Man catches 3 half-eaten sharks off Australia, realizes something bigger lurks below


Facebook screenshot

Mark Price
Fri, February 25, 2022, 6:05 AM·2 min read

Sharks are notorious for chomping on hooked fish before anglers can reel them in, but one Australian fisherman learned the hard way that sharks will also eat other sharks, too.

Jason Moyce — known as “Trapman Bermagui” on social media — had not one, but three sharks bitten in half as he pulled them in this week, including two hammerheads.

It happened Tuesday, Feb. 22, off the coast of New South Wales in southern Australia, and Moyce posted photos of the three sharks with a series of complaints about his worsening luck.


“Plenty of smooth hammerhead sharks around. But getting a whole one to the boat is a challenge,” the Trapman Bermagui Facebook page reported after it happened the second time.

Then a dusky shark — also called a “bronzie” — was pulled in, missing everything beyond its front fins.

Clearly, much bigger predators were nearby, he concluded.

“Even the bronzies aren’t safe today,” he wrote. “No more shark fishing for us. Too many big units around.”

Hungry sharks are known for “tail fishing boats” off Australia in search of easy meals, Moyce told 9news.com.au. However, in this case, it appeared the boat had attracted some rather large sharks.

“There were just too many big ones,” Moyce told the station. “They were down deep, I couldn’t see them but I think they were tiger sharks.”

Tiger sharks can reach nearly 11 feet off Australia, according to New South Whales government data.

Moyce, “a second generation pro fisherman,” said he wasn’t the only one having troubles that day.

Anglers on a recreational boat caught a mako shark and “found a smaller mako, bitten in two in its stomach,” according to a post on the Trapman Bermagui Facebook page. It included a photo of both sharks.

Waters off Australia are home to about 170 species of shark, with the biggest concentration (50 species) living in the Coral Sea, according to Australiangeographic.com.

Among them is the great white shark, a species linked to the Feb. 16 killing of diving instructor Simon Nellist as he swam near a Sydney Beach, the BBC reports.

What’s clawing up these great white sharks? Probably an unwilling entree, experts say

What attacked woman off Cayman Islands beach? It may have been a barracuda, experts say

MEGALODON SHARK

Salvage team boards burnt ship with luxury cars off Azores, towing begins

FILE PHOTO: Ship Felicity Ace burns more than 100 km from the Azores island

Fri, February 25, 2022, ·

LISBON (Reuters) -More than a week after a ship packed with luxury cars caught fire in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, a salvage team managed to board the vessel on Friday and started to tow it to a safe location off the Portuguese Azores archipelago.

In a statement, ship manager Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd (MOL) said the Felicity Ace remained stable, and the smoke that for days billowed from the vessel, adrift around 170 km southwest of the Azores, had stopped.

The 22 crew members of the Panama-flagged Felicity Ace, which was carrying around 4,000 Volkswagen vehicles including Porsches, Audis and Bentleys from Germany to the United States, were evacuated last Wednesday, the day the fire broke out.

Some of the vehicles are electric and their lithium-ion batteries have made the fire very difficult to extinguish, port officials have said.

"We fear that the fire on the ship has damaged a large number of the nearly 4,000 group-brand vehicles to such an extent that they can no longer be delivered to customers," Volkswagen said in a statement on Friday.

Previous attempts to board the ship to assess its condition and start preparing it for towing had failed due to the fire and rough seas.

On Friday, the team was able to board by helicopter and the salvage boat Bear started towing the vessel to a "safe area off Azores", the ship manager said. It was not clear where exactly the vessel was being towed to.

It was being escorted by two tug boats and another salvage craft equipped with firefighting gear, MOL said.

Volkswagen said the damage to the vehicles was covered by insurance, adding that brands and dealers had already started to inform affected customers and finding "individual solutions".

Insurance experts said the incident could result in losses of $155 million.

(Reporting by Catarina Demony and Victoria Waldersee; Editing by Andrei Khalip, Kirsten Donovan)

Merchant ships have been targeted by Russian missiles, while the French Navy intercepted a cargo vessel heading for St. Petersburg, reports say

Sam Tabahriti

Sat, February 26, 2022,

Merchant ships appear to have been targeted.Vadim Ghirda/AP

• The movements of merchant and cargo ships are being scrutinized amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

• BBC News reported Saturday that France stopped a cargo ship en route to Russia's St Petersburg.

• On Friday, a tanker crew had to abandon ship after reportedly being hit by a Russian missile.

The movements and activities of merchant and cargo ships are under renewed scrutiny as the Ukraine invasion continues.

