Numerous YouTube videos depict the widespread destruction of Russian tanks in the invasion of Ukraine, giving the impression that these tanks are more lethal to Russian soldiers than their opponents. Despite being equipped with Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA), their ability to withstand artillery, mines, and drone attacks seems minimal. Moreover, when the armor is breached, the cannon gun propellant tends to ignite violently, causing the warheads to explode and instantly killing the crew. Occasionally, the force of ammunition blasts is so strong that it hurls the turret with gun barrel into the air, a stark illustration of the power of such explosions. Consequently, videos frequently capture Russian tank crews abandoning their crippled vehicles and fleeing for safety. Instead of offering protection, tanks have become conspicuous and cumbersome targets, prone to devastating attacks.
One might question the practical value of reactive armor. The landscapes of eastern Ukraine are strewn with thousands of destroyed Russian tanks, their ERA blocks still intact. Perhaps its practical value lies in bolstering the confidence of tank crews to engage in battle, trusting in the ERA’s protective capabilities. However, it is now challenging to believe that ERA instills a sense of safety in tank crew members. The effectiveness of reactive armor seems negated by potent penetrator warhead countermeasures capable of breaching the ERA. The pertinent question remains: does the ERA diminish the impact of an incoming shell sufficiently to be considered effective?
The conflict between Putin and Ukraine will eventually conclude, and the victors will promptly seek to repurpose the battlefields for peacetime activities. However, they must first contend with numerous challenges, including the presence of unexploded ordnance. Thousands of mines may remain hidden, posing a threat for decades unless they are securely disposed of or neutralized.
The landscape of the battle zones is marred by bomb craters, charred vehicles—many with unexploded ammunition—minefields, unexploded ordnance scattered about, live explosive reactive armor on destroyed armored vehicles, and soil polluted with shrapnel and residues from countless detonated artillery shells.
Numerous cities and villages, particularly those near the Russian border, have been completely obliterated by Putin’s military, resulting in tens of thousands of civilian casualties and leaving most without homes. The remnants of homes, businesses, and infrastructure stand as a testament to the survivors. For them, social and economic frameworks are now just distant memories. Civilization has been set back by at least a generation due to Putin’s distorted ambitions for an imperial legacy. The man is not insane or unintelligent; he is quite astute and fully aware of his actions—he is simply a terrible person. Currently, the US is facing its own challenge with a figure of ill repute seeking control of the government, backed by a significant number of misguided followers.
In the conflict in Ukraine, it’s conceivable that one precisely aimed bullet could have altered the course of events, a notion that has been a sad reality in many wars. This was a concern even during Stalin’s time. Since 2000, Putin and his associates have been systematically constructing the framework for an authoritarian state and military power, positioning him at the apex of power. His ambition is to supplant the hegemony of the US and NATO with the hegemony of Russia.
The conflict has been a catastrophic event for the region’s flora and fauna, significantly hindering the biosphere in numerous areas. Ukraine, until recently, was a significant grain producer and exporter, essential for the sustenance of millions. In the early stages of the conflict, Russia targeted and destroyed much of Ukraine’s grain distribution infrastructure, aiming to debilitate the economy and hasten a surrender. The bombings of civilian residences, hospitals, and other infrastructures will tarnish Putin’s reputation, marking him as a tyrant and a fundamentally flawed individual. Additionally, the reported abduction of thousands of Ukrainian children by Russia for forced assimilation and adoption raises serious legal and humanitarian questions. These actions are meticulously recorded for potential future war crimes proceedings and historical record.
Writing about theology is outside my comfort zone. As a non-theist, I lean heavily towards a mechanistic, secular explanation of the universe where observation, measurement and theory are the pillars which support our understanding of the universe. Crediting a deity with creating the universe only begs the question: who created the deity? Why would a universe created by a deity be more likely than one that exists independently? Along this line of thinking, Occam’s Razor would suggest that a deity is an unnecessary step in the reduction to the truth. Occam’s Razor isn’t just philosophical tidiness. It reflects a physics that is cut from the cloth of reductionism.
Occam’s Razor is neither a natural law nor a formal scientific method; it serves more as a heuristic guideline. When multiple explanations yield the same conclusion, the simplest one is usually deemed more likely. Supernatural or magical explanations find no refuge in Occam’s Razor. It’s not about resorting to a simple magic trick. Any explanation favored by Occam’s Razor must still withstand subsequent observation, measurement, and theoretical scrutiny—the core of scientific inquiry.
The point of this essay
I am writing to highlight that the United States of America, despite its chaos and noise, errors and blunders, has developed an impressive economic growth engine, formidable military capabilities, expanded civil rights, enhanced public health, and a wide-ranging scientific and technological foundation that surpasses anything previously witnessed in history. Numerous sources support this claim.
A significant portion of the American experiment including its economic system, directly stems from the European Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries. It must be emphasized that there is an emerging movement aiming to regress various facets of our culture to a period before the Enlightenment—a time characterized by extensive church authority and a government in alliance with it.
