused the company of defrauding shareholders by concealing safety deficiencies in its 737 MAX planes before two fatal crashes led to their worldwide grounding.

The proposed class action filed in Chicago federal court seeks damages for alleged securities fraud violations, after Boeing’s market value tumbled by $34 billion within two weeks of the March 10 crash of an Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX.

*****

According to the complaint, Boeing “effectively put profitability and growth ahead of airplane safety and honesty” by rushing the 737 MAX to market to compete with Airbus SE, while leaving out “extra” or “optional” features designed to prevent the Ethiopian Airlines and Lion Air crashes.

It also said Boeing’s statements about its growth prospects and the 737 MAX were undermined by its alleged conflict of interest from retaining broad authority from federal regulators to assess the plane’s safety.

*****

Boeing said on Tuesday that aircraft orders in the first quarter fell to 95 from 180 a year earlier, with no orders for the 737 MAX following the worldwide grounding.

On April 5, it said it planned to cut monthly 737 production to 42 planes from 52, and was making progress on a 737 MAX software update to prevent further accidents.

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

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Zerohedge…

Step aside (fading) trade war with China: there is a new aggressor – at least according to the US Trade Rep Robert Lighthizer – in town.

In a statement on the USTR’s website published late on Monday, the US fair trade agency announced that under Section 301 of the Trade Act, it was proposing a list of EU products to be covered by additional duties. And as justification for the incremental import taxes, the USTR said that it was in response to EU aircraft subsidies, specifically to Europea’s aerospace giant, Airbus, which “have caused adverse effects to the United States” and which the USTR estimates cause $11 billion in harm to the US each year

One can’t help but notice that the latest shot across the bow in the simmering trade war with Europe comes as i) Trump is reportedly preparing to fold in his trade war with China, punting enforcement to whoever is president in 2025, and ii) comes just as Boeing has found itself scrambling to preserve orders as the world has put its orderbook for Boeing 737 MAX airplanes on hold, which prompted Boeing to cut 737 production by 20% on Friday.

While the first may be purely a coincidence, the second – which is expected to not only slam Boeing’s financials for Q1 and Q2, but may also adversely impact US GDP – had at least some impact on the decision to proceed with these tariffs at this moment.

We now await Europe’s angry response to what is Trump’s latest salvo in what is once again a global trade war. And, paradoxically, we also expect this news to send stocks blasting higher as, taking a page from the US-China trade book, every day algos will price in imminent “US-European trade deal optimism.”

Below the full statement from the USTR (link):

USTR Proposes Products for Tariff Countermeasures in Response to Harm Caused by EU Aircraft Subsidies

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has found repeatedly that European Union (EU) subsidies to Airbus have caused adverse effects to the United States.  Today, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) begins its process under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to identify products of the EU to which additional duties may be applied until the EU removes those subsidies.

USTR is releasing for public comment a preliminary list of EU products to be covered by additional duties.  USTR estimates the harm from the EU subsidies as $11 billion in trade each year.  The amount is subject to an arbitration at the WTO, the result of which is expected to be issued this summer.

“This case has been in litigation for 14 years, and the time has come for action. The Administration is preparing to respond immediately when the WTO issues its finding on the value of U.S. countermeasures,” said U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.  “Our ultimate goal is to reach an agreement with the EU to end all WTO-inconsistent subsidies to large civil aircraft.  When the EU ends these harmful subsidies, the additional U.S. duties imposed in response can be lifted.”

In line with U.S. law, the preliminary list contains a number of products in the civil aviation sector, including Airbus aircraft.  Once the WTO arbitrator issues its report on the value of countermeasures, USTR will announce a final product list covering a level of trade commensurate with the adverse effects determined to exist.

Background

After many years of seeking unsuccessfully to convince the EU and four of its member States (France, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom) to cease their subsidization of Airbus, the United States brought a WTO challenge to EU subsidies in 2004. In 2011, the WTO found that the EU provided Airbus $18 billion in subsidized financing from 1968 to 2006.  In particular, the WTO found that European “launch aid” subsidies were instrumental in permitting Airbus to launch every model of its large civil aircraft, causing Boeing to lose sales of more than 300 aircraft and market share throughout the world.

In response, the EU removed two minor subsidies, but left most of them unchanged.  The EU also granted Airbus more than $5 billion in new subsidized “launch aid” financing for the A350 XWB.  The United States requested establishment of a compliance panel in March 2012 to address the EU’s failure to remove its old subsidies, as well as the new subsidies and their adverse effects.  That process came to a close with the issuance of an appellate report in May 2018 finding that EU subsidies to high-value, twin-aisle aircraft have caused serious prejudice to U.S. interests.  The report found that billions of dollars in launch aid to the A350 XWB and A380 cause significant lost sales to Boeing 787 and 747 aircraft, as well as lost market share for Boeing very large aircraft in the EU, Australia, China, Korea, Singapore, and UAE markets.