BBC News reported Saturday that the French Navy had intercepted a cargo ship in the English Channel that was bound for St Petersburg, Russia.

French border forces are inspecting the cargo to establish whether it belongs to a company targeted by EU sanctions against Moscow, the outlet reported.

Meanwhile, merchant ships are increasingly becoming the target of Russian missiles, The Maritime Executive reported.

In one incident on Friday, the crew of a small chemical tanker was forced to abandon ship, the outlet reported, adding that two crew members were injured. It cited a tweet from Ukraine's OSINT Academy.

The secretary-general of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), Kitack Lim, is urging "all parties to take steps to ensure" safe passage across the seas.

Lim told Insider he supports and stands with UN secretary-general António Guterres' call for hostilities to cease immediately. He added: "I am gravely concerned about the spillover effects of the military action in Ukraine on global shipping, and logistics and supply chains."

"Along with the people of Ukraine, innocent ships, seafarers and port workers engaged in legitimate trade should not be adversely impacted by this growing crisis. Shipping, particularly seafarers, cannot be collateral victims in a larger political and military crisis — they must be safe and secure," Lim said.

Russia was seen sailing into the Black Sea earlier in February, bringing military power closer to Ukraine, Insider reported.

Russia's Ministry of Defense had said the ships were moving into the area to "work out the actions of the Navy and Aerospace Forces to protect Russian national interests in the world ocean."

In a statement issued on the IMO's website, on Friday, Lim said: "The security situation in Ukraine is impacting trade by sea. The safety of marine personnel including seafarers is vital. Shipping is essential to global trade — as has been proven during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic."

He added: "I urge all parties to take steps to ensure the protection of seafarers, vessels, and cargo."

According to The Wall Street Journal on Friday, the most serious incident since Russia invaded Ukraine was reported by Moldova's national naval agency. A missile hit a commercial oil tanker in the Black Sea, destroying the ship's lifeboats and forcing the crew to jump overboard.

Reuters reported that insurers have raised their rates for vessels operating in the Black Sea, which would mean additional costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars for a ship voyage, the agency said.

Lim issued a statement on Thursday, following Russia's entry into Ukraine. "The use of force by one country against another is the repudiation of the principles that every country has committed to uphold. This applies to the present military offensive," it said.

He added: "It is wrong. It is against the Charter. It is unacceptable. But it is not irreversible. I repeat my appeal from last night to President Putin: Stop the military operation. Bring the troops back to Russia. We know the toll of war."

Read the original article on Business Insider

Container ship officer shares wild 

TikTok showing how long it takes 

to stop his boat: 

‘That actually blows my mind’

Dillon Thompson

Fri, February 25, 2022, 

A container ship worker is going viral after showing just how long it takes to stop one of the massive, cargo-carrying boats.

The U.K.-based seafarer, named Joe (@joethesailor), shared the shocking video on TikTok, where he frequently posts about his life as the chief officer on a container ship.

His clip is just the latest in a recent trend on the app. For months, users have revealed the wildest facts about their jobs — from how much NFL water boys make a year to how workers fill ice skating rinks in the winter.

Joe’s video, meanwhile, came in response to another TikToker’s question. As he explains, stopping his container ship when it’s at “full ahead” (a speed of 22.7 knots, or slightly over 26 miles per hour) takes a full 29 minutes. What’s more, the ship would cover a space of 4 miles as it stopped.

Joe continues by explaining that figures like these are pre-calculated, and contained in a sheet called the “wheelhouse poster.” He also said that he could stop the ship faster if he really needed to, although it would likely damage the ship and make the engineers “scream” at him.

TikTok users were stunned by the information.

“That actually blows my mind,” one user wrote. “29 minutes is insane.”

“That is not a stop that’s slowing down,” another joked.

Others used the opportunity to ask even more questions about Joe’s job. Thankfully, the TikToker has plenty of videos addressing his career — including one on how to steer a ship as large as his.

Cuban tobacco yield up in smoke amid fertilizer shortages

Guillermo Mendoza Peraza, 55, has worked in tobacco cultivation since childhood

 (AFP/YAMIL LAGE)

Leticia PINEDA
Fri, February 25, 2022,

Yurisniel Cabrera, 35, is a fourth-generation tobacco farmer, eking out a meager living from the leaves used to make Cuba's fabled cigars.

Clients can fork out more than $10 for a single cigar, but for his months of labor, Cabrera earned only a few hundred US dollars from last year's harvest.

This year, the outlook is even bleaker.

Sanctions-stricken and facing its worst economic crisis in nearly three decades, Cuba is running low on fertilizers and pesticides.

