Russian Anti-War Socialists: ‘A Trump-Putin deal will only lead to more wars’

By Federico Fuentes

March 10, 2025

Source: Green Left


Leftists argue that the meeting between the United States and Russia will go down in history as the beginning of a new imperialist era. Graphic: Green Left



Russian socialists and anti-war activists have condemned the so-called “peace deal” for Ukraine being negotiated between Russia and the United States, warning it will bring new wars. They say plans to carve up Ukraine between two powers would only “untie the hands of all imperialists”.

Following a phone conversation a week earlier between the US and Russian presidents, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov met to discuss Ukraine’s fate in Saudi Arabia on February 19. No Ukrainian representatives were invited.

Regarding the talks, Left for Peace Without Annexations said in a February 24 statement that while “right-wing anti-Communist US President Donald Trump is promoting the idea of peace”, in fact he only “seems to want to share Ukraine” with Russian President Vladimir Putin and strip “Ukrainian people of their sovereignty”.

Left for Peace Without Annexations brings together Russian socialists from various revolutionary tendencies, and was formed as a result of a post-Soviet anti-war left émigré meeting organised in Cologne, Germany, last November.

The coalition argued such negotiations would “inevitably [lead] to many more wars of conquest”, given “the impunity with which parts of Ukraine have been annexed will untie the hands of all imperialists”.

Their views were echoed by the editorial collective of Posle, a Russian anti-war website set up by Russian leftists shortly after the war started.

Their February 24 editorial argued the US-Russia talks “will bring nothing but new wars to the world. Imperialism never stops halfway — it only takes the acquisition of desired territories as an invitation to further aggression”.

Marxist sociologist Boris Kagarlitsky warned of the dangers posed by the Trump-Putin deal, in a February 19 letter written from a Russian penal colony where he is serving a five-year jail term for “justifying terrorism”.

According to Kagarlitsky, US imperialism’s “new orientation is towards dominance, one that does not take into account the interests or rights of others”.

Within the framework of this project, Trump is openly offering Russia “the role of a junior partner in this enterprise — one directed against China, Europe, and indeed the entire rest of the world.”

On the other side, the Russian elites “desperately” need Trump’s support “to extricate themselves from the dead-end situation they have created [in Ukraine]…

“It seems that the people in power in Moscow have little choice but to accept [Trump’s] terms, especially since Trump will accommodate them on the Ukraine issue…”

The real significance of the talks, Posle noted, do not lie in the outcomes, given nothing tangible was agreed upon: “The US administration does not offer any definitive plan to end the war, and Russia has not yet demonstrated any willingness to compromise and relinquish at least some of its territorial claims.”

Rather “for both sides, these negotiations are primarily of symbolic importance: it is important to them to show that such a scenario” — which they describe as “representatives of military powers calmly discussing the division of another country’s territory and its natural wealth” — “should no longer seem unthinkable and that the rules of the game have been radically changed…”

For that, “this meeting will go down in history as the beginning of a new era — the era of 21st-century imperialism.”

“The fate of tormented Ukrainians today may soon become the image of the future for humanity,” Posle warned, “but humanity always has the chance to say ‘Enough!’ to this imperialist madness.”

In light of this, Left for Peace Without Annexations called on all Russian leftists to “speak out in favour of the right of Ukrainians to resist and for the defeat of ‘their own’ imperialism”.

Meanwhile, they said the Western left should demand their countries step up aid to Ukraine so that Ukrainians can “continue [their] resistance against Russian imperialism, allowing [them] to win in the long run.”

Despite the dangers posed by what he termed an emerging “Moscow-Washington axis”, Kagarlitsky finished his letter on a note of optimism: “Fortunately, there are good reasons to believe that the rapprochement between these authoritarian projects will not be smooth…

“I believe that we are not headed for a bleak era of triumphant totalitarianism … but rather a period of sharp and sometimes chaotic struggle.

“We simply need to recognise the threat and understand its scale.”



Federico Fuentes is editor of the Bolivia Rising blog and a regular contributor on Latin American politics.

Evidence That The US-UK Scuppered Productive Peace Talks In Spring 2022 To End The Russia-Ukraine War

By Ian Sinclair

March 13, 2025

Source: Ian J. Sinclair Journalism


U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson meets with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in August 2020.



I thought it would be useful to set down some of the evidence for the argument that peace negotiations to end the Russian-Ukraine war in spring 2022 were close to being agreed, and that the UK-US tried (and possibly succeeded) to scupper them:

In an interview with CNN Turk on April 2022 Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, who organised the Istanbul negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, noted “there are those within the NATO member states that want the war to continue, let the war continue and Russia gets weaker.” (Middle East Monitor, 21 April 2022)

In May 2022 the Ukrainian online newspaper Ukrainska Pravda, citing “sources close to [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy,” reported UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson “appeared in the capital [Kyiv] almost without warning” on 9 April, bringing “two simple messages.” “The first is that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not.”

