Ukraine: To defeat Russia, people must have a stake in the country’s future

By Oleksandr Kyselov

Published 24 October, 2024

First published in Danish at Solidaritet.

Only by developing a publicly-owned defence sector, socialising critical infrastructure, and managing Ukraine’s natural wealth for the benefit of current and coming generations can we hope to protect our freedom. People should have a stake in the country’s future and respect for human dignity must be at the core of a society that asks its members to risk their lives for it.

Unfortunately, nothing like this can be seen in Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky’s “victory plan”, which has finally been revealed to the nation. On the contrary, what stands out in the plan is its disproportionate reliance on the West. It represents a quite remarkable shift from the earlier emotional appeals for solidarity to luring support with access to natural resources and promises of outsourcing Ukrainian troops for the European Union’s security. As far as this vision is from our dreams about re-joining “the European family”, this might appear to be a sober approach, given the pervasive hypocrisy in international politics. But what makes it feel even more humiliating is being turned down almost immediately. While previously, relentless pressure — bordering on intrusiveness — achieved the unimaginable, today’s shifting political environment signals that those limits have been reached.

Dependence on external actors to solve our problems is symptomatic of the chosen political course, which has taken our people for granted and resulted in barely concealed internal fragility. Sotsialnyi Rukh (Social Movement) demands a sincere dialogue from the government with society on how we arrived here and what we can realistically expect. Militant rhetoric raises expectations, but failure to act on them by uniting the entire society and mobilising all resources for defence only deepens distrust and disappointment.

After 970 days of war, 10,000s dead, 100,000s wounded, and millions displaced, the toll is immense. Few families remain untouched by this devastation. Earlier hopes, sparked by a successful offensive in Russia’s Kursk oblast, have given way to anxiety and uncertainty, due to a slow retreat in the east. Russian forces threaten to capture Pokrovsk, potentially cutting off the main source of coking coal and crippling Ukraine’s metallurgical industry. Exhausted soldiers, often fighting in understaffed units without proper rest and recuperation, are outraged by the government’s plans to introduce “economic” mobilisation deferment. They are demanding clear service durations. Some can no longer bear it — nearly 30,000 cases of AWOL have been registered in the first six months of 2024.

However, the question remains open: who will replace those on the frontlines? Aware of conditions in the army, civilians no longer queue at draft stations but actively evade mobilisation. Reported cases of draft dodging have tripled since 2023, and polls consistently show that nearly half of respondents view this as reasonable. Appeals to civic duty ring hollow when the state openly declares that it owes nothing to its citizens. According to the minister of social policy Oksana Zholnovich: “We need to break everything that is social today and simply reformat from scratch the new social contract about social policy in our state.” Meanwhile, the parliamentary chair of social policy is convinced that “Ukrainians should be more self-sufficient and less rely on the state.” The brutality and impunity of draft officers, who press-gang men off the streets, only exacerbate the issue. More than 1600 complaints have been filed with the Ombudsman in 2024, but the results are yet to be seen. In the meantime, reports from the battlefield describe how unmotivated, untrained, and even unfit recruits endanger the rest, making the result of increasing coercion questionable.

The broader picture suggests a deliberate choice by the ruling elites to shift the burden of resisting aggression onto ordinary people. Skyrocketing prices, meagre wages, and social austerity go hand-in-hand with restricted collective bargaining, increased taxes on low- and middle-income earners, and continued corruption — even in defence matters. What makes this worse is the political class’s preference to disregard the chance for unprecedented unity we all experienced once the invasion began. Instead they opt for sowing divisions by exploiting fears of traumatised society and fueling suspicion by constantly singling out new internal enemies: Russian speakers, “victims of colonial thinking”, followers of Moscow priests, collaborators, Kremlin agents, or queer. Ukrainians on the front are pointed to the ungrateful in the rear, who in turn should blame those “comfortably” sitting abroad.

This brings us back to the president’s “victory plan”, which, despite its emphasis on strength, only exposes Ukraine’s weaknesses. Some argue this may be Zelensky’s final ultimatum to the West — destined for rejection — before a complete U-turn toward a forced compromise with the enemy. This is not entirely without grounds, as polls suggest more than half of the population would be willing to negotiate or freeze the conflict if Western support is withdrawn.

But what are the chances that a deal with Russia would lead to sustainable, let alone just, peace? Even assuming president Vladimir Putin is willing to negotiate in good faith — which is not a given — such talks might be prone to failure, result in a stillborn deal, or be a temporary pause before fighting resumes.

Recognition of the annexation of occupied territories is obviously out of the question. For Ukrainians, they remain occupied and there is no way to cushion that reality. Leaving Ukraine without security guarantees, especially when Russia keeps investing in military strength, would be an open invitation for renewed aggression. In Ukrainian society, 45% see unjust peace as a betrayal of fallen compatriots, and 49% would take to the streets to protest any compromise. The only deal with a chance of being supported, by a slight margin, includes de-occupation of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, combined with NATO and EU memberships.

On the other hand, nothing short of capitulation and submission would seem to fulfil the Kremlin’s objectives in this war of aggression, which was reiterated by Putin himself before the BRICS summit in Kazan. Moreover, the recently adopted three-year budget plan in Russia ramps up military spending to a record high. Therefore, the greatest mistake would be to pit diplomatic efforts against military support. Without meaningful solidarity, Ukraine and its people will fall — if not now, then later.

While there are no easy or ready-made solutions, honesty is essential for preparedness. Should a ceasefire occur, it may not last long, but every day it does must be used to strengthen our society’s resilience. Exposing our ecosystem, already weakened by years of predatory exploitation and Russian eco-terrorism, to foreign investors is not the answer. Inequality, alienation, and disenfranchisement will not make us stronger. The invisible hand of the market — commodifying everything, plagued by short-termism and profiteering — will not give us endurance.