The harvest "is not of a good enough quality," Cabrera sighed as he showed AFP around his crop amid the rounded hills dubbed mogotes that dot the fertile Vinales valley in western Cuba.

"It lacked fertilizer and pesticide," he said as he slipped a pile of leaves draped over his arm onto a "cuje," the wooden lathe used to dry the harvest in a rustic, wooden "tobacco house."

Like other farmers in Pinar del Rio province, where 65 percent of Cuba's tobacco is produced, Cabrera sells 95 percent of his yield to the Tabacuba state agency.

What remains is for private use.


The state Tabacuba agency buys all the tobacco produced in the country 

(AFP/YAMIL LAGE)

- State sets the price -

In Cuba, the government provides pesticides and fertilizers to state-run cooperatives, and sets the price at which farmers can obtain them.

Tabacuba determines the price paid for the farmers' tobacco, based on the quality of the leaves.

"I have to buy all the product from them (the authorities)," explained farmer Livan Aguiar, 49, from the settlement of San Juan and Martinez, near Vinales.

"They give me the fertilizer, the fungicide... at the end of the harvest they charge me for everything," he said while cutting tobacco on the land he uses on a state usufruct.

Like Cabrera, Aguiar is concerned about the impact the lack of fertilizer will have on his yield and income this season.

Tabacuba executive Pavel Noe Caseres explained that importing agricultural chemicals had been "complicated" this season, due to logistical bottlenecks caused by the coronavirus pandemic, and ongoing US sanctions.

The harvest has fallen from 32,000 tons in 2017 to 25,800 in 2020 and will likely reach only 22,000 tons this season, he said.

The impact would mainly be on domestic consumers, as the country has enough tobacco in store to produce export cigars for two years, added Caseres.

Cuba's tobacco harvest has fallen from 32,000 tons in 2017 to 25,800 in 2020 and will likely reach only 22,000 tons this season

Tobacco is Cuba's main agricultural export.

Cabrera and his family sowed 25,000 plants for the season that started last October and ends in May.

From it, he expects to get little over 550 kilograms (about 1,200 pounds) of tobacco leaf -- almost half of last year's yield.

In 2021, he made just over 80,000 pesos -- about $3,320 at the official exchange rate but only about $800 on the black market where most Cuban transactions take place.

This year it will be even less. So Cabrera and his family will look to the corn and other foods they grow on the side for survival.

Like his father, grandfather and great-grandfather before him, Cabrera lovingly cures the tobacco leaves, once dried, in a special concoction that includes guava leaf, honey and rum mixed into water.

It is a long process, requiring mastery, for which he reaps little financial reward.

The leaves are placed on wooden lathes to dry in a rustic, wooden 'tobacco house' 

lp/gm/dga/mlr/mdl

The Russia-Ukraine Crisis Shows the Need for Real Solutions to Climate Change

It's possible that Russia's invasion of its neighbor would never have happened if Europe had been serious about alternatives to fossil fuels.

View of pipe systems and shut-off devices at the gas receiving station of the Nord Stream 2 Baltic Sea pipeline on 24 February 2022. 

Photo: Stefan Sauer/picture alliance via Getty Images

ANTHONY PAHNKE

February 25, 2022

In certain ways, Europe has taken the lead in confronting climate change, including Germany's decision to phase out coal burning power plants, as well as France's announcement to invest $35 billion in nuclear and renewable energy.

Fossil fuels are the problem. Prompt removal of them is the only answer.

Yet, in other ways, European plans to confront climate change are problematic, if not wrongheaded.

The Russia/Ukraine crisis puts on display for the world to see how one such way of confronting climate change is deeply flawed, namely, crafting energy plans according to the concept of 'net zero carbon emissions,' or 'carbon neutrality.'

In short, it's possible that Russia's invasion of its neighbor would never have happened if Europe had been serious about alternatives to fossil fuels.

The problem is apparent in the European Union's 'Energy Union Strategy' from 2015, and its plan for how to promote energy markets, efficiency, decarbonization, and research. From that strategic initiative, EU member countries decided to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% from 1990 levels by 2030. The overall goal is to be entirely 'carbon neutral' by 2050.

This focus on 'carbon neutrality' is where we find the problem.

For a business, government, or for that matter, international organization, to pledge to be carbon neutral means that greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere by that entity are balanced by a reduction of carbon emissions somewhere else.

For instance, a company may continue to burn coal—even increase doing so—if at some other place, that same business reduces its carbon footprint in some way such as by planting trees or investing in solar energy.