According to the Ukrainska Pravda – described by Encyclopædia Britannica as “one of Ukraine’s most-respected news sites” – “Johnson’s position was that the collective West, which back in February had suggested Zelenskyy should surrender and flee, now felt that Putin was not really as powerful as they had previously imagined, and that here was a chance to ‘press him.’” (Ukrainska Pravda, 5 May 2022)

Writing in the September/October 2022 issue of the establishment Foreign Affairs magazine after having spoken to “multiple former senior US officials”, Fiona Hill, a Russia specialist in the Bush and Obama Administrations, and Angela Stent, an ex-Intelligence Officer for Russia and Eurasia at the US National Intelligence Council, noted “Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement” in April 2022. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, where it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.” (Foreign Affairs, September/October 2022)

In February 2023 former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who acted as an intermediary between Russian and Ukraine in early 2022, said “there was a good chance of reaching a ceasefire” but the West “blocked it”. (Jacobin, 8 February 2023)

Speaking to the Berliner Zeitung newspaper in October 2023, ex-German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who was involved in the peace negotiations, also noted the US refused to accept a deal as it wanted to “keep the Russians down”. (bne IntelliNews, 24 October 2023)

According to former Zelensky advisor Oleksiy Arestovich, who also took part in the talks, “the Istanbul peace initiatives were very good.” While Ukraine “made concessions,” he said, “the amount of their [Russia’s] concessions was greater. This will never happen again.” The Ukraine war, Arestovich concluded, “could have ended with the Istanbul agreements, and several hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive.” (Aaron Mate, 2 March 2025)

“Russia’s goal was to put pressure on us so that we would accept neutrality,” David Arakhamia, head of President Zelensky’s party in the Ukrainian parliament, and also the head of the Ukrainian delegation at peace talks with Russia in Belarus and Turkey in early 2022, explained in a November interview. “This was the main thing for them: they were ready to end the war if we accepted neutrality… and we would give an obligation that we would not join NATO.” “Everything else,” according to Arakhamia, “was cosmetic and political embellishments about ‘denazification,’ the Russian-speaking population, blah blah blah.” He also noted Boris Johnson travelled to Kyiv in April 2022 to say the UK would not sign anything with the Russians and “let’s just fight” (Arakhamia has since claimed what he said about the former UK Prime Minister has been distorted by Russia). (Responsible Statecraft, 4 December 2023)

“We managed to find a very real compromise,” Oleksandr Chalyi, a senior member of the Ukrainian negotiating team, recalled in December 2023. “We were very close in the middle of April, in the end of April, to finalize our war with some peaceful settlement.” Putin, he added, “tried to do everything possible to conclude [an] agreement with Ukraine.” (New York Times, 15 June 2024, and Aaron Mate, 2 March 2025)

On the conflict being a proxy war for the US-NATO:

Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA under President Barack Obama, explained in March 2022 that the conflict is “a proxy war with Russia whether we say so or not.” (Bloomberg Television, 17 March 2022)

In April 2022 the former supreme allied commander of NATO General Philip Breedlove stated in an interview “I think we are in a proxy war with Russia. We are using the Ukrainians as our proxy forces.” (New Statesman, 21 January 2023)

Asked whether the US aims had shifted since February 2022, US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin told a press conference in Poland in late April 2022 US supported Ukraine in retaining its sovereignty and defending its territory, before adding a second, previously unstated, goal: “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.” (Guardian, 25 April 2022)

Hal Brands, the Henry Kissinger Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, concurs with this “proxy war” framing, writing in May 2022 “For NATO, the payoff has been damaging some of the most important parts of the Russian military – its ground and mechanized forces, its airborne units, its special operations forces – so badly that it may take them years to recover.” (Bloomberg UK, 1 May 2022)

In November 2024 former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson told The Telegraph ‘Ukraine: The Latest’ podcast, “Mate, let’s face it. We’re waging a proxy war.” (Twitter, 29 November 2024)

In March 2025 Eric Michael Swalwell, US Representative for California’s 14th congressional district, said US involvement in the war “has decimated [Russia’s] military and economy.” He calls this “the greatest return on investment for any military expenditure ever, and as far as the return on investment for soldiers’ lives, it’s infinity, because you can’t divide zero.” (CNN, 3 March 2025)

Ian Sinclair
I am the author of the book 'The march that shook Blair: An oral history of 15 February 2003', published by Peace News Press: http://peacenews.info/node/7085/march-shook-blair-oral-history-15-february-2003. I also write feature length articles, interviews, book reviews, album reviews and live music reviews for a variety of publications including the Morning Star, Peace News, Tribune, New Left Project, Comment is Free, Ceasefire magazine, Winnipeg Free Press, Columbia Journal, The Big Issue, Red Pepper and London Tourdates. Based in London, UK. ian_js@homail.com and http://twitter.com/#!/IanJSinclair

Britain Wants Ukraine’s Minerals Too

It’s not just Trump. The UK views critical minerals as a government priority and wants to open up Ukraine’s vast resources to British corporations.

By Mark Curtis

March 13, 2025

Source: Declassified UK

Andrey Yakimchik, CC BY 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons


When UK officials signed a 100 year partnership with Ukraine in mid-January, they claimed to be Ukraine’s “preferred partner” in developing the country’s “critical minerals strategy”.

Yet within a month, Donald Trump had presented a proposal to Ukraine’s President Volodymr Zelensky to access the country’s vast mineral resources as “compensation” for US support to Ukraine in the war against Russia.