The root of our problems is that too often, the interest of those whose invisible work actually keeps the country running has been ignored. Hopefully, this time, we have learned the lesson. This is why Sotsialnyi Rukh publicly declares our readiness to cooperate with other forces to build a political movement that ensures the voice of the people is heard in the corridors of power. When elections are finally held, they may decide our destiny for years to come.

Oleksandr Kyselov is a Board Member of Sotsialnyi Rukh (Social Movement).

“The Path to Victory and the Tasks of the Ukrainian Left”

Friday 25 October 2024, by Sotsialnyi Rukh

One of the key decisions of the “Social Movement” (Sotsialnyi Rukh) Conference, which took place in Kyiv on October 5-6, 2024, was the adoption of a Resolution titled “The Path to Victory and the Tasks of the Ukrainian Left”. Below is the text of the Resolution

1. An Honest Response to the Challenges of War, Not Hypocritical Politics

The uncertain prospects of Ukraine’s victory stem from the fact that the only reliable strategy to oppose the aggressor—mobilizing all available economic resources to support the frontline and critical infrastructure—contradicts the interests of the oligarchy. Due to the free market, Ukraine has a caricature of a war economy, and the concentration of luxury amid poverty becomes dangerously explosive. The unwillingness to nationalize production capacities, tax large businesses, and direct the budget towards rearmament makes it possible to prolong the war at the cost of significant human losses and constant mobilization.

We believe that the government should start a dialogue with the people about the achievable goals of the war, and most importantly, introduce a defensive economy or acknowledge the unpreparedness to fight for victory. We advocate for ending the uncertainty regarding the duration of military service, as it is a matter of elementary fairness. Gaining technological superiority combined with a careful approach to people is the path to victory.

The “Social Movement” advocates for the development of the state sector of the economy, subordinated to the priorities of defense and full employment, and defends the rights of conscripts and servicemen to dignified treatment, demobilization after a defined term of service, and rehabilitation.

2. International Solidarity as a Way to Overcome the Crisis of the World Order

The ongoing war in Ukraine is one of the signs of a crisis in the world order based on the neoliberal model. It is characterized by the exploitation of poor countries by the rich, inequality in access to fundamental goods, and the prosperity of financial elites at the cost of debt bondage for entire nations. All these features of the neoliberal system have undermined trust in international law and made global polarization inevitable.

To fight against Russian aggression and for a path to post-war reconstruction that benefits the working people, we need support from the global community, including humanitarian and military assistance. European integration should not serve as a justification for antisocial reforms but should take place on fair grounds, accompanied by improving the welfare of the Ukrainian people and strengthening democracy.

We are confident that our ties with leftist movements across Europe will help Ukraine better defend itself. At the same time, we stand in solidarity with- progressive movements in Asia, Africa, and Latin America in their struggle against imperialism. We condemn the aggressive and occupation policies of other states—be it the oppression of Palestinians by Israel, Kurds by Turkey, or Yemenis by Saudi Arabia. A new architecture of international relations is needed, where there are no privileges for "great powers," G7, or permanent members of the UN Security Council, and the voices of the peripheral peoples are heard.

The “Social Movement” advocates for nuclear disarmament, interaction with left-wing forces that recognize Ukraine’s right to self-defense, and supports the struggle of other nations for liberation.

3. Building a "Ukraine for All" as a Space for Solidarity and Security

Although the war against an external enemy was supposed to unite the people of Ukraine, in reality, shameful attempts are being made to divide Ukrainians into "right" and "wrong." Instead of uniting as many people as possible around ideas of justice, freedom, and solidarity, conflicts within society are being provoked. There are manifestations of linguistic chauvinism, justification of hostility towards national minorities, the queer community, and fostering ideological uniformity. This will not allow the global fight against Russian imperialism to gain traction and will complicate the reintegration of occupied territories.

Establishing equality is impossible without overcoming social vulnerability. Conversely, the state’s reduction of social spending and irresponsible deregulation are already affecting the resilience of society. It is time to end the promotion of policies that exacerbate inequality. Demands for women’s emancipation, inclusive spaces for people with disabilities, and support for victims of far-right violence can strengthen Ukraine’s ability to resist tyranny both externally and internally. Proving our humanity = gaining an advantage over the aggressor.

The “Social Movement” will oppose policies that divide society and will protect social rights as a prerequisite for affirming human dignity. We will demand full state control over the protection of lives and the well-being of workers, who are at greater risk than ever.

4. Ecosocialist Transformation — The Key to Survival

Russia’s eco-terrorism, combined with years of large-scale, predatory exploitation of natural resources by domestic oligarchs and the authorities’ neglect of environmental protection, poses a threat to Ukraine’s ecosystems, including its biodiversity, clean water resources, soil fertility, and the health and lives of the population. The war and the anti-environmental policy of capital negatively affect poor and discriminated groups, increasing their vulnerability.

We emphasize the need to harmonize social production and ecological reproduction based on the principles of ecosocialism. The green transition, first and foremost, should be fair, taking into account the interests of the workforce by creating new jobs, retraining workers, and ensuring social guarantees and compensation for those who may lose their jobs due to the closure of enterprises. Efficient use of energy resources requires a reduction in working hours, and the nationalization of energy companies will allow rational management of capacities without the influence of commercial interests. We support small, family farmers for food security and agricultural greening, the idea of deprivatizing common resources, and firmly oppose monopolistic agroholdings that destroy the ecosystem.

The “Social Movement” will work together with trade unions and other progressive public organizations to develop a program of transformations that meet the long-term interests of
workers, farmers, and other vulnerable segments of the Ukrainian population in the context
of production, ecology, and energy.