I will state plainly that I am deeply opposed to the forces currently working to regress our civilization. Since my earliest memories which began at the time of the Kennedy assassination in 1963, there has been a continuous lament over the state of our nation. People have consistently shaken their heads, openly questioning how the USA could continue to progress amidst the prevailing turmoil. This sentiment has persisted over the years. Nevertheless, not only have we persisted, but we’ve also made continuous progress in improving the quality of life.
The nostalgia for the “good old days” of America’s supposed greatness is often lamented by those who find current times challenging. A closer examination of American history reveals a complex tapestry of both distressing events and prosperous periods. In any given year, one can uncover instances of both success and sorrow. It seems that a certain level of disorder is inherent in our pluralistic democratic republic. The population typically follows a statistical distribution, with a majority of average individuals at the center and fewer at the extremes, represented by the virtuous and the villainous. While disorder is a constant, its nature fluctuates with the changing eras.
Considering the unfathomable expanse of the universe, it is difficult to comprehend the significance of distant galaxies, which remained invisible until recently, within the cosmological framework of the Old Testament as depicted in Genesis. The Abrahamic faiths inherently present a cosmological theory complete with an origin narrative and are replete with Bronze and Iron Age prescriptions for social structure, upheld by a deity who is portrayed as both loving and wrathful- curiously human attributes.
Bronze age religious sentiments
The foundations of these religions originate from an era that is far removed and largely outdated in the context of today’s social norms. The holy scriptures were written at a time when life-changing phenomena were commonly attributed to witchcraft, demons, or benevolent gods. Historically, the struggle to understand cause and effect in life meant attributing disease, illness, and death to dark and unseen forces. The advent of microscopes, along with advancements in medication and surgical procedures, has dramatically altered this perspective.
A persistent and detrimental remnant from the Bronze Age Abrahamic religions is the belief that humans have dominion over Earth and its creatures. This belief manifests in various ways today, notably hindering necessary conservation, environmental and public health efforts out of concern for humanity and the biosphere. The Earth’s biosphere has been under significant strain for many decades. Unfortunately, this broad dominion has historically held over women, who have suffered tremendously under a patriarchy endorsed by these religious doctrines.
Undoubtedly, religion provides numerous benefits to individuals in various significant aspects. However, it can also serve as a personal and collective obstacle. The issue arises when it becomes a foundation for mystical thinking, offering black and white solutions to the complex spectrum of issues we encounter, rather than acknowledging the continuous shades of grey that characterize our reality.
The coming storm
I posted an article on Theocratic Dominionism back on October 25, 2006. Today Dominionism, Christian Nationalism, Christian Reconstructionism, or the New Apostolic Reformation, NAR, are gaining much ground in politics. It is apparent now that the old Republican party has transmogrified into the MAGA party whose devout members are being led to a Christian Nationalism model. The endgame sought is certainly consistent with the goals of Project 2025. This is in the direction of what has been called “illiberal democracy” as the President of Hungary, Victor Orban, puts it.
The father of Christian reconstructionism is credited to the son of Armenian immigrants Rousas John Rushdoony (1916-2001). He was an orthodox Calvinist minister, philosopher, historian and theologian. Michael J. McVicar, associate professor of Religion at Florida State University wrote of Rushdoony –
“As a theologian Rushdoony saw human beings as primarily religious creatures bound to God, not as rational autonomous thinkers. While this may seem an esoteric theological point, it isn’t. All of Rushdoony’s influence on the Christian Right stems from this single, essential fact. Many critics of Christian Reconstructionism assume that Rushdoony’s unique contribution to the Christian Right was his focus on theocracy. In fact, Rushdoony’s primary innovation was his single-minded effort to popularize a pre-Enlightenment, medieval view of a God-centered world. By de-emphasizing humanity’s ability to reason independently of God, Rushdoony attacked the assumptions most of us uncritically accept.” [Italics mine]
According to McVicar, Rushdoony had no interest in the world of the enlightenment. The orthodox Calvinist Rushdoony saw people as “religious creatures bound to God, not as rational autonomous thinkers”. Rushdoony advocated under the theonomic perspective, meaning a Christian form of government where individuals and society are ruled by divine law, especially under judicial laws in the Old Testament of the Christian bible.
Rushdoony opposed democracy which he claimed opposed the will of God and favored the republic which represented a better form of civic government. He said to Bill Moyers in an interview “… a republic avoided mob rule and the rule of the “51%” of society; in other words “might does not make right” in a republic.”