Whitehall was none too pleased about Washington muscling in.

When foreign secretary David Lammy met Zelensky in Kyiv last month he reportedly raised the issue of minerals, “a sign that Starmer’s government is still keen to get access to Ukraine’s riches”, the iPaper reported.

Lammy earlier said, in a speech last year: “Look around the world. Countries are scrambling to secure critical minerals, just as great powers once raced to control oil”.

The UK foreign secretary was correct, but Britain itself is one of those powers, and Ukraine is one of the major countries UK officials – as well as the Trump administration – have their eyes on.

It’s no surprise why. Ukraine has around 20,000 mineral deposits covering 116 types of minerals such as beryllium, manganese, gallium, uranium, zirconium, rare earth metals, and nickel.

The country, whose economy has been devastated by Russia’s brutal war, also possesses one of the world’s largest reserves of graphite, the largest titanium reserves in Europe, and a third of the continent’s lithium deposits.

These resources are key for industries such as military production, high tech, aerospace, and green energy.

In recent years, the Ukrainian government has sought to attract foreign investment to develop its critical mineral resources and signed strategic partnerships and held investment fora to showcase its mining opportunities.

The country has also begun auctioning exploration permits for minerals such as lithium, copper, cobalt and nickel, offering lucrative investment opportunities.

Media narratives largely parrot the UK government’s interests in Ukraine being about standing up to aggression. But Whitehall has in the past few years stepped up its interest in accessing the world’s critical minerals, not least in Ukraine.
‘Critical minerals work’

Nusrat Ghani, trade minister in Rishi Sunak’s government, held at least 10 meetings on the subject of critical minerals in 2023 and the first half of 2024, government transparency data shows.

Among the companies she met were giant UK mining corporations Rio Tinto and Anglo American, and arms exporter BAE Systems and military aerospace lobbyists, ADS.

It is not clear if Ukraine was the subject of these discussions but one other prominent firm Ghani met to discuss “mineral supply chains” was Rothschilds, which has extensive interests in Ukraine.

Ghani held a discussion with the Paris-headquartered global advisory firm in April 2023 while her successor Alan Mak did so the following year in May. Mak met the firm “to discuss Rothschild’s critical minerals work”, the data shows.

The corporation was invited to the 2023 Ukraine Recovery Conference held in London and is a member of the UK-Ukraine Finance Partnership. It has also been the main adviser to the Ukrainian Ministry of Finance since 2017.

Rothschilds, on whose board sits former UK national security adviser Lord Mark Sedwill, has no less than $53bn invested in Ukraine.
‘British-Ukrainian partnership’

Writing recently in Unherd, researcher Sang-Haw Lee quotes a senior Labour figure saying the UK was involved in extensive negotiations for the whole of last year relating to securing exclusive access to Ukraine’s minerals, but that adequate government support was not forthcoming.

Some other meetings have crept into the public domain. Last April, two prominent UK parliamentarians met one of Ukraine’s largest mining investment companies in London to discuss “British-Ukrainian partnership in the field of critical minerals mining”.

BGV Group, which has investments of $100m in Ukrainian mining projects, held discussions with then energy minister Lord Martin Callanan and Bob Seely, then a Conservative MP who sat on parliament’s foreign affairs committee.

The company is seeking investors for its graphite and beryllium projects and said in a media release that “Ukraine has all the prerequisites to become one of Britain’s main suppliers of critical minerals crucial for advanced technologies and the green energy transition”.

“As Ukraine’s ultimate European ally, the UK could leverage its strong position within NATO to help secure mining sites and transportation routes”, writes Andriy Dovbenko, the founder of UK-Ukraine TechExchange.
‘Vast resources’

The UK government’s ‘Ukraine Business Guide’ notes that “Ukraine has vast resources” and “a rich mineral base of iron ore, manganese, coal, and titanium”.

Certainly, enhancing access to critical minerals has been a broad priority across Whitehall over the last three years.

The UK produced its first-ever Critical Minerals Strategy in 2022 and updated this with a ‘refresh’ the following year. It identifies 18 minerals with “high criticality” for the UK, including several present in Ukraine, such as graphite, lithium and rare earth elements.

The UK’s strategy aims, among other things, to “support UK companies to participate overseas” in supply chains for these minerals and “champion London as the world’s capital of responsible finance for critical minerals”.

As part of its critical minerals strategy, the government set up a so-called Task & Finish group, analysing the risks to UK industry, and including participants from BAE, Rio Tinto and ADS. The group highlights titanium, rare earth elements, cobalt and gallium as among the minerals with a supply risk to the UK military sector.

The UK has also launched a Critical Mineral Intelligence Centre and established a Critical Minerals Expert Committee to advise the government.

A report by the foreign affairs committee on critical minerals published in December 2023 concluded that “the UK cannot afford to leave itself vulnerable on supply chains that are of such strategic importance”.

A sign of how seriously the government is taking the issues is that it says it will “ensure consideration for critical minerals is embedded” in the free trade agreements it is negotiating with a range of countries.
‘Regulatory structures’

Accessing minerals overseas often depends on loosening government regulations to enable foreign corporations to strike favourable deals.