Environmental groups, such as Greenpeace, argue that such as a strategy for confronting climate change is 'greenwashing,' as oil companies such as Chevron may claim that they are environmentally friendly in claiming to be 'carbon neutral,' but really, just masking their pollutive exploits.

It is within this logic that we can understand the tense relationship that Europe has with Russia.

Central to Europe's energy plans is the ready and constant supply of Russian natural gas. In 2015, when the first state of the union energy strategy plan was issued, the "ongoing tensions between Russia and Ukraine" were referenced, as well as how "the [European] Commission takes note of the plans of commercial companies to build further pipelines connecting Russia and Germany through the Baltic Sea."

The last report—from 2020—makes similar references both to the ongoing tensions between Russia and Ukraine, and how natural gas will still be pumped from Russia into Europe.

In fact, as of 2019, 60% of Europe's energy needs were met via imports. Within that amount, natural gas has increasingly been used to meet the continent's fuel needs, approaching 25% of overall energy consumption in 2020.

Europe receives its natural gas through the Nord Stream pipelines, which run under the Baltic Sea from Russia into Germany.

Meanwhile, the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which is the principal pipeline that pumps natural gas from Russia into Europe, has been the center of discussions pertaining to sanctions. Germany has waffled for months, with officials urging the US not to place sanctions on Russian interests at the end of 2021, while apparently switching positions, recently stating that financial penalties should be serious considered.

Only as Russia was invading Ukraine, did Germany decide to not certify the pipeline, which halts the flow of gas into Europe.

But the damage was already done, so to speak.

That European powers wrote natural gas—and Russia—into their strategic energy needs, is due to the false belief that natural gas is a 'transitional' energy source that could be utilized as countries move away from burning more pollutive fossil fuels for their energy needs.

There are multiple ways that this is a problem.

Among concerns, there's the fact that burning natural gas still emits carbon dioxide and making infrastructure changes to accommodate natural gas locks green gas emissions into the energy grid.

On the first point, we encounter what some economists call 'Jevons Paradox.'

The nineteenth century British economist, William Stanley Jevons, found that technical changes made to increase coal burning efficiency—meaning using less at a particular site—led to more companies using the resource, and therefore, generating more pollution in the aggregate.

Transitioning to natural gas is no different—burning it emits carbon less than coal, yet as more and more companies adopt it, total greenhouse gas emissions will increase.

As for locking greenhouse gas emissions in energy infrastructure—we know that there are plenty of renewable energy sources that do not involve burning fossil fuels.

Not only solar and wind, but certain farming technologies, such as agroecology, are found to have a minimal carbon footprint.

For these reasons, placing Russia's natural gas into Europe's energy plans was a critical mistake, not only for the climate, but for overall security concerns in the region. Countries such as Germany have hesitated in firmly responding to Putin because of the European Union's 'net zero carbon emission' strategic goal.

The still larger lesson here is with how we approach strategic plans to address the ongoing climate change crisis. Promoting 'carbon neutrality,' or 'net zero carbon emissions' are examples of false solutions that do not get at the root of the problem.

Fossil fuels are the problem. Prompt removal of them is the only answer.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Anthony Pahnke is the Vice-President of the Family Farm Defenders, anthonypahnke@sfsu.edu.

After Horrific Invasion, 'Diplomacy Not War' Must Be More Than a Slogan

There's no "national interest" worth risking nuclear conflict. But real diplomacy—and Russia’s own antiwar movement—could make all of Europe more secure.

Participants of a demonstration protest against the war and the Russian invasion of Ukraine in front of the Federal Chancellery on February 25, 2022 in Berlin, Germany. One hand holds a sign with the inscription "No War." (Photo: Kay Nietfeld/picture alliance via Getty Images)

PHYLLIS BENNIS

February 25, 2022 

by Foreign Policy In Focus

The illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine is already causing enormous suffering.

Our first concern must be for civilians across the country, now facing violence and displacement. And our first call must be for an immediate ceasefire, a pull-back of Russian troops from Ukraine, and international support for the humanitarian challenges already underway in the region.

The jockeying over Ukraine today, and the risk of war expanding far beyond Ukraine's borders, poses one of the biggest challenges in a generation for peace advocates around the world.

As for resolving the conflict, that requires understanding its causes—which has everything to do with when we start the clock.

If we start the clock in February 2022, the main problem is Russia's attack on Ukraine. If we start the clock in 1997, however, the main problem is Washington pushing NATO—the Cold War-era military alliance that includes the United States and most of Europe—to expand east, breaking an assurance the U.S. made to Russia after the Cold War.