“The central tenet of Rushdoony’s teaching is that God has tasked Christians with taking dominion over society, beginning in Genesis 1:28, in which God commands humans to take dominion over the earth. While many Christians have applied this verse in the context of stewardship, Rushdoony taught that this creation mandate is really a dominion mandate, commanding humans to bring every sphere of society—as well as nature itself—into subjugation under Christ. In his view, Christ’s sacrificial death nullified the Fall and subsequent curse of Genesis 3 and enabled Christians to perfectly follow God’s law. Reconstructionism is a guidebook for Christians to reconstruct society according to Rushdoony’s understanding of Mosaic law. (Notably, his understanding differs dramatically from historical Jewish interpretations and includes stoning LGBTQ individuals.)” Source: The Christian Century, November 2022.
Distilled down to a sticky residue, Dominionism is the belief that Christians should take moral, spiritual, and ecclesiastical control over society. Romans 13:1-5 says in so many words that God has ordained the state as a delegated authority; it is not autonomous. Secular authority is not sanctioned. It is upon this authority that Dominionism rests.
Implementing an ecclesiastical governing hierarchy to operate various government entities will be complex. Individuals identify as Atheist, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, etc., for numerous reasons, including family history or personal choice. Are these individuals considering that sectarianism might not pose an issue? Have they examined the impact of sectarianism in the Middle East and other regions closely?
Even if the sectarian issue is resolved, consider the extensive scope of the law in all its forms. Discussions about biblical law often seem to focus on the Ten Commandments, the law outlined in Deuteronomy and biblical punishments like stoning. Punishing criminals is one aspect, but what about civil laws? The Bible doesn’t explicitly detail regulations for commerce, transportation, safety, torts and numerous other areas governed by secular laws.
An example of religious authority gone bad
The Spanish Inquisition, officially the “Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition,” began in 1478 by the Catholic monarchs King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile. They sought and obtained independent inquisitorial authority separate from the Vatican and its own inquisition. Lasting from 1478 to 1834, this judicial institution aimed to eliminate heresy. However, it often forced Jews and Muslims to convert to Christianity or expelled them from the kingdom when they resisted conversion.
Unfortunately for the people of the New World, the Spanish conquistadores carried their Inquisitional evangelism with them to root out heresy. Along with it they spread smallpox, influenza and other diseases wiping out whole populations. This has been extensively covered by historians. The conquests of Cortes and his second cousin Pizzaro starting around 1519 in what is now Mexico and to the south visited death upon the Aztecs, Incas and many others.
The Catholic church in medieval times carried great authority and the monarchies of the time knew it. They sought to find favor with the Vatican and share in its power and wealth over the population. It manifested as the notion that to be against the ruling class was to be against God. It has never been documented that God had stepped in personally to referee these power games, you know, like he spoke to Noah or Moses, but the church was only too happy step in and be the arbiter of matters for the silent supernatural.
In theocracy, who is in charge?
The Biblical Law scenario wouldn’t involve a deity directly governing society, but rather sectarian politicians and religious leaders would act in the place of the mysterious, invisible and silent Deity. Over time, laws such as those from the Mosaic tradition would need to be codified for widespread dissemination, uniform interpretation and adaptation to law school curriculum. Considering the limited details provided by religious texts on prohibitions and punishments, extensive interpretation would be necessary to address the countless scenarios that could emerge within a society. The question then arises: In cases of uncertainty, what should be the recourse?
The long and short of it
What this burgeoning theocratic movement is about is political power. In short, a subset of the American people believe they have a solution to the woes of society and they have supernatural backing to make it happen. They claim that their authority is not of this world and not subject to Earthly constraints. The laws of man are inherently subservient primarily to the laws of God as issued thousands of years ago to tribal desert goat herders.
Reconstructionism is a quiet movement. It’s purpose is to implement a reconstruction of American values to suit the world view of a minority of religious extremists. It is a movement that seeks nothing less than the establishment of a theocratic form of government in America. It is also called Theocratic Dominionism or Christian Reconstructionism. But don’t believe me, see for yourself. Google these terms and browse the online resources.
The John Birch Society
For myself, I have been watching Christian fundamentalism since the early 1970’s. I recall stopping at a booth at the county fair as a high school student and talking to members of the John Birch Society. I thought at the time that they were Looney Toons, or just an obscure Christian libertarian group. I guessed that they were mostly harmless. Well, I was wrong.
Frederick Clarkson at PublicEye.org writes- “Reconstructionist leaders seem to have two consistent characteristics: a background in conservative Presbyterianism, and connections to the John Birch Society (JBS).”
He goes on to say- “In 1973, R. J. Rushdoony compared the structure of the JBS to the “early church.” He wrote in Institutes: “The key to the John Birch Society’s effectiveness has been a plan of operation which has a strong resemblance to the early church; have meetings, local lay leaders, area supervisors or bishops.”
The JBS connection does not stop there. Most leading Reconstructionists have either been JBS members or have close ties to the organization. Reconstructionist literature can be found in JBS-affiliated American Opinion bookstores.