5. Workers Bore the Burden of the War, Therefore They Deserve a Voice

Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, the core of resistance to aggression—both at the front and in the rear—has been the working class. Unfortunately, in conditions where the main burden of the war has been shifted to the working class, there is no left-wing political force in Ukraine that would voice the issues inherent to working people and act on the principles of inclusive
democracy. Under the realities of oligarchic capitalism, restrictions on freedoms often serve the interests of the elites.

To build an ecosocial, independent Ukraine of equal rights and opportunities, there is a need for a political democratic platform that will unite workers and other oppressed groups, representing their interests in politics, including participation in elections. We are open to interaction with political parties that share our vision. The sooner a competitive political process is restored, the sooner trust in the state will be regained. Corruption, censorship, and other abuses by officials harm the defense
efforts. The best remedy against this is the democratic renewal of power. Freedom is the foundation of security for all citizens.

The “Social Movement” advocates for the restoration of electoral rights, the right to peaceful assembly and workers’ strikes, and the abolition of all restrictions on labor and social rights.

Original publication.

Attached documents

• the-path-to-victory-and-the-tasks-of-the-ukrainian-left_a8718.pdf (PDF - 912.5 KiB)
  Extraction PDF [->article8718]

Ukraine

• Ukraine under Russian occupation
• The Ukrainian left is building on several fronts
• Why we are closing our center for displaced women in Lviv
• Internationalism or Russification? A Study in the Soviet Nationalities Problem
• Resistance Work” of Women Workers

• Sotsialnyi Rukh

  Sotsialnyi Rukh Social Movement of Ukraine was founded in 2015.

International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.

 

A cautionary tale from my Russian anarchist great-grandfather

Oct

22

2024

comments

From Freedom News

On the danger of sacrificing principle for pragmatism

~ George Askaroff ~

When faced with substantial external pressure and uncertainty, principles of liberty are often sacrificed in the name of ‘pragmatism’. But doing so can come at a heavy cost.

This is where the tale of my great-grandfather comes in, a Russian anarchist named German Karlovich Askarov, who ended up ‘pragmatically’ supporting the Bolsheviks. Although the Russian Revolution stands in stark contrast to the populist and anti-democratic movements today, some parallels are clear. Tsarist Russia was rife with economic hardship, ineffectual government, widespread discontent and mistrust of the elite, growing radicalisation and the onset of transformative technologies that threatened working class employment.

From this blossomed utopian aspirations. Leading up to the Russian Revolution, anarchists envisioned a society where power was distributed among autonomous communities, with decisions made through direct democracy or consensus rather than imposed from above. They also championed the rights of workers and peasants, advocating for the collectivisation of land and the means of production. Their utopia was a stateless, classless society based on principles of equality, solidarity, and self-determination.

Anarchists initially hailed the October Revolution. Yet the Bolshevik ascendency soon drove Russia to a bloody civil war, forcing a challenge onto the anarchists: ally with the Bolsheviks against the re-establishment of the old order, or fight against the Soviet regime.

My great-grandfather’s choice to align with the Bolsheviks led to him co-founding the “Anarchist-Universalists”, a group sympathetic to the Bolshevik cause, endured despite the Bolshevik regime’s increasing authoritarianism. Askarov’s pleas outdate the formation of the Anarcho-Universalists; in 1919, he made an ineffectual bid for unity by founding the Moscow Union of Anarcho-Syndicalists-Communists, which unsurprisingly collapsed as a result of disagreement later that year.

The Universalists were founded with the intention of organising a credible anarcho-syndicalist force within the Soviets. They loathed what they saw as the discord and ineptitude of the Russian anarchists, desiring a united revolutionary body.

The Universalists envisioned a world economy without masters; To create this “single anarchist-universal”, the movement sought to establish the universalisation of territory, peace, economy, and politics through a state-socialist revolution. Indeed, the principles of the dictatorship of the proletariat, industrial centralisation, revolutionary aggregation, and the denunciation of traditional federalism are all quite clearly evident in the Universalist theory.

In this, they seem to have been taken in by Lenin’s apparent turn towards anarchism. His 1917 April Theses call for socialist revolution through the immediate abolition of Provisional Government, army, police, and bureaucracy – all in common cause of the anarchists. In the same year, Lenin wrote State and Revolution where he theorised a temporary socialist state that would restructure society only until it becomes inessential and “withers away”. This state apparatus boasted an ultra-democratic soviet system that ameliorated the ills of the representative liberal model, and assured a “fuller democracy.” Through promising a transient, democratic, and participatory state, Lenin’s harmonised with the Universalists and swathes of the larger anarchist community.

The principles of Lenin’s socialist state, however, were entirely insincere. The Bolsheviks thought only they possessed socialist consciousness and fully represented the proletariat; anyone who was opposed to them was consequently deemed an enemy. In response to economic trouble, local challenges to central authority, a breakdown in industrial labour discipline, and rising counter-revolutionary pressure, Lenin’s party dismantled soviet democracy and proletarian participation. Unable to control the newly formed constituent assembly, Lenin ferociously disbanded it after its first meeting

Bolshevik supporters say they had no choice—but the defence of the revolution patently includes the defence of its principles. Social conditions, counter-revolutionary pressure, and disunity do not rationalise authoritarianism. The organisation of a free, prosperous, and non-hierarchical future could never have been the work of oppressive and ruthless social architects.

The failure of the Russian anarchists who joined Lenin was rooted in their inability to discern between the people’s revolution and the warped Bolshevik revolution. The Bolshevik hijack operation deserved denunciation from the anarchists, not support. But the Universalists’ desire for a politically organised anarchist force put pragmatism over principle. Instead of nurturing and solidifying an anarchist organisation, the Universalists and other supporters let their revolutionary fervour whitewash the Bolsheviks’ inconsistency of principles and practice.