The 100 year partnership declaration commits the UK and Ukraine to “supporting development of a Ukrainian critical minerals strategy and necessary regulatory structures required to support the maximisation of benefits from Ukraine’s natural resources, through the possible establishment of a Joint Working Group”.

The thrust of the partnership is to “support a more enabling environment for private sector participation in the clean energy transition” and to “attract investments of British companies in the development of renewable energy sources.”

More generally, the two sides will “work together to boost and modernise Ukraine’s economy by progressing reforms that aim to attract private finance” and “boost investor confidence”.

As Declassified recently showed, British aid to Ukraine is focused on promoting these pro-private sector reforms and on pressing the government in Kyiv to open up its economy to foreign investors.

Foreign Office documents on its flagship aid project in Ukraine, which supports privatisation, note that the war provides “opportunities” for Ukraine delivering on “some hugely important reforms”.

The UK supports a project called SOERA (State-owned enterprises reform activity in Ukraine), which is funded by USAID with the UK Foreign Office as a junior partner.

SOERA works to “advance privatization of selected SOEs [state-owned enterprises], and develop a strategic management model for SOEs remaining in state ownership.”

UK documents note the programme has already “prepared the groundwork” for privatisation, a key plank of which is to change Ukraine’s legislation.

“SOERA worked hand-in-hand with GoU and proposed 25 pieces of legislation of which 13 were adopted and implemented”, the most recent documents note.
‘Geostrategic rivalries’

Much UK foreign policy and wars can be explained by Whitehall wanting British corporations to get their hands on other countries’ resources.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was mainly about oil while decades earlier the UK’s brutal war in Malaya in the 1950s was substantially about rubber. Britain’s support for apartheid South Africa is significantly explained by the UK wanting continued access to South Africa’s massive mineral resources.

But the main concern now is China, which is the biggest producer of 12 out of the 18 minerals assessed by the UK as critical.

The Ministry of Defence’s major geopolitical forecast, its ‘Global Strategic Trends’, released last year, makes 57 mentions of minerals, noting that they “will become of increasing geopolitical importance” and could lead to “new geostrategic rivalries and tensions”.

History suggests that Whitehall’s international strategy on critical minerals, and its scramble for Ukraine’s, will continue to shape UK foreign policy and contribute to these future international tensions.

Mark Curtis is the director of Declassified UK, and the author of five books and many articles on UK foreign policy.

 

A Growing Movement of Local General Assemblies

By Jana Krtić

March 11, 2025

Source: Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières

Image by Jana Krstić

After the general strike, students in blockade report that the blockades and protests are no longer just student-led but have become “people-wide”. Therefore, in their letter to the people, they called for the holding of people’s assemblies, in accordance with the Law and Constitution of the Republic of Serbia.

However, public reactions to this announcement are divided. While some eagerly awaited this announcement and have already begun organising citizens’ plenaries, others have characterised this announcement as an evasion of responsibility. What is this about?

What is a People’s Assembly?

In their letter, students first refer to Article 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, which states that no state body, political organisation, group or individual can appropriate sovereignty from citizens. Furthermore, the Law on Local Self-Government in Article 67 provides for the Citizens’ Assembly as one of the legitimate and legal ways of associating citizens, and Article 69 explains that this assembly can propose and vote on the competences of local self-government bodies, decides by a majority vote of those present, and submits its proposals to the assembly and other local self-government bodies (Official Gazette of RS, No. 129/2007, 83/2014 – other law, 101/2016 – other law, 47/2018 and 111/2021 – other law).

After the legal framework, the students also explain the ideological one. The Assembly is for the people what the plenary is for students, they say, based on the principles of direct democracy. What is that? Unlike representative democracy, in which representatives of the people or people’s deputies are elected by voting for lists of candidates, after which these candidates are authorised to represent us in Parliament, direct democracy is based on direct voting by citizens on individual proposals. In other words, instead of electing individuals who will represent us in institutions, we ourselves unite in assemblies and discuss and vote on everything individually, according to our will and without any mediation.

Direct democracy is the ideology by which the plenary functions, which is why students don’t have “representatives” that this regime constantly searches for and calls for informational interviews those who appear as such to them. Just like at a plenary, all citizens who are part of that local community are invited to the assembly, and all interested parties have the full right to attend, propose and decide – directly and without mediation.

Why do students distance themselves from political parties and other organisations, whilst calling for unification in assemblies?

From the very beginning of student blockades, there has been a search for individuals who are representatives of students. In an attempt to illustrate their different system of association, many students have spoken in the media without emphasising their names. However, as I explained in one of my previous texts, it is difficult for other generations to accept this system due to different habits and environments.

It is precisely from this need for authority that criticisms of the student announcement emerged as “evading responsibility”, because in that value system, responsibility is only counted when someone assumes a function with their head and beard. Of course, people in office have taken on responsibility and are responsible in representative democracy, which does not make those who participate in direct democracy less responsible. From another angle, responsibility is even greater in direct democracy because you decide on every issue yourself and no one else does it for you.