Many foreign policy experts and peace advocates have called for ending the anachronistic alliance ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. But NATO remains and has only encroached toward Russia further, resulting in new NATO countries—bristling with NATO arms systems—right on Russia's borders.

Russia sees that expansion—and its integration of neighboring countries into U.S.-led military partnerships—as a continuing threat. Ukraine is not a member of NATO. But in the past the U.S. and other NATO members have urged its acceptance, and Russia regards Ukraine's drift toward the West as a precursor to membership.

None of that makes Russia's invasion of Ukraine legal, legitimate, or necessary. President Biden was right when he called Russia's war "unjustified." But he was wrong when he said it was "unprovoked." It's not condoning Putin's invasion to observe there certainly was provocation—not so much by Ukraine, but by the United States.

In recent weeks, the Biden administration made important moves towards diplomacy. But it undermined those crucial efforts by increasing threats, escalating sanctions, deploying thousands of U.S. troops to neighboring countries, and sending tens of millions of dollars worth of weapons to Ukraine—all while continuing to build a huge new U.S. military base in Poland just 100 miles from the Russian border.

Don't Punish the Russian People—Or Reward the Arms Industry

We know, not least from our own government's many failed and devastating wars, that military force will not solve this crisis.

President Biden deserves credit for refusing any troop deployments to Ukraine itself. But that should be expanded to prohibit all U.S. military engagement there, whether through airstrikes or drones or missiles or other weapons. Only the global arms industry stands to benefit from a war like that.

We also know, again from too many of our own government's actions, that imposing broad economic sanctions—the kind that target whole populations—doesn't work. They aren't an alternative to war. They're a weapon of war that hurts ordinary people, while leaders and their powerful cohorts thrive.

Too many in Washington—in the administration, in Congress, in the press—are calling for sanctions on Russia that will "cripple their economy." Russian people, who have little influence over their authoritarian leader, will pay a huge price. But we can be sure Putin and his oligarchs will do fine.

In fact, brave Russian anti-war protesters who went out into the streets in the first hours of Putin's invasion are already being detained by the government. Broad-based sanctions that harm ordinary Russians will lead to more protests, bringing further repression and risking marginalizing dissent in Russia.

As Jan Egeland, head of the Norwegian Refugee Council, said: "I don't think the sanctions will stop this short-term. It is diplomatic initiatives that could stop this short-term." He's right.

Right now we need an immediate ceasefire and serious negotiations on broader issues. That means urgent diplomacy—not more military force—to end this war. Every war eventually ends with diplomacy. The question is how long the fighting, killing, and displacing of people goes on until the diplomats can stop it.

Diplomacy Could Lead to a Deeper Peace

So what would diplomacy look like?

First, an immediate ceasefire—an end to the fighting. That will require Russia to immediately pull back its troops and weapons out of Ukraine.

But negotiations mean that both sides need to give something. So NATO and the U.S. should agree to pull back heavy weapons and missiles away from the Russian border and recognize in public what NATO has long acknowledged privately: that Ukraine will not be joining the military alliance in any foreseeable future.

New negotiations, organized by combinations of the United Nations and the broad Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (which includes Russia, Ukraine, most European countries, and the United States) could move further towards renewing lapsed European arms control treaties and eventually towards full nuclear disarmament across Europe.

That would include removing the U.S. nuclear weapons held in Europe as part of NATO's "nuclear-sharing" operations. The threat of an accident involving any of Ukraine's 15 nuclear power stations (including Chernobyl), or the escalation—accidental or otherwise—of the war to a conflict between the world's biggest nuclear weapons powers, seriously raises the urgency of an immediate end to this war. There is no conceivable "national interest" worth risking even the tiniest possibility of such an outcome.

Crucially, diplomacy must be rooted in international law—not the ambiguous "rules-based order" that U.S. officials like to talk about, but real international law that exists in the UN Charter, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, arms control agreements, and so much more.

Ukraine is a border nation, caught in a longstanding power struggle between stronger countries and blocs. The jockeying over Ukraine today, and the risk of war expanding far beyond Ukraine's borders, poses one of the biggest challenges in a generation for peace advocates around the world.

It's up to us to make sure that "Diplomacy Not War" becomes more than just a slogan to end this crisis.

© 2021 Foreign Policy In Focus


Phyllis Bennis is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and serves on the national board of Jewish Voice for Peace. Her most recent book is the 7th updated edition of "Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer" (2018). Her other books include: "Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer" (2008) and "Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power" (2005).

Don't Let War Hawks Use Russian Invasion to Increase Pentagon Budget

The hawks are already trying to exploit the Russian invasion, saying a shortfall in spending is leaving us vulnerable. Not true.