Had the revolution’s plurality and participatory nature been recognised and safeguarded, rather than extinguished, the monstrous society Bolshevism came to create would have been avoided. As it was, in November 1921 the police raided the Universalist Club in Moscow, shut down its newspaper and arrested Askarov on charges of banditry and underground activities. He disappeared around 1929, and his fate remains unknown.

This cautionary tale underscores the perilous consequences of sacrificing principles for short-term pragmatic ends. Upholding values in the face of adversity is important. History shows us that compromises on our basic anarchist principles always lead to the erosion of freedom and often to the consolidation of authoritarian power. In today’s turbulent political landscape, it is imperative that we remain steadfast in our commitment to our principles, even in the face of our uncertain and daunting future.

Election Throws Uncertainty Onto Biden’s Signature Climate Law

By Nicholas Kusnetz

October 22, 2024

Source: Inside Climate News


Image in public domain

President Joe Biden’s signature climate change law passed Congress by the narrowest of margins, without a single Republican in favor. GOP leaders have attacked the bill and promised to repeal it.

Yet despite the law’s hyper-partisan creation story, the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, could prove difficult to roll back, whatever the outcome of next month’s election.

The IRA was the nation’s largest single investment in reducing climate-warming pollution, with an array of programs that are beginning to shower the economy with grants, loans and tax incentives. The total sum is expected to reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars over a decade, funding that will leverage much more in private investment. And by design, the money is flowing throughout the country, with most of it being spent in conservative-leaning states.

One report by E2, a pro-environment business group, identified at least 334 “clean energy and clean vehicle” projects announced since the law’s enactment, with the potential to create 110,000 jobs. Those projects were spread across 40 states, with nearly 60 percent in congressional districts represented by Republicans.

Another assessment, by the Rhodium Group, examined total “clean technologies and infrastructure” investment by businesses and consumers in the two years after the bill’s enactment, and found it had climbed to nearly $500 billion, a 71 percent increase from the two preceding years.

“This is a huge investment. We are really seeing its impacts,” said Jackie Wong, a senior advisor to the NRDC Action Fund, an environmental political advocacy group that has endorsed Kamala Harris. “This isn’t just about climate. This is also about public health and about jobs and about revitalizing American manufacturing.”

Trump and his advisers and spokespeople have said he would seek to roll back the law’s spending, a step Wong said “would be devastating for climate and economic health.”

And yet all the spending that has begun going out helps explain why there might not be much appetite in Congress for a wholesale repeal. In August, 18 House Republicans sent a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson urging caution in any efforts to reform or repeal the law, noting that its tax credits for clean energy “have spurred innovation, incentivized investment, and created good jobs in many parts of the country—including many districts represented by members of our conference.”

The law’s design—which created, expanded or extended a wide array of tax credits for everything from wind and solar power generation to battery manufacturing, electric vehicles, clean hydrogen production and sustainable aviation fuel—has made it broadly popular among businesses big and small. Now that those credits are in place, industry leaders expect them to last, said Frank Maisano, a senior principal at Bracewell LLP, a law and lobbying firm that represents clients across the energy industry.

“They think this is not going away because of the good things it can do,” Maisano said. He added that the bill included policies that have generally drawn bipartisan support, and that while it may get tweaked, “I don’t think Congress is going to go back on these things that are happening in their districts.”

But if a full repeal is unlikely, many of the law’s supporters worry that a second Trump administration or a Republican-controlled Congress could use executive authority, hearings or oversight to constrain or reshape spending in ways that would undermine the law’s goals.

The tax credits, for example, require guidance issued by the Treasury Department to help define which projects are eligible. In the case of a clean hydrogen tax credit, a Trump administration could issue guidance that would skew the credit toward more polluting fossil fuel projects. For electric vehicles or wind and solar generation, new guidance could restrict how many vehicles or projects qualify for the credits or could simply cast uncertainty over the programs’ future, discouraging private investment.

Derek Sylvan, strategy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University, said the tax credits have the potential to drive tremendous emissions cuts with hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits. But many, like the hydrogen credit, have the potential to be skewed in favor of fossil fuels or other polluting technologies.

“That could be really huge,” Sylvan said. “You could imagine that for any particular tax credit, if that changes and suddenly a lot of funds are going to activities that have pretty limited or even negative climate benefits, that could certainly undermine the climate impacts of the IRA.”

A study published last year in Science estimated that the IRA is expected to slash the nation’s climate pollution 43 percent to 48 percent below 2005 levels by 2035, compared to an expected reduction of 27 percent to 35 percent without the legislation.

Many of the IRA’s programs came in the form of grants, loans or direct spending that has already been committed. One of the largest is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a $27 billion “green bank” program. Most of that money was awarded in August to nonprofits, which will now be able to lend the funds directly to emissions-cutting projects or distribute them to a network of green banks around the country. Some of its programs are intended to benefit communities that have limited access to financing for things like rooftop solar or energy-efficiency retrofits.

Reed Hundt, chief executive of the Coalition for Green Capital, one of the recipients, said the fund differs from tax credits because his group can choose projects that will have outsized climate impacts. It is also looking to fund projects in rural and often conservative states that might be less likely to get commercial loans for renewable energy projects, Hundt said.

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund money has been obligated, meaning it would take violating a contract to pull it back. But a hostile administration or Congress could use hearings, oversight or staff cuts to make it harder for the banks to spend the money, said Kyle Kammien, policy director of the Green For All program at Dream.org, an advocacy group focused on green jobs and criminal justice.