Based on the appellate report, the United States requested authority to impose countermeasures worth $11.2 billion per year, commensurate with the adverse effects caused by EU subsidies.  The EU challenged that estimate, and a WTO arbitrator is currently evaluating those claims

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

Latest

Mueller report takes ‘Russian meddling’ for granted, offers no actual evidence

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT…


Special counsel Robert Mueller’s ‘Russiagate’ report has cleared Donald Trump of ‘collusion’ charges but maintains that Russia meddled in the 2016 US presidential election. Yet concrete evidence of that is nowhere to be seen.

The report by Mueller and his team, made public on Thursday by the US Department of Justice, exonerates not just Trump but all Americans of any “collusion” with Russia, “obliterating” the Russiagate conspiracy theory, as journalist Glenn Greenwald put it.

However, it asserts that Russian “interference” in the election did happen, and says it consisted of a campaign on social media as well as Russian military intelligence (repeatedly referred to by its old, Soviet-era name, GRU) “hacking” the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the DNC, and the private email account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair, John Podesta.

As evidence of this, the report basically offers nothing but Mueller’s indictment of “GRU agents,” delivered on the eve of the Helsinki Summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in what was surely a cosmic coincidence.

Indictments are not evidence, however, but allegations. Any time it looks like the report might be bringing up proof, it ends up being redacted, ostensibly to protect sources and methods, and out of concern it might cause “harm to an ongoing matter.”

‘Active measures’ on social media

Mueller’s report leads with the claim that the Internet Research Agency (IRA) ran an “active measures” campaign of social media influence. Citing Facebook and Twitter estimates, the report says this consisted of 470 Facebook accounts that made 80,000 posts that may have been seen by up to 126 million people, between January 2015 and August 2017 (almost a year after the election), and 3,814 Twitter accounts that “may have been” in contact with about 1.4 million people.

Those numbers may seem substantial but, as investigative journalist Gareth Porter pointed out in November 2018, they should be regarded against the background of 33 trillion Facebook posts made during the same period.

According to Mueller, the IRA mind-controlled the American electorate by spending “approximately $100,000” on Facebook ads, hiring someone to walk around New York City “dressed up as Santa Claus with a Trump mask,” and getting Trump campaign affiliates to promote “dozens of tweets, posts, and other political content created by the IRA.” Dozens!

Meanwhile, the key evidence against IRA’s alleged boss Evgeny Prigozhin is that he “appeared together in public photographs” with Putin.

Alleged hacking & release

The report claims that the GRU hacked their way into 29 DCCC computers and another 30 DNC computers, and downloaded data using software called “X-Tunnel.” It is unclear how Mueller’s investigators claim to know this, as the report makes no mention of them or FBI actually examining DNC or DCCC computers. Presumably they took the word of CrowdStrike, the Democrats’ private contractor, for it.

However obtained, the documents were published first through DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 – which the report claims are “fictitious online personas” created by the GRU – and later through WikiLeaks. What is Mueller’s proof that these two entities were “GRU” cutouts? In a word, this:

That the Guccifer 2.0 persona provided reporters access to a restricted portion of the DCLeaks website tends to indicate that both personas were operated by the same or a closely-related group of people.(p. 43)

However, the report acknowledges that the “first known contact” between Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks was on September 15, 2016 – months after the DNC and DCCC documents were published! Here we do get actual evidence: direct messages on Twitter obtained by investigators. Behold, these “spies” are so good, they don’t even talk – and when they do, they use unsecured channels.

Mueller notably claims “it is clear that the stolen DNC and Podesta documents were transferred from the GRU to WikiLeaks” (the rest of that sentence is redacted), but the report clearly implies the investigators do not actually know how. On page 47, the report says Mueller “cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016.”

Strangely, the report accuses WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange of making “public statements apparently designed to obscure the source” of the materials (p.48), notably the offer of a reward for finding the murderer of DNC staffer Seth Rich – even though this can be read as corroborating the intermediaries theory, and Assange never actually said Rich was his source.

The rest of Mueller’s report goes on to discuss the Trump campaign’s contacts with anyone even remotely Russian and to create torturous constructions that the president had “obstructed” justice by basically defending himself from charges of being a Russian agent – neither of which resulted in any indictments, however. But the central premise that the 22-month investigation, breathless media coverage, and the 448-page report are based on – that Russia somehow meddled in the 2016 election – remains unproven.

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

Latest

Rumors of War: Washington Is Looking for a Fight

The bill stands up for NATO and prevents the President from pulling the US out of the Alliance without a Senate vote.

Avatar

Published

on

Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


It is depressing to observe how the United States of America has become the evil empire. Having served in the United States Army during the Vietnam War and in the Central Intelligence Agency for the second half of the Cold War, I had an insider’s viewpoint of how an essentially pragmatic national security policy was being transformed bit by bit into a bipartisan doctrine that featured as a sine qua non global dominance for Washington. Unfortunately, when the Soviet Union collapsed the opportunity to end once and for all the bipolar nuclear confrontation that threatened global annihilation was squandered as President Bill Clinton chose instead to humiliate and use NATO to contain an already demoralized and effectively leaderless Russia.