Anti-War activists gathered outside the Internal Revenue Service offices in Manhattan on April 15, 2021 for a demonstration on the "traditional" deadline date to file taxes to protest federal tax dollars being spent on the Pentagon and all U.S. wars. 

(Photo: Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images)

WILLIAM HARTUNG

February 25, 2022

 by Responsible Statecraft

In response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, a growing chorus of pundits and policy analysts have been advocating for large increases in America's enormous budget for national defense, on top of the $778 billion Congress has authorized for Fiscal Year 2022. These calls are both misguided and counterproductive.

The greatest risks to human lives and livelihoods are not military in nature, yet the military continues to consume roughly half of the funds appropriated by Congress each year.

Before adding even more spending to the Pentagon's already bloated budget, it's important to understand just how large it is already and how much capability the U.S. military already has in Europe. In real, inflation-adjusted terms, the current Pentagon budget is substantially higher than the department's budget was at the peaks of the Korean or Vietnam Wars or the height of the Cold War. And much of it is being wasted due to an outmoded, "cover the globe" military strategy and a dysfunctional budget process that favors special interests over the national interest.

Any calls for increased U.S. troop presence in Europe should first recognize what the U.S. military already has in Europe, namely more than 90,000 U.S. service personnel stationed across the continent. This is more than enough to provide U.S. support for the defense of Europe, backed by the U.S. and NATO's nuclear deterrent. Any proposal to increase U.S. troop levels beyond that should be subject to debate in Congress and among the general public. This must be coupled with setting clearer priorities and managing existing funds more effectively, not by blindly throwing more money at the Pentagon. And any decision to increase NATO's troop presence should rely heavily on our European NATO allies, which together have economies more than 10 times the size of Russia's and taken together spend three times as much on their militaries. They can afford to do more as needed.

One major problem with the Pentagon's current budget is that it has been rationalized by reference to an unsustainable national defense strategy that refuses to make choices among competing priorities, and does not rely enough on allies to provide for their own defense. Instead, current strategy calls on the United States to be prepared to engage in great power conflict with China and Russia and major regional contingencies in the Middle East and Northeast Asia and a continuing global war on terror. This strategy is backed up by a huge global military footprint that includes over 750 overseas military bases, 200,000 troops overseas, and counterterror operations in 85 countries. The United States cannot be cast in the role of global policeman, and recent efforts to do so, like the decades-long interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, have been costly, destabilizing, and counterproductive.

Meanwhile, over 900,000 Americans have died in the current pandemic, and the climate crisis has accelerated the incidence of fires, floods, droughts and other extreme weather events. The greatest risks to human lives and livelihoods are not military in nature, yet the military continues to consume roughly half of the funds appropriated by Congress each year.

The second driver of excessive Pentagon spending is the impact of pork barrel politics and corporate influence on budgetary decision making. Instead of being based on a realistic strategy and investments in the weapons and services needed to carry it out, the Pentagon budget is too often shaped by the desire to keep funds flowing to the states and Congressional districts where components of big ticket weapons systems are built—whether or not these systems are effective, affordable, or relevant to a needed mission.

The continued production and development of the F-35 combat aircraft is a prime example of parochial interests overriding security imperatives.

At $1.7 trillion to build, maintain, and operate over its lifetime, the F-35 is the most expensive weapons program ever undertaken by the Pentagon. Yet it has over 800 unresolved defects, costs $38,000 an hour to fly, and has yet to be proven superior to current generation aircraft in basic functions like close air support for troops in the field or aerial combat. A series of analyses by the Project on Government Oversight suggest that the F-35 may never be fully ready for combat. But despite all of its flaws, one thing the F-35 does have in its favor is a dedicated caucus in Congress made up of members with pieces of the plane being built in their districts, and the lobbying power of its prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, the world's largest arms maker. So far this concentrated political power has kept the funds for the F-35 flowing to tune of well over $12 billion per year, even as House Armed Services Committee chair Rep. Adam Smith has said he's "tired of pouring money" down the F-35 "rathole."

Other systems that are being funded because of pork barrel politics and misguided strategy include new Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which former secretary of defense William Perry has described as "some of the most dangerous weapons in the world" because the president would have only a matter of minutes to decide whether to launch them on warning of an attack, greatly increasing the risk of an accidental nuclear war; $13 billion aircraft carriers that are not yet fully capable of launching or landing aircraft, and which are vulnerable to a new generation of anti-ship missiles; and the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), which cannot defend itself in a high intensity combat environment and has no clear mission. The tens of billions saved by forgoing these systems can be invested in addressing more urgent security challenges.