But what is reconstructionism about? Again, Clarkson puts it succinctly-
“Reconstructionism is a theology that arose out of conservative Presbyterianism (Reformed and Orthodox), which proposes that contemporary application of the laws of Old Testament Israel, or “Biblical Law,” is the basis for reconstructing society toward the Kingdom of God on earth. “
Reconstructionism argues that the Bible is to be the governing text for all areas of life such as government, education, law, and the arts, not merely “social” or “moral” issues like pornography, homosexuality, and abortion. Reconstructionists have formulated a “Biblical world view” and “Biblical principles” by which to examine contemporary law. Reconstructionist theologian David Chilton succinctly describes this view: “The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God’s law.”
To establish a theocracy is to suppress independent action and thinking. It is to surrender freedom to self-declared religious followers who claim to have been spoken to by an otherwise silent and invisible deity. It is to yield to the argument to “have faith”.
“Deaths in wars and conflicts killed or allowed to die by human decision of approximately 231 million for the 100 years of the 20th Century.” University of Maryland School of Public Policy.
How many of the 231 million people in the 20th century prayed their hearts out and requested help or strength under horrific circumstances? I’d estimate that most of them made every effort within their power.
Conclusion
I agree. It is easy to dismiss this as a bunch of paranoid lunatics. But if you’re paying attention to things, you might also observe that we have been in the midst of this movement for some time. The inauguration of Trump, and a MAGA Republican majority in either the house or the senate followed by the implementation of Project 2025 will be the kick-off moment for a Christian nationalist takeover of the USA. This is not the country I want to live in.
Note: Soon after Biden’s announcement of stepping down from the presidential race and his support of Kamala Harris, Musk announced that he was backing out of his plan to donate to Trump. Fancy that.
Republican oligarch Elon Musk has announced that he will be donating $45 million per month to a Silicon Valley super-PAC run by conservatives Joe Lonsdale and the Winklevoss twins supporting the reelection of #45, DJT. If there was any doubt before, it is crystal clear now that Musk is a full-throated carnival barker for DJT-JDV, $45 million for #45.
The richest guy in the world (whose liquidity is questionable) is blossoming into a real kingmaker for America. Holy red crab snappers, Batman, isn’t that swell?
Everyone knows that these megadonors bankroll Republicans as an investment. This assertion sounds like blaming a crocodile for eating people- it’s just what they do. Both Trump and Vance have publicly denounced electric vehicles. Even if Musk’s $180 megabuck donation does not result in cash back, there is certainly continued access to the rarefied heights of politics. Perhaps the Trump-Vance dynamic duo will revisit their stance on electric vehicles.
Musk’s SpaceX has received billions in federal contracts and Tesla has benefitted from electric vehicle subsidies. It’s hard to say that it has been different under the Biden Democrats.
It is bad enough to have a wannabe fascist, Putin-admiring dictator become president again, but to have the world’s wealthiest demagogues heaping cash into the kitty to tip the balance is yet another shit sandwich for the USA. Where does much of this money go? To advertising, payroll, campaign staff, printers and to entertainment venues for campaign events. Why don’t the electronic media go after #45 for his obviously felonious and vile behavior with a large helping of dictatorial inclination? Advertising revenue, silly. To hold back screen time on the Orange Jesus would be to bite the ad buyer’s hand that feeds them.
As an independent voter, I blame the national Democratic Party for gross dereliction of duty in failing to groom talented successors to Biden over the past decade. Where are they? The senior Dems in congress are talented where they are, but none seem to be interested in gambling on a run for the White House.
Note: Recently I posted an early revision of this essay by accident and had to pull it down. Trembling with embarrassment, I wiped the egg from my face and am now posting the intended version. A thousand pardons.
Imagine the frustration of the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, as he discovers the shortcomings of what was presumed to be a premier conventional military force. Decades of corruption and neglect have eroded the military from within. Meanwhile, their nuclear submarines continue to lurk in the depths of the Atlantic, assessing NATO’s day-to-day preparedness and gathering intelligence. Strategic nuclear forces are best used as a deterrent, or so the thinking has been. Coincidentally, their naval procession to Cuba, intended as a demonstration of power, was no doubt monitored by our network of acoustic sensors.
Runup to the invasion
Why did Putin begin his invasion of eastern and southern Ukraine in February 2014? Publicly he claimed to “de-Nazify” Ukraine. At the time, Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was facing the Euromaidan uprising beginning in November 2013, over his rejection of closer integration with the EU. This large-scale protest was in response to Yanukovych’s refusal to sign the European Union-Ukraine Association Agreement rather than strengthening ties to Russia.
Putin’s essay
Just prior to the 2022 invasion the Kremlin published an article online by Putin going into great detail on his rationale for a “triune” state consisting of Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine. It was a “come to Jesus” appeal intended to show doubters that a common ethnic brotherhood existed that far exceed the differences between Ukrainians and Russians. He describes the current Ukrainian state as an anti-Russian project also serving the interests of other entities rather than ethnic unity with Russia.