American Exceptionalism became the battle cry for an increasingly clueless federal government as well as for a media-deluded public. When 9/11 arrived, the country was ready to lash out at the rest of the world. President George W. Bush growled that “There’s a new sheriff in town and you are either with us or against us.” Afghanistan followed, then Iraq, and, in a spirit of bipartisanship, the Democrats came up with Libya and the first serious engagement in Syria. In its current manifestation, one finds a United States that threatens Iran on a nearly weekly basis and tears up arms control agreements with Russia while also maintaining deployments of US forces in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and places like Mali. Scattered across the globe are 800 American military bases while Washington’s principal enemies du jour Russia and China have, respectively, only one and none.

Never before in my lifetime has the United States been so belligerent, and that in spite of the fact that there is no single enemy or combination of enemies that actually threaten either the geographical United States or a vital interest. Venezuela is being threatened with invasion primarily because it is in the western hemisphere and therefore subject to Washington’s claimed proconsular authority. Last Wednesday Vice President Mike Pence told the United Nations Security Council that the White House will remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power, preferably using diplomacy and sanctions, but “all options are on the table.” Pence warned that Russia and other friends of Maduro need to leave now or face the consequences.

The development of the United States as a hostile and somewhat unpredictable force has not gone unnoticed. Russia has accepted that war is coming no matter what it does in dealing with Trump and is upgrading its forces. By some estimates, its army is better equipped and more combat ready than is that of the United States, which spends nearly ten times as much on “defense.”

Iran is also upgrading its defensive capabilities, which are formidable. Now that Washington has withdrawn from the nuclear agreement with Iran, has placed a series of increasingly punitive sanctions on the country, and, most recently, has declared a part of the Iranian military to be a “foreign terrorist organization” and therefore subject to attack by US forces at any time, it is clear that war will be the next step. In three weeks, the United States will seek to enforce a global ban on any purchases of Iranian oil. A number of countries, including US nominal ally Turkey, have said they will ignore the ban and it will be interesting to see what the US Navy intends to do to enforce it. Or what Iran will do to break the blockade.

But even given all of the horrific decisions being made in the White House, there is one organization that is far crazier and possibly even more dangerous. That is the United States Congress, which is, not surprisingly, a legislative body that is viewed positively by only 18 per cent of the American people.

A current bill originally entitled the “Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act (DASKA) of 2019,” is numbered S-1189. It has been introduced in the Senate which will “…require the Secretary of State to determine whether the Russian Federation should be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism and whether Russian-sponsored armed entities in Ukraine should be designated as foreign terrorist organizations.” The bill is sponsored by Republican Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado and is co-sponsored by Democrat Robert Menendez of New Jersey.

The current version of the bill was introduced on April 11th and it is by no means clear what kind of support it might actually have, but the fact that it actually has surfaced at all should be disturbing to anyone who believes it is in the world’s best interest to avoid direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia.

In a a press release by Gardner, who has long been pushing to have Russia listed as a state sponsor of terrorism, a February version of the bill is described as “…comprehensive legislation [that] seeks to increase economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on the Russian Federation in response to Russia’s interference in democratic processes abroad, malign influence in Syria, and aggression against Ukraine, including in the Kerch Strait. The legislation establishes a comprehensive policy response to better position the US government to address Kremlin aggression by creating new policy offices on cyber defenses and sanctions coordination. The bill stands up for NATO and prevents the President from pulling the US out of the Alliance without a Senate vote. It also increases sanctions pressure on Moscow for its interference in democratic processes abroad and continued aggression against Ukraine.”

The February version of the bill included Menendez, Democrat Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina as co-sponsors, suggesting that provoking war is truly bipartisan in today’s Washington.

Each Senator co-sponsor contributed a personal comment to the press release. Gardner observed that “Putin’s Russia is an outlaw regime that is hell-bent on undermining international law and destroying the US-led liberal global order.” Menendez noted that “President Trump’s willful paralysis in the face of Kremlin aggression has reached a boiling point in Congress” while Graham added that “Our goal is to change the status quo and impose meaningful sanctions and measures against Putin’s Russia. He should cease and desist meddling in the US electoral process, halt cyberattacks on American infrastructure, remove Russia from Ukraine, and stop efforts to create chaos in Syria.” Cardin contributed “Congress continues to take the lead in defending US national security against continuing Russian aggression against democratic institutions at home and abroad” and Shaheen observed that “This legislation builds on previous efforts in Congress to hold Russia accountable for its bellicose behavior against the United States and its determination to destabilize our global world order.”

The Senatorial commentary is, of course, greatly exaggerated and sometimes completely false regarding what is going on in the world, but it is revealing of how ignorant American legislators can be and often are. The Senators also ignore the fact that the designation of presumed Kremlin surrogate forces as “foreign terrorist organizations” is equivalent to a declaration of war against them by the US military, while hypocritically calling Russia a state sponsor of terrorism is bad enough, as it is demonstrably untrue. But the real damage comes from the existence of the bill itself. It will solidify support for hardliners on both sides, guaranteeing that there will be no rapprochement between Washington and Moscow for the foreseeable future, a development that is bad for everyone involved. Whether it can be characterized as an unintended consequence of unwise decision making or perhaps something more sinister involving a deeply corrupted congress and administration remains to be determined.

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

Videos

Trending