December 14, 2022

Bulletin 318: Speak out now against further U.S. escalation in Ukraine; daily updates for your use;

Permalink for this bulletin (please forward). Simple home page. Detailed home page.
Press releases. Bulletins. Letters. Plutonium pit production. Contact us. To subscribe send a blank email here.
Please endorse the "Call for Sanity, Not Nuclear Production" if you have not done so (check the list of endorsers if you aren't sure).
Contribute if you can!

Previously: Bulletin 317: (12/14/2022) Internships available

Dear friends and colleagues --

We commend to you our curated daily updates about the war in Ukraine. At a local meeting we committed to posting these as a simple contribution we could make toward a stronger peace movement.

These articles are typically brief, easy to understand, and we believe they are relatively objective -- much more so than the usual orchestrated chorus in the mainstream. Most are in written form although some are shorter podcasts. As you see, the general political disposition of the analysts represented range from left to right on the political spectrum. At the same time we note that if you want expert military commentary, you are more likely to get it from military experts, and these people tend to be political conservatives.

Obviously it is essential to look at sources outside the U.S.-NATO-mainstream information sphere if you want to know what is actually going on. The fire hose of propaganda from Western sources is non-stop, and it is augmented by a pretty vast, subtle, and effective network of censors. The penalties for "wrongthink" about Ukraine can be quite high -- which is another potent reason to speak out forcefully now, while doing so remains possible.

We know there are excellent longer podcasts recommended by some of our advisors, that we have not included. We ourselves have limited time to listen to information in that form, however excellent it may be.

We may start adding key quotes from articles or add short comments of our own, which will help visitors pick and choose on our Ukraine page. We do this internally already, to keep our board and advisors informed and to learn from them. What we judge (by years of observation in most cases) to be fairly solid sources are listed on the left side of the page; all of these have new content daily or weekly. You always have to use your own judgment.

Why we are begging you to act now

Because of this war and the self-destructive Western sanctions against "all things Russia," the world stands at the edge of more than one steep cliff.

Ukraine is losing the war badly. As its horrific casualties mount, hopes are repeatedly placed in successive Wunderwaffen that supposedly can make a decisive difference, while the entire country and especially its military is being supported by the West. For Ukraine, "cannon fodder" is not a figure of speech. Ukraine is running out of men to sacrifice in muddy, frozen, trenches and fields to Russian artillery, pneumonia, and trench foot for the sake of staving off defeat and getting more weapons and funds from the West.

The latest hope for relief is from the expensive "Patriot" air defense system ($1 billion each), which has never performed particularly well, almost certainly requires trained U.S. crews who will then be fighting Russia directly and in person, making the U.S. a visibly direct war participant. The system is highly visible due to its radar signature and is hard to move quickly, and therefore vulnerable to cheap Russian drones. If provided, the Patriot system will be at best marginally effective, and it will get blown up. What then?

An "omnibus" appropriations bill is nearing completion in Washington, which may contain the $37.7 billion or so Biden requested in additional Ukraine aid. The Kiel Institute shows total U.S. aid to Ukraine between January 24 and November 20 of this year at 47.9 billion euros ($51.3 billion) out of $116 billion in aid overall to Ukraine during this period. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), in a more detailed analysis puts the cumulative aid to date at $68 billion -- about the same as Russia's entire 2021 military budget -- which would rise to $105.5 billion if the Biden-requested aid package is passed as is likely. The CSIS analyst (Mark Cancian) points out that at the current rate of spending this fresh batch of aid would last only until May.

That anticipated $105.5 billion amounts to $804 per U.S. household. That same sum would be vastly more than sufficient to, say, provide safe shelter for every one of the estimated 600,000 homeless people in the U.S. (dividing those two numbers gives you $176,000 per homeless person). "Peace on earth, good will toward men and women?" Is that what you are seeing here? Not at all, not at all.

Back to the main question: What's next? Will the U.S. and NATO, having staked so much prestige on the outcome of their Ukraine proxy war, just let Ukraine be defeated, and a neutral government be set up under leadership acceptable to Russia in a smaller Ukraine? We hope so, but is it likely?

Or will a "coalition of the willing" with U.S. troops at its core go into Ukraine, there to be ground to pieces as are the Ukrainians (and the thousands of NATO member country soldiers who are already there under Ukrainian cover)?

Will the U.S. enable deep strikes into Russia? (See "NATO Chief Voices Fear Of War With Russia While US Greenlights Drone Strikes On Russian Territory," Caitlin Johnstone.com, Dec 12; "NATO Chief Says Full-Blown War With Russia Is a ‘Real Possibility’," Dave DeCamp, Antiwar.com, Dec 11). The result of the strikes so far -- which included a strike on a Russian nuclear base -- is this: "Putin Makes REAL Nuclear Threat; US Yawns," Ray McGovern, Antiwar.com, Dec 12.