“But the fact is that the situation in Ukraine today is completely different because it involves a forced change of identity. And the most despicable thing is that the Russians in Ukraine are being forced not only to deny their roots, generations of their ancestors but also to believe that Russia is their enemy. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the path of forced assimilation, the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state, aggressive towards Russia, is comparable in its consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us.” -V. Putin, 2022. [Italics mine]
It’s worth noting that in Russian occupied parts of Ukraine, Russification has been underway in order to make Ukrainians forget their culture and to assimilate into Russian culture. Children were kidnapped early in the 2022 invasion and taken to Russia for assimilation.
Referring to the Ukrainian ruling circles, “They began to mythologize and rewrite history, edit out everything that united us, and refer to the period when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as an occupation. The common tragedy of collectivization and famine of the early 1930s was portrayed as the genocide of the Ukrainian people.” V. Putin [Italics mine]
Here Putin combines the Ukrainian famine, the Holodomor of 1932-33, with the wider Soviet famine of 1930-33 as a unifying experience that should in his view bring people together in shared tragedy. Whether or not Stalin had intended to cause a genocide of Ukrainians during the Holodomor is still being debated. However, Ukrainians were forcibly prevented from leaving the territory and their agricultural produce was taken from them. The Soviets even took their seed for the next year’s crop (see: Timothy Snyder, “Bloodlands“, 2016, ISBN-13 : 978-0465031474). Whatever the case, the singular focus of Stalin’s first 5-year plan beginning in 1928, was to industrialize the Soviet Union. In Marxist-Leninist political theory, the more prosperous kulaks were class enemies of the poorer peasants. Kulaks were either arrested, executed, sent to the gulag, or to labor camps.
Russian military in the 2022 Putin/Ukrainian war
Within the many layers of rank in the Russian military, there is a notable absence. There is no non-commissioned officer (NCO) level like that found in the US military. Yes, they do have NCOs, but they are technical specialists, or enlisted professionals taken from conscripted or contracted soldiers, uninvolved with small unit leadership and training. That is left for the officer corps. The result has been poor and inconsistent training of recruits. Hazing has long been a problem for the new recruits. Many view the Russian system of military leadership structure as inherently weak and a stubborn vestige of the past.
Perhaps fortified by a misjudgment of their military posture, Putin launched a full-scale military invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, into what has been a sovereign country under the pretense of neutralizing a non-existent threat from supposed Nazi troublemakers as a way to protect Russia. Russian forces quickly began to suffer significant losses in personnel and equipment. Moreover, these defeats have unfolded before an astonished global audience. Fortunately for Putin, his dictatorial foresight had led him to seize control of all media outlets within his borders in the years prior. He watched as his senior military commanders depleted his standing army. Under the pretense of “patriotism,” he drafted civilians and prisoners with the promise of attractive contracts to participate in his ill-conceived “special military operation.” Unfortunately, these soldiers became cannon fodder against the NATO fortified Ukrainian forces. Despite the overall drubbing the Russian military is taking and the half million casualties suffered, they retain the eastern and southern territories annexed prior to the Feb. 2022 invasion.
Putin pays a visit to Kim
Putin’s recent trip to North Korea, reminiscent of Soviet-era diplomacy, and his signing of a mutual assistance agreement with Kim Jong-un, prompted South Korea to reconsider its stance and contemplate supplying arms to Ukraine.South Korea, a manufacturing giant, currently has minimal incentive to engage with Russia as a neutral entity. Russia’s economy, struggling and cash-strapped, requires goods and services. It has been excluded from the international banking system and has seen a decline in amicable trade relations.
Now the word is that DPRK will be sending military engineers to the Putin/Ukraine war. While DPRK’s construction and engineering forces are not referred to as a fighting force, you have to believe that they will fight to defend themselves if they claim to be threatened. What the threshold for “threat” is will eventually be revealed.
Another threat made by Putin is that Russia will send arms to DPRK if the west continues to supply arms to Ukraine. The transfer of technology and materials in aid of the DPRK’s nuclear ICBM ambitions is sure to be the big prize Kim is after. Launching a payload is one thing, but accurate targeting is quite another. I suppose he can use GPS like everyone else does.
We’re hearing that wounded Russian soldiers are being sent back to the front, many with shrapnel from previous combat. I guess they figure that since they are wounded anyway, they might as well get the last bit of mileage left in them. This is certainly no less moral than leaving their dead behind or sending “meat curtains” of poorly trained troops to the front lines. Or, shooting their own soldiers if they retreat from the fighting.
Putin could stop the fighting and carnage in a day if he declared “mission complete” and withdrew his forces from Ukraine and returned claimed territory back to where it was the day of February 24, 2022, invasion. Well, this was the theory of Henry Kissinger. It seems likely, though, that the Ukrainians want back the territory lost in 2014 including Crimea.
Unfortunately for everyone, a withdrawal from Ukraine would be seen in Russia as Putin’s confession of gross incompetence and surely would result in a takeover and death or imprisonment for him.