This value difference is one of the reasons why, from the very beginning of the blockades, students have distanced themselves from every organisation and every political party in Serbia. Students know very well that these organisations do not function according to the principles of direct democracy, but in the best cases, it is representative democracy. Therefore, the only way of association from which students will not distance themselves and to which they invite the rest of society is the people’s assembly or citizens’ plenary.

Rakovica Municipality Citizens’ Plenary as an Example of Good Practice

During the general strike held on 7 March, the streets of Belgrade were flooded with people, so much so that it was difficult to track which group was going where. One important event as part of the general strike that we must not miss was the first citizens’ plenary in Rakovica municipality. Neighbourhood groups on social networks arranged a walk in two columns, one from Resnik and the other from Petlovo Brdo, which would meet with the rest of the interested public in front of the Rakovica Municipality building and hold a citizens’ plenary.

As citizens have not had experience with plenaries before, they called for help from the most expert – the students. Thus, this plenary was moderated by a student named Marija from Rakovica, who has been active at her faculty since the beginning of the blockades. About 400 people gathered, and at the very beginning, Marija explained the rules of the plenary: how to ask for the floor (with two fingers), how to ask for a reply (one finger), about the course of discussion and about the voting itself.

Four items were on the agenda of this plenary, all of which actually came from the aforementioned neighbourhood groups on social networks, as citizens’ proposals. The first item concerned the continuation of blockade activities in Rakovica, where a nearly unanimous decision was made on further organisation through plenaries.

The second item on the agenda concerned the decision to collectively attend the student protest announced for 15 March in Belgrade. The gathered citizens discussed the most accessible route and shared information from neighbourhood groups from other municipalities, considering potential meeting points. After discussion and several proposals, they proceeded to vote, and the proposed route was adopted, in which walkers will connect with groups from Čukarica municipality and continue to the city centre.

On the agenda was also the decision to launch a fund for educational workers from Rakovica, who unlawfully did not receive their full salary due to joining the strike. This plenary is willing to launch a solidarity fund for them, but they left the decision on how this fund will function and how funds will be collected for the next plenary, when they will come with specifically developed proposals. This was also voted on, with the citizens of the plenary agreeing that there is a need for this fund and agreeing to form a proposal by the next plenary.

The last item on the agenda was the decision to jointly prepare food and refreshments for the student protest announced for 15 March. Neighbourhood women at the plenary proposed that, in agreement with the student organisers, they set up a stand for Rakovica municipality and that each household donate a tray of bread rolls, pies, some other dish of choice, fruit, sweets, and the like. Each according to their abilities. The food and refreshments would be transported in an organised manner to the stand in the city, which would also be a meeting point for walkers who will come by the previously chosen route. This proposal was also adopted, so after that, people approached the improvised stand and left their contacts to form groups for logistics and implementation of everything agreed at this plenary. Upon closing the plenary, the gathered paid tribute to the victims in Novi Sad with fifteen minutes of silence.

It seems that plenary fever has also caught on in other neighbourhood groups on social networks, and that Rakovica municipality was a trendsetter for citizens’ plenaries. Of course, the original and true trendsetters are certainly the students, but it was also important to show that direct democracy can be achieved at the level of the local community. It is worth remembering that the long-abolished local communities had a similar role to these neighbourhood plenaries, but now student enthusiasm has brought this culture back to local groups.

Plenaries will continue to be held in Rakovica municipality, making decisions through direct democracy. As the organisers state, all neighbours are invited to participate, and the date of the second plenary will soon be announced on social networks. Other municipalities will, by all accounts, follow this trend and strive to also organise themselves into plenaries. Plenary fever is spreading faster and faster, and neighbourhood plenaries are the must-have of the season for this spring, until all four student demands are met!

---

Translated for Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières by Adam Novak. Originally published in Masina.

 

Our Vision Is Mexican Humanism and Fraternity Among Peoples

By Jesús Ortega López

March 11, 2025

Source: Pressenza

\

Image by Jesús Ortega

Hundreds of thousands of people from all over the Republic, from all social strata and of all ages, gathered in the Zócalo in Mexico City to show their support for the President of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo.
With flags of unions, town halls and universities and under a blazing sun, the crowd greeted Claudia with shouts of

“President, President” and “you are not alone”.

“I promised you that there would never be a divorce between the people and the government and here we are together. We were formed in the public square and here we are, in the public square”

Just two days after the 25% tariffs were applied to products exported to the neighboring country, in a call between Sheinbaum and Trump, they agreed to postpone them until April 2, as both posted on their social networks that the work and collaboration is on track in terms of border security, with the illegal trafficking of fentanyl to the United States and arms trafficking to Mexico.

“We met to congratulate ourselves because in the relationship with the United States government, dialogue and respect prevailed, and the tariffs that were being applied to exported products were lifted.”

The New York businessman and president, due to internal pressures from the large consortiums, especially from the automotive sector and due to the solid arguments that Claudia and her security and economic teams have openly presented, has already postponed the tariffs on two occasions. This has led to an increase in Sheinbaum’s popularity, which contrasts with Trump’s decline.

“This assembly was called in case we did not reach an agreement and with the aim of announcing a strategy and actions that we had prepared months in advance.” “I am not afraid because there is a whole people that supports me.”