The debate on whether to further increase the Pentagon budget should be grounded in an acknowledgement of how much of the department's current spending is being wasted due to an ineffective and dangerous strategy of global primacy coupled with influence peddling and pork barrel politics that distort the budget and do nothing to make Americans safer. It's time to rethink strategy and budgetary decision making, not heedlessly give more money to the Department of Defense.

© 2021 Responsible Statecraft


William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy. He is the author of "Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex" (2012) and "How Much Are You Making on the War Daddy?: A Quick and Dirty Guide to War Profiteering in the Bush Administration" (2003). He is the co-editor of "Lessons from Iraq: Avoiding the Next War "(2008).

'A Perilous Moment': Groups Warn Putin Invasion Escalates Risk of Nuclear War

"If a nuclear war breaks out," warned one campaigner, "many weapons would be used over several cities, causing tens of millions of instant deaths."

Russian President Vladimir Putin's comments have been seen as a clear threat of being willing to use nuclear weapons. 

(Photo: Alexei Nikolsky/ Russian Presidential Press and Information Office/TASS)

JAKE JOHNSON

COMMON DREAMS

February 25, 2022

Global disarmament advocates warned Thursday that the nightmare scenario they've been working for years to prevent—a catastrophic nuclear war—became more likely this week after Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a massive assault on Ukraine and threatened any nation that attempts to impede the invasion with consequences "never seen" in history.

"A single tactical nuclear weapon could kill hundreds of thousands in a large city instantly and injure many, many more."

Observers had little doubt that Putin was referencing the possibility of a nuclear attack, particularly given his mention just minutes earlier of the fact that Russia is "one of the most powerful nuclear states" in the world.

Putin's speech and deteriorating relations between the United States and Russia—which together possess more than 90% of the planet's nuclear arsenal, with ready-to-launch warheads positioned across Europe—have left anti-nuke campaigners increasingly fearful that the world is on the brink of disaster.

Nuclear weapons have only been used twice in the history of global military conflict, when the U.S. dropped a pair of atomic bombs on Japan during World War II.

World leaders, groups argue, must move decisively to prevent the future use of nukes, starting by bringing Russia's attack on Ukraine to an immediate end.

"This illegal and premeditated war of aggression by the Russian government puts Ukrainian civilians in harm's way and drastically increases the risk of escalation to nuclear conflict, with catastrophic global consequences for us all," Derek Johnson, managing partner of Global Zero, said in a statement Thursday, cautioning that the "world is in a perilous moment."

"The greatest risk of nuclear use today comes from unplanned or unexpected escalation of a conventional conflict," Johnson added. "With NATO and Russian forces operating in close proximity, the threat of one mistake, misinterpretation, or miscalculation during a close encounter or military exercise increases the risk of escalation to direct conflict and potential nuclear use. Russia has an obligation to de-escalate, withdraw its forces from Ukraine, and refrain from further nuclear threats."

Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), an anti-nuclear proliferation group, similarly warned Thursday that Russia's ongoing war on Ukraine and growing tensions with the West heighten the risk of a grave "humanitarian catastrophe."

"Military tension between nuclear-armed adversaries increases the ever-present possibility of nuclear weapons coming into play. President Putin himself alluded to this possibility," the organization said. "While President Putin alone bears the responsibility for choosing to attack Ukraine, leaders of all nuclear-armed states must be held collectively accountable for keeping the world safe from the dangers of nuclear weapons."

"Any use of nuclear weapons—whether purposeful or through accident or miscalculation—would be a humanitarian catastrophe," PSR added. "All parties to this conflict should cooperate to end hostilities and resolve the underlying safety and security issues on all sides. Furthermore, to eliminate the danger of nuclear weapons, all nuclear-armed countries should negotiate for total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. Until then, we are living on borrowed time."

Related Content


US and Russian Physicians Warn War in Ukraine Risks Global Nuclear 'Catastrophe'

While Ukraine does not possess nuclear weapons, it does maintain more than a dozen nuclear power reactors that could be damaged in an attack, potentially spewing radioactive debris. On Thursday, Russian forces seized control of Ukraine's defunct Chernobyl power plant, the site of the deadly and devastating 1986 nuclear disaster.

In a statement Friday, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it is "following the situation in Ukraine with grave concern and is appealing for maximum restraint to avoid any action that may put the country's nuclear facilities at risk."

Dr. Carlos Umaña, co-president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, said in a video message released Friday that "if any of the 15 nuclear reactors in Ukraine are damaged, it could cause a radioactive disaster greater than that of Chernobyl or Fukushima."