The Kremlin has used “weaponized migration” elsewhere and is now trafficking immigrants across its western borders through Belorussia, into Finland, the lower Baltic states and Poland in order to overwhelm western border protection and to distract them as he transfers military forces east to the front. At the borders they have been creating a commotion causing western security resources to focus there. This is Russian hybrid warfare and is likely led by Russian intelligence services. Immigrants from various nations like Syria, Iraq and Somalia are given visas in an attempt to make it look like legitimate immigration. One of the goals of these roving throngs of civilians is to travel to western Europe to strain their economies and raise bureaucratic headaches for western governments like Germany. Naturally, saboteurs, spies and terrorists are likely planted in with the immigrants.
Russia has allegedly been jamming or spoofing GPS signals in the Nordic and Baltic Sea region causing interference with commercial air traffic. More Russian hybrid warfare. This affects not only air traffic but ground and sea navigation as well. Commercial air traffic can still fly under inertial navigation or by ground radar between airports and by terminal radar on approach and departure. Terminal radar guides aircraft into the airport instrument landing system (ILS) which is ground based and not affected by GPS. Airlines do monitor their aircraft with the help of GPS, however.
Fighting the last war
There is a saying, attributed to French Prime Minister George Clemenceau, warning generals not to enter conflict by fighting the last war. Putin began with fighting “the last war” with artillery and WWII-era tanks while keeping the Russian population calm with well-crafted fake news continuously delivered to the public. Unexpectedly, he did not seek air superiority starting the first day of the invasion before bringing in ground forces.
The propaganda in Russia today is that they are actually at war with NATO itself with extra blame on the US and UK. Russian war bloggers are even claiming that Ukraine’s drones and missiles can and are being controlled directly by NATO from remote locations. There are many voices on Russian television and in the blogosphere calling for the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Putin and Medvedev have also waved this big stick around as well.
In response to Putin’s unwarranted invasion, most of the free world made the decision to withdraw its financial and trade connections, especially with the purchase of oil and gas (O&G). O&G is a huge money maker for Putin’s dictatorship and funds much of Russia’s government. Interestingly, while initially very concerned, the Oligarchs have learned to stop worrying.
Economic effects
An urgent problem presently in the Russian oil industry is the matter of upkeep on imported technology like oil refineries. Russia previously hired foreigners to build and maintain most of its oil refineries and licensed proprietary unit operations. Many of the foreign businesses that supplied these services have left Russia. As the clock tick-tocks along, equipment breaks down or misses scheduled maintenance. Replacement parts have become very difficult to obtain. This has a huge influence on the country’s refinery output in particular and on other industry in general.
Russia’s loss of trading partners is having a deleterious effect. Tax revenues are down into the deficit range across the board and the Russian government is working to introduce new taxes on the people. There is even word that laws are being drafted to increase the range and cost of fines against citizens who fail to put in the required extra effort. According to Forbes, the State Duma is tightening laws relating to labor and business operations are forcing employees to work weekends and holidays, especially if the business is military related.
Nukes behind the curtains
Of course, Putin has his nuclear armaments to fall back on. Much was made previously of the Soviet’s continuum theory of nuclear weapons, whereby they didn’t recognize a firebreak separating conventional and nuclear warfare as the west does. Putin and former president Medvedev both have been rattling their swords, threatening to use their nuclear weapons if the west does not back down in supplying Ukraine with arms. Most think that they threaten to use tactical nukes only. Both sides are quite aware what a nuclear exchange between NATO and Russia would look like. That said, only the first use will be a difficult decision.
Nuclear response in kind by NATO to Russia’s first use in the Russia/Ukraine battle space could possibly be limited to tactical use, but it will have let the nuclear genie out of the bottle nonetheless. Both NATO and Soviet/Russian military institutions have certainly war-gamed a similar scenario to many possible outcomes. People safely distant from the fighting will have to decide the intensity of a nuclear exchange and at what point to release strategic weapons, if needed.
One thing seems clear- a strategic exchange will be WWIII and Russia’s seething hatred of the US will not allow North America to survive untouched by war. Given the geographic and military limitations of Russia and the broad stretches of open ocean around most of the US, shallow trajectory ballistic or cruise missiles launched from Russian submarines are likely to be at play. Maybe an EMP weapon will be used. (Hell, a nuke hidden in a bale of weed could get into the country.) It seems likely that Russian hybrid tactics will first begin to soften the defensive, electric power, transportation and communication structures of the US by interfering with software-controlled everything. Naturally, the fragile stock market will collapse promptly, and unemployment will skyrocket. Toilet paper will vanish as if by magic from the store shelves.
Both NATO and Russia have enough nuclear weapons to go back and bounce the rubble a few times at leisure with their ICBMs and SLBMs. The total warhead count in the world’s nuclear powers is shown below as tallied by the Arms Control Association. The total warhead count for each country includes both tactical and strategic weapons as well as retired warheads. Nuclear weapons have a shelf-life and require some refurbishment over time. For instance, the tritium booster gas in the pit is subject to decay with tritium’s short half-life.