The President did not miss the opportunity to mention the invasion we suffered in 1846 and the dispossession of a large part of our territory. On the other hand, she also highlighted moments of collaboration and support between the two countries, for example when Benito Juárez received support from Abraham Lincoln in the fight against the French invasion, “in fact, the United States never recognized Maximilian’s second empire”; or when in 1913, it did not recognize the usurper Victoriano Huerta. He insisted on continuing to collaborate so that the drug fentanyl does not reach young Americans or anywhere else in the world. He mentioned a relevant fact: according to the US Customs and Border Protection Office, between October 2024 and January 2025, the crossing of this opioid decreased by 50%, and by 41% from January to March. She thanked Trump for recognizing the value of the drug use prevention campaign launched in Mexico and for wanting to implement it in his country. In addition, they have been asked to apply themselves to preventing high-powered weapons from crossing into our territory.

With the United States, we do not compete, we complement each other and in doing so, we strengthen our economies and the well-being of our peoples.

“It is not only a matter of security but of well-being, of love and of values”

Regarding the USMCA, the trade agreement between Mexico, the United States and Canada, she recalled that from the moment it was signed by the three countries, it was conceived as the region’s option for confronting the economic growth of Asia and, later, advancing in the project of integrating the entire American continent. She thanked the business sector for its support in this difficult moment. She emphasized the failure of the neoliberal model that only distributed resources “upwards” and that Mexican humanism operates in reverse, it is distributed from the bottom up and thus Mexico flourishes.

Work will continue with four maxims:

1. For the good of all, the poor come first.
2. There cannot be a rich government with a poor people.
3. Healthy food, education, healthcare, housing and fair wages are the rights of the Mexican people. They are not commodities or privileges.
4. With the people, everything; without the people, nothing.

Strategy

1. Strengthen the domestic market and continue to increase the minimum wage.
2. Increase self-sufficiency in food and energy.
3. Promote public investment for job creation, starting with the construction of trains from Mexico City to the border at Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas and to Nogales, Sonora. In addition to roads, infrastructure works and 1 million homes committed.
4. Promote national production for the domestic market with Plan Mexico.
5. Strengthen welfare programs (pensions for the elderly, scholarships, support for people with disabilities, support for women between 60 and 64 years of age, scholarships for public school children and a health program, house by house).

She concluded by recalling that on June 1st there will be elections for the Judiciary, and the people will decide by popular vote who will be judges and ministers.

“Our strength is the people”
“Be assured that your President, with courage and heart, will never betray you and that I will always put my heart, mind, energy and even my life itself for our dear and beloved Mexico”.

Long live Mexico!

Is Patriarchy Petrifying Governments to Deliver on Gender Equality?

By Shobha Shukla

March 11, 2025

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





Despite a legally binding treaty and several other declarations, agreements and promises on gender equality and human rights in the past 50 years, governments have failed to keep the promise. Gender inequality is not caused by natural calamities but by deep-seated patriarchy, which has sinister links with capitalism, privatisation, religious fundamentalism and militarisation.

It is not by chance, but by patriarchal purpose and design, that trade treaties are binding and declarations like Beijing Declaration are non-binding. May be that is what petrifies our governments to deliver on gender equality so as not to disturb the patriarchy-fuelled so-called ‘world order’ that serves the interest of the rich, mighty and powerful – and no prize for guessing if they are all men.
Accountability missing

Women’s rights are fundamental human rights and a bedrock to advance progress on all other UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The year 2025 marks 10 years since SDGs were adopted by all governments and 30 years since Beijing Declaration was adopted in 1995.

It is shocking that not only have the governments not delivered on all promises enshrined in the Beijing Declaration, but they are also failing to deliver on all SDGs too.

Revolting against patriarchy is an insanely steep climb. But feminist people of all genders have historically demonstrated courage to build and strengthen a transformative movement to advance gender justice. That is why within months after formation of the United Nations (UN) for global peace in 1945, the wheels began churning to push for gender equality and human rights.

Governments and other stakeholders are meeting at the 69th Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW69) this month to review the progress (or lack of) made on Beijing Declaration 1995 and its Platform for Action.

“Beijing Declaration is a United Nations (UN) resolution that outlines a plan to achieve gender equality and women’s rights. It was adopted in 1995 at the UN’s Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. This conference was attended by 189 countries worldwide and a parallel people’s conference also took place in which over 30,000 feminists from around the world took part. Beijing Declaration was accepted by all 189 countries present in this UN meet in 1995. Being ratified by 189 countries globally made it a very important promise to behold and advance gender equality and women’s rights. It was pivotal in our feminist advocacy,” said Anjali Shenoi, a noted intersectional feminist who serves at the Asian-Pacific Resource and Research Centre for Women (ARROW). She was speaking at a SHE & Rights session (Sexual Health with Equity & Rights session) co-hosted by Asian-Pacific Resource and Research Centre for Women (ARROW), Asia Pacific Media Alliance for Health and Development (APCAT Media), Centre for Global Health Diplomacy and Inclusion (CeHDI), International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights (WGNRR) and CNS.