"However, the greatest risk in this conflict is nuclear weapons," Umaña continued. "Nuclear-weapon states have many nuclear weapons deployed throughout Europe. A single tactical nuclear weapon could kill hundreds of thousands in a large city instantly and injure many, many more."

"If a nuclear war breaks out," he added, "many weapons would be used over several cities, causing tens of millions of instant deaths, hundreds of millions of injur[ies], and a sudden and severe global climate change that would end our civilization—and possibly even our species."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

 

Ukraine – Who is firing at whom and who is lying about it?

Originally published: Moon of Alabama by B (February 20, 2022 ) - Posted Feb 21, 2022

State Repression, Strategy, WarUkraineNewswire

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has an observer mission along the line of control between the government and rebel side in south east Ukraine.

It reports that on Friday the number of ceasefire violations around the rebellious Donbas region of Ukraine had again nearly doubled:

• In Donetsk region, the SMM recorded 591 ceasefire violations, including 553 explosions. In the previous reporting period, it recorded 222 ceasefire violations in the region.
• In Luhansk region, the Mission recorded 975 ceasefire violations, including 860 explosions. In the previous reporting period, it recorded 648 ceasefire violations in the region.

The ever lying New York Times claims that it is only the Donbas rebel side that is firing artillery:

Artillery fire escalated sharply in eastern Ukraine on Saturday and thousands of residents fled the region in chaotic evacuations — two developments rife with opportunities for what the United States has warned could be a pretext for a Russian invasion.Russian-backed separatists, who have been fighting the Ukrainian government for years, have asserted, without evidence, that Ukraine was planning a large-scale attack on territory they control.
…
At the same time, the firing of mortars, artillery and rocket-propelled grenades by separatist rebels along the front line roughly doubled the level of the previous two days, the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs said. Two Ukrainian soldiers were killed and five wounded, the military said.

Ukrainian officials said the shelling came exclusively from the separatists, who are seen as a proxy for Russia.

New York Times reporters at the scene witnessed shelling from separatists and saw no return fire from the Ukrainian forces, although residents in the separatist regions said there was shelling from both sides.

The OSCE observer mission helpfully provides maps in its daily reports that show the impact points of artillery attacks. Yesterday a large majority of those were within the rebel controlled areas.

Here is a cutout from the OSCE map below.

The Times claims:

Intense artillery barrages targeted a pocket of government-controlled territory around the town of Svitlodarsk, a spot that has worried security analysts for weeks for its proximity to dangerous industrial infrastructure, including storage tanks for poisonous gas.

The concentration of impacts on the left of the above picture is a bit south-east of Svitlodarsk. Artillery rounds landed on both sides of the line of control but the vast majority of them exploded on the Donbas side. The same can be said for the impacts north-east of Luhansk. On Thursday both of these areas were also the aim of artillery concentrations. These are likely crossing points through which the Ukraine military plans to direct its upcoming attack.

The full map of Friday’s impacts:

This is an information war in with the Russian side is mostly trolling the U.S. side while the Biden administration and its associated media like the NYT are lying through their teeth.

Today’s Washington Post has European officials complaining that the Biden administration has presented them with no evidence for all the claims it has made:

However, some European allies questioned the United States’ conviction that the Kremlin will launch hostilities, saying that they have not seen direct evidence suggesting Putin has committed to such a course of action.One European official told The Washington Post in Munich that “we have no clear evidence ourselves that Putin has made up his mind and we have not seen anything that would suggest otherwise.” Another said that although the situation is grave, “at this stage we do not have such clear intelligence” that Putin has decided to invade.

The officials said they have been told little about the sources and methods the United States used to arrive at its conclusions, limiting their capacity to make independent decisions about how much weight to give statements from Biden that Putin has made a decision to attack.

“It’s always the raw material that they do not share,” said one senior NATO diplomat who has had extensive conversations with top American policymakers in Brussels.

These Europeans have their own satellites and military intelligence analysts. They also talk to each other. They obviously do not see what the U.S., without presenting evidence, claims to be seeing.

While the OSCE observer mission is not completely neutral it is at least professional in its work. It also helps that the U.S. and Britain have retracted their people from the OSCE mission and have less abilities to fudge the results. They were replaced by officers from other European countries.

The OSCE observer mission reports can be found among its press releases. The daily updates are here and the longer term Trends and Observations reports are here.

When in doubt of what is happening take a look at them.

Monthly Review does not necessarily adhere to all of the views conveyed in articles republished at MR Online. Our goal is to share a variety of left perspectives that we think our readers will find interesting or useful. —Eds.