New START data on Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons inventory is shown below. As you can see, Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons inventory is poised to make quite a mess of their target areas from a great distance. On the strategic side (below), nuclear weapons can be delivered to a target across the world via strategic bomber, or a ballistic missile. Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs), and a collection of shorter range arial platforms could be used in combination.
Will Russia be tempted to try using a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, even if NATO is sure to reply? At what point will a tactical exchange between Russia and NATO runaway to a strategic exchange? It seems unlikely given the terrible strategic downside of NATO retaliation. Certainly, if allowed to act unobstructed, Russia could make quite a nuclear mess in Europe and North America. However, NATO commanders will not allow their nuclear arsenal to be destroyed in storage.
“political power is not intrinsic to the power-holder,” but flows from outside sources that include perceptions of authority, available human resources; skills and knowledge; material resources; and intangible psychological and ideological factors. These sources all depend upon obedience, which arises for “various and multiple” reasons that include habit, fear of sanctions, perceived moral obligation, psychological identification with the ruler, zones of indifference, and absence of self-confidence among subjects. Obedience is essentially voluntary, and consent can be withdrawn. [Wikipedia]
Dictators do not often yield their power without violence, but now and then one will see the futility of fighting to the death against overwhelming resistance and abdicate after a face-saving attempt to stifle the uprising. This happened in the late 1980’s in eastern Europe leading up to the collapse of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev in 1991.
Russia will not change its ways until there is a decapitation at the upper few levels of its authoritarian police state. The population has been too passive for too long to expect a popular uprising like the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia in 1989. Russian opposition leaders are either poisoned, defenestrated or sent to prison as a security threat. Only a military coup could pull off a major change in leadership, but then you have a military authoritarian state.
A time-honored way to generate and maintain unity in a nation is to direct blame and struggle towards a foreign power. Both sides in the post-WWII cold war, NATO and the USSR, used this to focus resources and political angst in their respective favor. Putin has managed to revive this “good vs evil” duality not only to secure his power, but also to drive ethnic Russians toward his goal of a Greater Russian Empire.
There you have it. Lauren “Bobo” Boebert (R-CO) switched congressional districts with her carpet bag packed with a tattered personal history and managed to beat four opponents and win the 2024 District 4 Republican primary in Colorado. She left her western slope district where things were looking grim and scampered across the mountains to eastern Colorado where she found primary victory.
Source: Wikipedia. Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District. Where Bobo bailed.
Source: Wikipedia. Colorado’s 4th Congressional District. Where Bobo parachuted in.
Bobo is popular especially with the angry rural white conservative bunch which can be found everywhere to some extent. On a recent trip through the desolate Paradox Valley passing through the town of Bedrock in western Colorado we saw multiple Boebert campaign signs crammed in the scrub brush. Her spirit even lurks in Bedrock.
Lauren’s conservative fundamentalism and support for Trump appeals to a great many. You can protest to a supporter that she is crude, somewhat dense, and harbors appalling political beliefs. But it matters not to her supporters because she is one of Trump’s more aggressive attack dogs, and that is a virtue to them.
Formerly a swing state, Colorado has been electing Democrat state representatives since 2008 and presently has 5 out of 8 members of the US house and two Democrats in the senate. Conservatives are more predominant in the east and west thirds of the state and Democrats are concentrated along the I-25 urban corridor from Ft. Collins south to Pueblo. An exception to this liberal corridor is Colorado Springs, located an hour south of Denver. It is known for its large and politically influential evangelical conservative community.
Colorado Springs is also the home of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family fundamentalist protestant organization as well as many, many others. According to the Cause IQ website, there are 623 Christian non-profit organizations in the Springs with 8,150 employees, revenues of $804,278,628, and with assets totaling $777,104,922. Protestant fundamentalism is big business. By contrast, Catholic non-profit organizations only number at 13 with $5,003,712 in revenues.
These conservatives can be reliably counted on for wanting to convert the country into an authoritarian theocratic state if given the chance. The USA started as an effort to separate itself from a theocratic monarchy in the Revolutionary War and now finds itself full of people who want a protestant authoritarian theocracy. Really dumb.
Here is a truly naïve question: What is wrong with Russia? Why can’t Russian leaders focus on their own damned affairs rather than conquest or their clandestine efforts to destabilize other governments? From the western side of the globe this seems like a fair question. Are their lessons from history so scrambled that they have not learned some basic axioms of humane civilization? What happened to them? Why the perpetual paranoia, brutishness and authoritarianism?
It is important to separate “Kremlin” from “Russian people”. The Kremlin is a Moscow-based institution presided over by Russia’s national leadership. The Russian people are those working citizens distant from the Kremlin. Naturally, the Kremlin purports to represent the interests of the Russian people. Many say that the Kremlin represents an oligarchy inside and outside of the government. Most would say that Russia’s tradition of bribery and graft is rampant and even a built-in feature and not a bug. Whatever the case, it seems clear from the news that Russia’s military/industrial complex is riddled to the core with corruption.