“It is important to remember that conclusions adopted by CSWs are non-binding. While these conclusions influence national and international policies, civil society often struggles to hold governments accountable for their commitments. When it comes to the Beijing Declaration 1995 and its Platform for Action, we are living in an age of poly-crises in an anti-rights and anti-gender world. Regressive trends in neoliberal globalisation are compounded by colonial legacies and neocolonialism. There is a rise of authoritarianism, securitisation, militarism and conflict. It has also unleashed debilitating debt crisis in the region with intolerable austerity measures, rising inequality and increasing poverty, exacerbating the impact of COVID-19 and the various climate crises that we are facing. There is a growing number of anti-gender and anti-rights arguments and interventions from both governments and non-state actors, which is exacerbated by the Trump administration and its ‘Global Gag Rule.’ It gives rise to further concerns of corporate capture undermining feminist priorities,” added Shenoi.

Agrees Kavutha Mutua, lawyer, High Court, and Founder-Director of The Legal Caravan, Kenya: “We need stronger accountability to hold governments to account on the promises of gender equality and human rights. We have seen the issue of contradicting foreign policies- for example the regressive ‘Geneva Consensus Declaration’ which limits access to safe abortion services as well as other sexual and reproductive health services. Or the ‘Global Gag Rule’. Countries like Kenya have very progressive laws on gender equality and part of Maputo Protocol too, but it is also part of the regressive Geneva Consensus Declaration and other polices that contradict what has already been passed in our domestic law.”
Birth of a boy celebrated with 7 ululations, while a girl gets 3

“In many parts of my country Ethiopia, the birth of a boy is celebrated with seven ululations, while a girl receives only three. This seemingly small difference signals the start of a lifelong gender bias, favouring men over women. Societal norms assign greater value to boys, shaping their opportunities in education, economic participation, and leadership, while reinforcing barriers for girls. These biases accumulate over time, limiting women’s potential and perpetuating gender inequality across generations. Despite being vital to national development, women in Africa continue to face widespread discrimination and violence solely due to their gender. Gender equality is not just a human right and a matter of social justice, it is also a crucial foundation for sustainable development, peace, and progress,” said Siyane Aniley, an expert in gender equality and social inclusion, SRHR, and education; who contributes to strengthening quality SRH services and promoting gender equality at Centre for International Reproductive Health Training (CIRHT), Ethiopia.
Ageing with rights and human dignity

We need to ensure that older women (and all gender diverse peoples) are not left behind in policies, programmes and actions that are addressing gender inequalities and social injustices. Gender equality and SDGs are for all people of all genders and of all ages.

“There are 1.4 billion older people today and the number is rising and estimated to double by 2050. Also, the number of older women is more than older men. Lack of education, limited access to healthcare services with equity and rights, and not recognising the economic contribution of older people as they are the ‘hidden workforce’, are some of the challenges that further compound the problem and increase their vulnerability to violence, abuse and exploitation. A lot of older people, including older women, are very skilled, knowledgeable, and critical part of our workforce (although often ‘invisible’),” said Sanju Thapa Magar, CEO of Ageing Nepal.

Policies must ensure equitable access to benefits for senior citizens, especially women of all ages, address gender-specific healthcare needs, and bolster social support systems to alleviate caregiving burdens. “Maintaining good health is crucial for older people to remain independent and actively participate in family and community life. Public health initiatives can leverage the capacities and abilities of older people,” added Magar.

Addressing ageism is important to protect the rights and dignity of older women, as it requires a fundamental shift in societal attitudes, feelings and behaviours towards ageing and older persons. Age-friendly environments empower older individuals to lead dignified lives by addressing social determinants of health and promoting supportive communities that enhance their well-being. Integrated care guarantees that health services effectively address the diverse needs of older people, fostering a comprehensive person-centred approach that encompasses physical, mental and social well-being. Long-term care is vital for individuals who require assistance from others for everyday life, as it ensures they receive the necessary support to sustain their quality of life with dignity.

A feminist order based on solidarity, caring, rights, equity and justice can make this world a just place for everyone except for a handful of those who are rich capitalists and thrive on keeping profit before people. It is high time we dismantle patriarchy and ensure that gender equality and human rights are a reality on the ground, for everyone and everywhere.


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

Shobha ShuklaWebsite
X (Twitter)
Shobha Shukla is the award-winning founding Managing Editor and Executive Director of CNS (Citizen News Service) and is a feminist, health and development justice advocate. She is a former senior Physics faculty of prestigious Loreto Convent College and current Coordinator of Asia Pacific Regional Media Alliance for Health and Development (APCAT Media) and Chairperson of Global AMR Media Alliance (GAMA). She coordinates SHE & Rights Media Initiative (Sexual health with equity and rights). Follow her on Twitter @shobha1shukla or read her writings here www.bit.ly/ShobhaShukla)

Kenya: A U.S. Proxy In the ‘War of Plunder’ In Sudan

By Booker Ngesa Omole, Rania Khalek , Eugene Puryear 

March 11, 2025

Source: Breakthrough News

Booker Ngesa Omole, the General Secretary of The Communist Party Marxist Kenya, joins the show to discuss the Kenyan government’s role as a proxy in the war on Sudan. Omole says, “Kenya is a perfect case where we have a neocolonial entity because we achieved political independence to replace the white person with a black man, but at the very end of it, we did not change the colonial structures.”