“In some ways it’s safe, but you could see how political levers could make it less effective or slow it down,” Kammien said.

For other programs, simply cutting staffing at agencies could make it harder to spend money that’s already been obligated.

Still, the architects of the IRA designed it with elections in mind, said Kate Gordon, a former senior adviser to U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and now chief executive of California Forward, an economic development nonprofit. The bill’s timelines, its broad distribution of funding across the economy and the country, were all meant to make it more popular and durable.

“It brings a lot more people and places into the conversation versus your typical government policy that says, ‘We are going to build a big thing,’” Gordon said. She told the story of a visit she made to a summit in Wyoming organized by the state’s governor and senators, neither of whom had voted for the IRA.

“They didn’t vote for it for political reasons, I’m sure, but they were 100 percent in in taking advantage of it,” Gordon said. She compared the IRA to President Barack Obama’s health care legislation, which was attacked for years but has remained in place.

“My gut is that there will be a lot of talk about repealing things,” she said, “and not a lot of action.”


Nicholas Kusnetz is a reporter for Inside Climate News. Before joining ICN, he worked at the Center for Public Integrity and ProPublica. His work has won numerous awards, including from the Society of Environmental Journalists, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Society of American Business Editors and Writers.

Is a THAAD for Israel Worth a War With Iran?

RHETORICAL QUESTION

by Ted Snider Posted onOctober 25, 2024

On October 1, Iran launched around 180 missiles, of various types, against Israel. Israel promised a response that “will be lethal, precise and above all, surprising.” On October 23, Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant said that “after we attack Iran, everyone will understand [the Israeli military’s] might.” The U.S. has promised ironclad support for Israel against a retaliation that Iran has vowed “will be stronger than the previous one.” The Biden administration is faced with policy decisions that risk the war in Gaza and Lebanon becoming a still wider war.

In an attempt to limit the strikes and retaliatory strikes and contain the war, the U.S. promised Israel a “compensation package” of comprehensive diplomatic and weapons protection if they restrain from striking targets, like oil or nuclear facilities, that the U.S. deems too provocatively escalatory. That defensive package may have been very attractive to Israel, who replied to the American offer with the promise not to strike those targets.

It may have been especially attractive because, despite the video on T.V. of Iranian missiles being intercepted and the U.S. assurance that “Israel was able to defend itself against the Iranian attack successfully” and that “the attack appears to have been defeated and ineffective,” the actual assessment may be more complicated.

After the October 1 attack, The New York Times reported that Israel’s air defense systems “have found it more challenging” to defend against slow moving drones. The Israeli press reports that “[m]ore and more drones are getting through Israeli defense systems.” On October 19, a drone struck Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s holiday residence.

But the vulnerability of Israel’s air defense system to drones is not the real problem. Theodore Postol, Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told me that Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system actually has a high intercept rate against drones. The problem is in the number of drones and their ability to overwhelm the systems.

Drones, Postol explained, are very inexpensive: way more inexpensive than Israel’s very expensive interceptors. They’re very slow and relatively easy to hone in against and hit. But there are swarms of them and only a limited number of Iron Dome interceptors. The drones can overwhelm the air defense systems.

In order to conserve interceptors, Iron Dome is designed only to attempt to intercept artillery rockets that it calculates could land in areas that are designated to be worth defending. That is why you hear so much about missiles getting through that just land in fields: they were allowed to get through. But Iron Dome cannot afford to ignore drones. Drones carry small warheads that can damage their targets and, so, have to be shot down. Because there are so many of them, and because they have to be shot down, they can exhaust the air defense system, leaving it short of interceptors to shoot down the more dangerous ballistic and cruise missiles.

And that points to a more serious problem. Iran’s cruise missiles are precision guided. Postol explains that they are actually more precise than GPS guidance. They use GPS to approach a target, and then switch to cameras to line up what they see to satellite imagery of their target: a technology called optical honing. But Israel’s Iron Dome is actually very effective at intercepting cruise missiles. The danger is that, if Iron Dome has to hit the drones, and there are more drones than interceptors, the air defense system can be overwhelmed, leaving it vulnerable to the high precision cruise missile.

Potentially even more dangerous, Postol says, is that Iron Dome has a low percentage of hits on ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles are not as accurate as cruise missiles, but they are better at evading air defenses. That is why, as The Washington Post reported, despite the claims that “[m]ost of the missiles fired by Iran were intercepted” except for “a few hits,” “[a]t least two dozen long-range Iranian ballistic missiles broke through Israeli and allied air defenses on Tuesday night, striking or landing near at least three military and intelligence installations, according to a review of videos and photos of the attack.”

The Washington Post has verified that 20 ballistic missiles directly struck Israel’s Nevatim air base and three struck the Tel Nof base. Two more landed near the Mossad headquarters. Postol shared video evidence with Antiwar.com of a direct his on a shelter on the Nevatim air base.

Part of the United States’ comprehensive defense package is the delivery of an advanced missile defense system called a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, or THAAD, which is intended to help Israel defend against those ballistic missiles. That THAAD system has now arrived in Israel.

The provocative part from Iran’s perspective, and the part that could risk a wider war, is that the 100 U.S. troops who will be operating it have also arrived in Israel. From Iran’s perspective, that means that U.S. troops could be on the ground in Israel shooting down Iranian missiles. That means both that the U.S. could be seen as a co-belligerent and that U.S. troops could be killed by Iranian missiles. That could potentially put U.S. assets in the region at risk and lead to a wider war.