"The odds" are NOT "in our favor" in this dynamic. The leaders of this country and in most of Europe are not really in their right minds. If they were, Ukraine would not have been sacrificed like this. Bright Russian red lines are very near at hand.

The danger is not just nuclear war., which nobody wants even as the very real dangers of miscalculation grow week by week. There are other, asymmetric warfare options. Russia has escalation dominance. The U.S. and Europe are confusing strategic patience for weakness. Russia is playing a longer, bigger game, involving the choice between a unipolar and a multipolar world.

But the danger definitely includes nuclear war. The risk of nuclear war is greater than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Why? Because the present U.S. goal in this war is to defeat Russia. That is by definition an existential matter for the Russian state. It's not about "Putin," which so many otherwise intelligent people think is the enemy. He's just the guy currently in the way of the U.S. ambition to defeat Russia and throttle China. Seen from that angle, it can be hard to see how that ambition, which is quite explicit in U.S. statements and planning documents, does not end in nuclear war.

Meanwhile Europe, due to its own bad choices as well as the U.S./U.K. sabotage of the Nordstream pipelines (Truss' alleged SMS here) no longer has reliable, adequate, and affordable energy supplies. Some European heavy industries are closing; others may follow. The long, detailed analysis of Seshadri Kumar ("The Coming European Economic Apocalypse," Nov 25, 2022) is well worth reading in that regard, among many other fine analyses. The longer and deeper this goes on, the less of a postwar recovery there will be for Europe.

We in the U.S. face deepening economic problems as well, exacerbated by our weak to nonexistent social contract and correspondingly thin safety net for the vulnerable, a category which embraces half of this state (New Mexico). The very poor are, by definition, deeply threatened.

The recent admissions by Angela Merkel, whatever their political purpose may have been, have devastated what little was left of Russian trust in its Western interlocutors (See Germany & the Lies of Empire, Patrick Lawrence, Consortium News, Dec 13). As Lawrence says, the new Cold War is very cold indeed -- or hot, depending on who and where you are.

All this just touches the surface of the multifaceted, ever-deepening disaster this war has been and will be.

This war could stop by Christmas if the U.S. wanted it to -- if the U.S. and its NATO allies (do they actually have any voice? To a first approximation, no.) were willing to accept a neutral, demilitarized Ukraine, minus four provinces and of course Crimea. The war would stop immediately if the Western aid upon which Ukraine depends were to stop. And why is that a bad idea? (Bulletin 293: Ukraine conflict: If you want a ceasefire (as we do), stop firing, Mar 5).

Electorally, this war hurts Democrats, who are currently the more uniformly-enthusiastic war party. I agree with Ramin Mazaheri's overall point, though he does not support it very well: "Great unsaid in US election: Love for ‘forever war’ is what cost Democrats," The Saker, and PressTV, Nov 29). Support for the war is dropping, here and in Europe. We expect it to drop further as economic pain bites harder. Politicians should take heed, but they probably won't any time soon unless they get a little help.

What you can do

We have noticed that many people are used to looking at events from a perspective of "who is to blame." This seems to be a consequence of thinking in terms of justice, rights, etc. -- a judgmental and in some cases quite arrogant cast of mind. In the real world, there is often plenty of blame to go around. The point is to stop the war, not remain paralyzed trying to assess who is at fault.

Asking for "negotiations" is not necessarily a fruitful path forward either. It is a very ambiguous request. Negotiations can and often do go on parallel to fighting, for years (see the recommended "Which way for the antiwar movement? Demand ‘Negotiations’ or ‘Stop the Wars’?," Sara Flounders, Nov 19).

In a situation where most potential allies are paralyzed, those first voices and actions mean a lot. In other words, the logic that says, "We are so few! Nothing we do will make any difference!" should be stood on its head. It is precisely because we are few that our voices and actions can be powerful and catalytic, assuming we remain truthful, respectful of those still unable to act, and assuming we express, to the best of our abilities, deep common values -- what we know together, our "con-science."

At this point I am looking over a list of speech and action modalities that Trish and I assembled here, from yard signs to letters-to-editor groups to bird-dogging politicians to guest speaking to protests (ephemeral or continuous). What can be done individually and (better) as members of an organization, congregation, or business is pretty straightforward, once we make the decision to do something.

A wise man said, "Blessed are the peacemakers." Let's be those things. Now would be a good time.

Greg Mello, for the Los Alamos Study Group