Israel Inflicts Revenge on Palestinians for Its Own Intelligence Failure

By Vijay Prashad

March 13, 2025

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



On 27 January 2025, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians left their temporary shelters in southern Gaza and marched en masse to the north. They crossed various towns along the way, one long line of people alongside the Mediterranean Sea. It was clear that this was not a spontaneous action because so many people seemed to know that this was the perfect day for them to go back to their destroyed homes. Cameras mounted on drones filmed their progress, and young men climbed metal towers to place Palestinian flags, almost to mark their historical journey. Hamas called the march northward ‘a victory for our people’ and a ‘declaration of failure’ for Israel’s attempt to annex Gaza. A former close ally of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Itamar Ben Gvir, agreed with Hamas. He said that the march to the north was a ‘Hamas victory’ and an ‘Israeli surrender’. By the end of the day, Palestinians who made it into Gaza City lit their cooking fires, sending a signal to the satellites that the light – even if made by fire and not electricity – was back in Gaza City.

Due to the ceasefire deal, aid trucks began to enter Gaza in much larger numbers than before (up to 600 a day in mid-February 2025). The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) opened thirty-seven shelters in the north, including seven in Gaza City (one of them only for women, as well as modest medical support for pregnant women). On the day before the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, UNRWA announced that it had begun to provide food assistance to about 2 million Palestinians (90% of those who remain in the Gaza Strip). ‘We are ready for Ramadan’, Ahmed al-Raqab, who lives in Gaza City, told me via WhatsApp. The ninth month of the Islamic calendar is celebrated as Ramadan, a month of reflection and prayer. The first ten days of Ramadan are known as the Days of Mercy (Rahmah), but these first ten days turned out to be an ordeal.

‘We do not have much, but we will fast and then we will share what we have in the evening so that we can have a memorable time with our family and friends’. Then, later, as the night fell, he wrote again, just to reassure me: ‘Even if there is nothing left, my friend, we have some duqqa, and we will dream of sayadiyya for when you eat with us’. Duqqa is a delicious mix of crushed hazelnuts with cumin and mint, while sayadiyya is fish cooked with chilis and eaten with rice and fried onions. Even in the midst of nothing, there is the something of dreams.

But Ramadan began for many Palestinians in Gaza with sadness. Fatima al-Absi in Jabaliya could not go worship in her usual mosque because it is bombed out of existence. ‘Everything has changed’, she said. ‘There’s no husband, no home, no proper food, and no proper life’. Her husband was killed by an Israeli bomb. Her life had been reduced. But she surrounded herself in northern Gaza with the remainder of her family and found her own way to celebrate Ramadan.

On 2 March, Israel stopped allowing any humanitarian aid truck from entering Gaza, thereby cutting off supplies (including food) to the Palestinians who had just started their month of Ramadan. This act of war violated the ceasefire agreement. The Israeli government said that it was because Hamas had not released the hostages. But this is not the exact reason why Israel restarted its genocidal policies towards the Palestinians. It is important to remember that just a few days before the shutdown of humanitarian deliveries, Israel had been humiliated by the Palestinian great march northwards. Blocking the humanitarian trucks was a form of revenge against the Palestinians for undoing the ethnic cleansing that had set in motion Israeli plans to annex – at least – northern Gaza. With hundreds of thousands of Palestinians back in the north, it would be impossible to build US President Donald Trump’s Riviera and build the massive settlements that the Israelis had dreamed about. The punishment was the end of humanitarian aid. The crime was the Palestinian great march northward.

But it did not end with the stoppage of the trucks. On 11 October 2023, the Israeli government ordered the Israel Electric Corporation to cut off the electric supply to Gaza and therefore shut down Gaza’s power plant. What remained working, even if under very hard circumstances, was the South Sea desalination plant. Then, on 9 March 2025, Israel announced that it would cut off whatever power had been allowed in, including the power to the desalination plant – which would mean that Gaza would have a very, very limited regular supply of clean water.

And then, as if from nowhere, the airstrikes began to intensify. One raid, on 11 March, killed five people in Gaza City. In Rafah, a Palestinian woman was killed by an Israeli drone. It is the Israeli war machine itching to restart the bombardment and push the Palestinians back south.

Cutting off water, food, and electricity; the bombings again; the threats of bulldozing all of Gaza into Egypt; the threat of building resorts for the holidaymakers from Tel Aviv and Houston. This is the reality for the Palestinians in Gaza. The scale of the Israeli actions feels much greater than anger that the prisoners have not been released. This is plainly revenge for January 27.

‘How is everyone surviving this situation?’ I write to Ahmed. ‘You must all be exhausted from the tension’.

‘We are ok’, he answered, and then added, as if for emphasis or to convince himself, ‘We are ok’.

This article was produced by Globetrotter and No Cold War.

Vijay Prashad

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter. He is an editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He is a senior non-resident fellow at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest books are Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism and (with Noam Chomsky) The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of U.S. Power. Tings Chak is the art director and a researcher at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research and lead author of the study “Serve the People: The Eradication of Extreme Poverty in China.” She is also a member of Dongsheng, an international collective of researchers interested in Chinese politics and society.