The high stakes question here is not a question of Israel’s right to defend itself nor of the United States’ right to support its partner. It is a question of weighing the risk of a wider and very dangerous war. It is a question of whether the benefits of the THAAD system outweigh the risks of escalation. And, though sending the THAAD sends a strong message, it may not, according to Postol, be the game changer it is promoted as being. Postol says that a single THAAD can shoot down perhaps forty to fifty ballistic missiles. But Iran, he says, can fire hundreds. And that raises the question of whether the benefit of the utility of a THAAD outweighs the risk of sending it.

As the world awaits Israel’s inevitable retaliatory attack on Iran, and Iran’s promised retaliatory strike on Israel, the Biden administration faces tough policy decisions on calibrating its involvement. One of the most important is whether a THAAD for Israel is game changer enough to risk a wider – and perhaps American – war with Iran.

Ted Snider is a regular columnist on U.S. foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets. To support his work or for media or virtual presentation requests, contact him at tedsnider@bell.net

Gulf Arab States Will ‘Pay a Very High Price’ If They Back a US-Israeli Attack on Iran

By Giorgio Cafiero, Rania Khalek , Eugene Puryear

October 22, 2024

Source: Breakthrough News

As Iran braces for Israel’s anticipated attack following Tehran’s ballistic missile strike, fears of an all-out regional war are mounting. According to Giorgio Cafiero, CEO of Gulf State Analytics, the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations “are increasingly opting for diplomacy over confrontation and military escalation.” Cafiero says the Gulf Arab states’ growing frustration with the US refusing to rein Israel has driven the Gulf nations to seek further diplomatic engagement with Iran.

$1 Billion US Weapons System Lands in Israel Amid Preparation to Attack Iran

By Sharon Zhang

October 22, 2024

Source: Truthout


Image by Lockheed Martin

A U.S. weapons system has landed and is “in place” in Israel, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin said on Monday, as the Biden administration beefs up U.S. support of Israel and Israeli forces prepare to attack Iran and continue their bombardments of Lebanon and Gaza.

The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, worth between roughly $1 billion to $1.8 billion and made by Lockheed Martin, is an anti-missile system that can intercept ballistic missiles at high altitudes. The powerful weapon, deployed in only a few places around the world, will help bolster Israel’s ability to withstand air attacks after Iran’s missile attack on Israel earlier this month.

Austin said that the THAAD is expected to be operational soon. “We have the ability to put it into operation very quickly and we’re on pace with our expectations,” he said.

The U.S. announced last week that it was sending the THAAD as well as 100 U.S. troops to Israel. This is a significant escalation of the U.S.’s involvement in Israel’s aggression, marking the first time that U.S. troops have been directly deployed to Israel amid its genocide in Gaza and attacks across the Middle East. The U.S. announced last month that it is sending an additional 2,000 to 3,000 troops to the Middle East to bolster the 40,000 troops already stationed in the region.

U.S. officials said that the deployment of THAAD and the troops represent “another visible statement of our commitment” to Israel, per Army Secretary Christine Wormuth.

The deployment comes as a tranche of leaked classified documents reportedly prepared by the U.S. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, meant to be seen by the “Five Eyes” allies, shows that Israel is preparing to strike Iran. This includes plans to launch ballistic missiles and conduct drone operations.

U.S. officials have said that they are investigating the leak, which initially emerged on Telegram. Officials have reportedly acknowledged that the documents are legitimate, according to The New York Times.

The addition of yet more weapons systems like Israel’s Iron Dome that can intercept missile strikes will give more leeway to Israeli forces to strike other countries in the Middle East without fear of retaliation. These supposed “defensive” weapons, as anti-Zionist advocates have pointed out, make it far easier for Israel to conduct its offensive moves.

Indeed, Haaretz reports that Israel is clearly waiting for the THAAD system to be deployed before it carries out its attack on Israel. Harrison Mann, who resigned from his position as a U.S. Army intelligence officer because of Israel’s genocide, has said that, in fact, the THAAD and troop deployment will only help escalate tensions between Iran and Israel.

“To introduce troops into hostilities, per the 1973 War Powers Act, you either need an authorization from Congress, or there needs to be some urgent and imminent self-defense threat. In this case, the supposed self-defense threat is an Iranian missile attack. But the irony here is the Iranian missile attack is only going to happen if we help Israel strike Iran first,” Mann said to Democracy Now! last week.

What Can Iran & Palestine Expect from the US Presidential Elections?

By Richard Falk

October 24, 2024

Source: Richard Falk





[Prefatory Note: The following interview is in responses to questions addressed.to me by Kayhan New Agency in Iran. It is focused on an interpretation of how the forthcoming American elections are likely to affect Iran, and the policies toward the current combat zone involving Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon. X/0]

Kayhan Interview. 10/9/24

1-What impact does the U.S. election have on the Middle East (Israel-Palestine-Iran)?

Unless Trump is elected, which seems now shamelessly plausible, I see no prospect of change. If Trump is elected, he is more likely to encourage Israel to escalate tensions with Iran by way of an all-out military attack on Gaza and Iran, encouraging the use of a 30k blockbuster bomb and even a missile with a nuclear warhead directed at Iran’s nuclear facilities.

There are also dangers of such a scenario unfolding if Harris are elected, but somewhat less so. It could be brought about by the Netanyahu government exerting provocative pressures by way of alleged intelligence reports that Iran poses an existential threat to Israeli security and currently possesses nuclear weapons or is close to crossing that red line.

It may be that Iran’s conduct in the aftermath of the elections held on 5 November will have some effect in either calming or. agitating bellicose impulses. If the new President of Iran makes a determined diplomatic effort in the region, possibly centered on cultivating positive relations with Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, it could alter Israel’s calculations, but nothing is certain and nothing should be taken for granted or assumed.

2-The effects of current events in the Middle East on the American elections?

Recent developments in the Middle East, especially the Gaza genocide and the expansion of the Gaza combat zone to the West Bank in Israel and to neighboring countries including Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen are having very little impact on the American election, except for the Muslim-American minority and a small group of progressive individuals, including especially younger Jews. However, this numerically small

number compared to the size of the national voting public it could have an impact greater than one would expect because of its influence in battleground states. This reflects the concentration of Muslim-Americans is parts of the country where the electoral competition is very close, and the failure of these normally pro-Democratic voters to support Harris are strengthening Republican prospects, and hence heightening prospects for a Trump victory. The American electoral system is such that the winner is not chosen by the candidate with the most votes, but by a complex weighted system that gives each state, based on population a certain number of votes, which are so allocated as to give advantages to rural and small states where Trump is most popular.

3-Why student protests have been silenced in America and we dont see any protests in universities?

These protests have not yet been completely ‘silenced’ but certainly have been the targets of pressure from administrators of higher education and the Zionist, pro-Israeli, networks of influence.

Major donors to universities throughout the country with strong Israeli sympathies and ties have exerted their influence, usually hidden from public view. Israeli influence with American political elites is strong within the government and strong private sector lobbies (including military industries, energy). Students and faculty are intimidated, with pro-Palestinian activism leading to negative impacts on their career prospects. At the same time these protest sentiments remain strong among the more educated youth of America, although apparently dormant in the immediate period ahead. It would not be a surprise if a progressive movement outside the two-party system emerges in the near future, and becomes a real force in American political life.

4-Western countries state that the attack by Hamas on October 7 was a violation of human rights laws; Do you think the behavior of the Palestinians was a violation of the law?

Even after a year it remains difficult to have an accurate description of the events on October 7. There needs to be a trustworthy international investigation and report, although this will be opposed by Israel, and without such clarification it will be difficult to make a reliable assessment.

On the basis of what we know or are tole, it is the judgment of the most objective international law experts that Hamas had a right of resistance against an abusive and unlawful occupation of Gaza that had persisted since it was occupied in course of the 1967 War, but that atrocities committed during the attack should be considered legally prohibited, and the perpetrators held accountable. The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court recommended to a Sub-Chamber of the ICC that ‘arrest warrants’ be issued for three Hamas leaders on the basis of this legal reasoning, and also for Israeli leaders on a similar basis in the course of their retaliatory onslaught.

My own view accepts the obligation of claimants of a right of resistance, regardless of how strong their entitlement to resist, to comply with the laws of war and international human rights law with respect to the deliberate killing of women and children. Hamas culpability this regard is minor if compared to the magnitude and severity of Israel’s genocidal response, but still criminal.

The division in the world between Palestinian and Israeli supportive governments and political movements exhibits the civilizational dimension of Middle East conflict zone that follows a conflict pattern of the West against Islamic societies. This recalls Samuel Huntington’s 1993 prediction that after the Cold War that there would not be peace, but ‘a clash of civilizations’ situated along the fault lines separating the West from various geographies of the Islamic non-West.

5-What is your opinion about Iran’s attack on Israel and was it Iran’s right to attack Israel?

I am not familiar with the scale, targeting, damage, and details, but Israel had repeatedly provocatively attacked Iran previously without being itself attacked first, recently most strikingly by its assassination of the Hamas leader, Issmail Haniyeh, while he was visiting Iran to attend the inauguration of Massoud Pezeshkian as the new president. Iran certainly had a reprisal right, although the law of the Charter creates some ambiguity limiting international uses of forces to situation of self-defense against a prior armed attack (see UN Charter, Article 2(4), 51). Yet since many countries have claimed such a retaliatory right of reprisal it seems persuasive to argue that the Charter has been superseded by international practice, and the applicable tests of legality are related to such customary norms as proportionality, discrimination (as to targeting), and humanity (as to civilian innocence).

6-Why, despite the widespread protests in the United States? However, the United States still provides massive financial and military aid to Israel?

On the Middle East agenda, the US government is not being responsive to the people. The latter favor by a sizable majority a permanent ceasefire and a more balanced overall US approach to Israel and Palestine. Yet, the special interests associated with military sales and the policy goals of pro-Israeli lobbying organizations, especially AIPAC, are being accommodated by political elites in the US, and in most European countries.

The US situation is one where the pro-Israeli influence on politics is not balanced by pro-Palestinian influence in the venues of governmental authority (Congress, Presidency), which means that politicians have nothing to gain, and much to lose, if they are sympathetic to Palestinian grievances. Israel has effectively manipulated Diaspora Jews to make strong unconditional commitments to Israel financially and politically. Finally, the Holocaust and antisemitism continue to be deployed to punish those who go out of line by supporting Palestine or Iran.

7-What do you think about Iran’s behavior in supporting Palestine and Lebanon?

If you have any comments or suggestions. opinion, please write to us

I think such support as Iran has given, which is not known with any precision, is far less than what Israel and its Arab friends have received, and is thus legitimate as a reasonable balancing involvement. Beyond this, by supporting Lebanon and the Palestinian struggle Iran is on the right side of history and of morality, while the US and the former coloniall powers of Europe are supporting the prime instance of 21st Century ‘settler colonialism’ and it genocidal disposition of the majority native population.


Richard Falk
Richard Anderson Falk (born November 13, 1930) is an American professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, and Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor's Chairman of the Board of Trustees. He is the author or coauthor of over 20 books and the editor or coeditor of another 20 volumes. In 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointed Falk to a six-year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. Since 2005 he chairs the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

COP16: It’s Wild-West Capitalism Versus Life on Earth

The stakes for our collective future could not be higher, yet many decision-makers are doubling down on destructive policies.

By Laurel Sutherlin

October 23, 2024

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

Image from RSPCA Australia

All eyes should be on the salsa dancing capital of the world, Cali, Colombia, where representatives of 190 nations are joined by a broad swath of global civil society and international Indigenous delegations to participate in the United Nations Biodiversity Summit (aka COP16).

I’ve been struck that many people (even among those who generally track the larger annual climate COP process) are not familiar with the biannual biodiversity COP (conference of parties). This is a shame because the stakes for our collective future could not be higher: The Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) is the most crucial official treaty among the world’s nations to halt the extinction crisis. Its implementation—COP16’s primary goal—is critical to striking a sustainable balance between human civilization and the natural world.

We know by now that we are in serious trouble: More than one million species face imminent extinction, entire ecosystems are unraveling, and the very fabric of Earth’s life support systems that we all depend on—for literally everything—is convulsing on the brink of collapse under an onslaught of reckless resource exploitation, toxic pollution, and corporate greed. We also know that decision-makers at the highest levels of government and business not only have their heads in the sand but are doubling down on the kinds of short-sighted, profit-at-all-costs Wild West capitalism that got us in this mess in the first place.

This is why it was such a big deal when, in 2022, at the conclusion of COP15 in Montreal, 196 nations adopted the historic GBF, an ambitious pact to halt the extinction crisis and begin to reverse the destruction of nature by 2030. Of course, the GBF is imperfect and insufficient. However, given the current state of world affairs, it firmly qualifies as better than nothing and even a good start—mainly because it is the best we’ve got going. Now, countries are meant to present their detailed plans in Cali to implement and pay for this noble commitment.

The theme of this year’s biodiversity COP is ‘Peace with Nature,’ and Colombia has embraced its role as host to the world with gusto. The streets of Cali have been painted an exuberant rainbow of colorful birds, prowling jaguars, and other myriad representations of the richness of life. The president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, gave a fiery opening speech starkly outlining the predicament we face, holding no punches about the role of the rich world in creating this escalating catastrophe and the responsibility wealthy countries bear in supporting the developing world in solving it. The atmosphere surrounding COP16 presents a microcosm of our moment in history, with a chaotic chorus of international voices gathered to negotiate, cajole, and sometimes battle it out over how far and how fast we can agree to push the envelope on change.

Besides the heads of state shuttling around in black SUV motorcades, thousands of other stakeholders are flooding the city this week as well, both inside the formal UN Blue Zone on the outskirts of the city, where you need a delegate badge to enter, and outside, in the publicly accessible Green Zone along Cali’s main downtown riverfront. Alongside my organization, Rainforest Action Network (RAN), are hundreds of our non-governmental organizations from around the world, as well as dozens of Indigenous delegations and lots of unaffiliated activists of all stripes. There is hope and solidarity in the air, and it is undeniably exciting and inspiring to stand shoulder to shoulder with so many passionate advocates gathered to speak truth to power to achieve a better outcome for future generations.

And, ominously, there are the legions of businesspeople in suits and ties. Two years ago in Montreal, everyone in the environmental and human rights realm was commenting on the unprecedented abundance of bankers and corporate lobbyists, and it appears that this year, that trend has continued its sharp trajectory upward. On the one hand, the masters of finance seem to have realized that the real solutions we are seeking must necessarily involve structural changes to business as usual that would undoubtedly impact their bottom line and, on the other hand, that there may be great profit opportunities in some of the corporate-driven ‘solutions’ being proposed.

The thing is, we largely know what must be done to avoid the most catastrophic outcomes on the horizon. It’s just that nobody with real power sees any short-term gain from doing these things. Governments must pass finance regulations to stop the funneling of hundreds of billions of dollars into expanding nature-destroying sectors like soy, beef, and palm oil ever deeper into primary tropical forests. Wealthy nations must act to relieve the unsustainable debt and trade agreements that limit conservation options for so many developing countries.

We must shift the foundational dialogue from viewing nature through a transactional lens to embracing a holistic understanding of biodiversity. This includes listening to and incorporating the knowledge of traditional and Indigenous communities into our policies and economic models. We must transform the current landscape of corporate impunity into one where accountability prevails.

Sadly, there are already those dubbing this the ‘COP of false solutions’ as industry twists itself in knots to contrive increasingly Orwellian schemes that sound good on the surface but deftly avoid real change to the lucrative system from which they have grown fat. Along with an alphabet soup of innocuous sounding, corporate-driven initiatives like the TNFD (Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosure) is the newly ubiquitous concept of biodiversity credits, a dark mutation of the carbon credits debacle, which is every bit as ludicrous as it sounds.

Left to their own devices, the financial sector’s solution to the crisis resulting from the commodification of nature is to find new ways to commodify nature. This is why a big part of our mission here is to call BS, push back against these hare-brained schemes before they take root, and leverage whatever influence we have to bring frontline demands to the table.

Longtime observers of this decades-deep process know better than to expect an immediate, transformative breakthrough here in Cali. But the fact is, change is coming, and on some level, everyone knows it. History is full of flipped scripts, unexpected shifts, and dramatic realignments of power. There is simply no way the current economic system can persist indefinitely on a finite planet. And when the big shifts inevitably do come, we, and life on earth, will be far better off if we have built the infrastructure of a new direction forward.

The crippling grip of our current dominant economic model can feel pretty disempowering and limit our imaginations of what is possible. So it’s our job to keep our eyes on the prize, dream big, and demand the real solutions that science and morality dictate, not just the ones corporations and politicians will tolerate.

This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.  Donate

Laurel Sutherlin is the senior communications strategist for Rainforest Action Network and a contributor to the Observatory. He is a lifelong environmental and human rights campaigner, naturalist, and outdoor educator passionate about birds and wild places. Follow him on Twitter @laurelsutherlin.