The USSR and later Russia claim that they are threatened by Western adventurism and interference in their sovereign affairs. The lengthy Cold War between NATO and the Kremlin was largely about the spread of Soviet socialism and undesired political alignments between factions. Western countries were busy in the post-WWII years waging proxy battles and clandestine buggery with client states of the USSR and China. For our part, America didn’t do so well. In contrast with the Allied victory in Europe and Japan in WWII, the US had to sign an armistice with North Kores, a peace accord with North Viet Nam with the lightning-fast collapse of South Viet Nam, followed by the clumsy hijinks leading to the Iran-Contra scandal in the 80’s.
Kremlin policy would seem to be that “interfering in Russian Affairs” includes materiel support for emerging democracies around the world. This “interference” is justification for the incessant brinksmanship and covert meddling issuing from the Kremlin.
The US and coalition forces successfully routed the Iraqis in Kuwait in 1990 with the start of what became Gulf War I. After liberating Kuwait, US President George H.W. Bush invaded the Republic of Iraq destroying a good bit of their military but left Saddam Hussein in power. By 2003 George H.W.’s son, President George W. Bush, oversaw a clearly bogus campaign to take down Saddam right after the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. The smoke and mirrors show put on by the Bush administration conflating al Queda in Afghanistan with imaginary Iraqi weapons of mass destruction led to Saddam being quickly toppled and captured while hidden is a hole in the ground, tried and finally hung by his own people.
What the US-led coalition failed to appreciate was that Saddam held together Iraq by brute force and murder. Coalition forces swooped in and shut down his government without any thought as to the pragmatics of who will run the country the next day. There was the intent of giving birth to democracy with elections, but the power vacuum created by the toppling of Saddam and the dissolution of his government gave opportunity to numerous factions who jumped at it. This was the Iraqi insurgency which lasted until the US withdrawal in 2011.
US interventionism aimed at regime change by force or by covert efforts to remove certain leaders has a spotty record. Chili, Cuba and Nicaragua for example. The point is that US leaders have badly botched many schemes to cultivate governments friendly to US ambitions.
The first thing to remember is that we Americans view Russia through the smudged lens of our own popular culture and history. Over the decades since the end of WWII our self-appraisal of our many merits has swollen and become distended. The MAGA crowd seems to think there was a period of time when America was “Great”. I’d like to know when this happened. I’ve never heard MAGA people cite a particular time when this greatness occurred. Maybe they are thinking of the outcome of WWII and the succeeding few years. Perhaps it was their senior year of high school or during the summer break after third grade. When people?
As I survey American history as an amateur historian I have yet to find a halcyon period in America when peace and calm enveloped the land and all was well. With magnification, history is very granular and every year is a braided stream of tragedies, scoundrels and bad luck with the occasional patches of wonder and joy somewhere for a few. Well, perhaps this is all we can expect. Maybe the world really is a grubby place occupied mostly by people who are often nice, and with more than a few crackpots and psychopaths sprinkled here and there to round out the bell curve.
To be sure, we Americans have done a great deal to advance civilization overall in many ways. This has largely come through the allocation of funds in a resource-rich continent through capitalism, taxes and primed with incentivizing programs from the government after the New Deal. While necessity is the mother of invention, who can actually organize and monetize this necessity by asking for competitive bids on a moon project? A government can. Rather than “trickle-down” economics, this is pumped-down economics, and it works.What do the wealthy do with their tax savings? Trickle it down? Hardly, though some may allocate a bit of trickle-down money in venture capital firms, but that’s risky. Better to invest in solid assets like beachfront property in Florida.
The land that we call Russia, apart from the Siberian reaches of eastern Russia, has been home to many diverse peoples. One Wikipedia reference cites the beginning of Russia in the north with the Eastern Slavs in 862 CE and ruled by Viking conquerors. On this timeline, it is clear that people in the region have been in war, civil conflict or crushing poverty and authoritarianism almost continuously since then. The baseline condition of a great many people of Russia and nearby lands was the grinding poverty of serfdom and were only emancipated in 1861 by Tsar Alexander II. There have been invasions by the Mongols, Ottomans, Swedes, Napolean, Hitler, uprisings and fratricidal infighting for power. It is hard to know what occupants of the Moscow Kremlin are thinking. Russia seems destined to be ruled by an iron fist.
Unlike the English-speaking peoples, Russia never had a Magna Carta in their past outlining agreed upon limits to the power of the monarch. The very notion of wider participation in the conduct of government affairs was unknown. Democratic virtues taken for granted by western states never took hold in Russia. There was initially some hope for democracy after the fall of the Soviet Union by some, but there were no institutional and legal structures in place from which to operate a democratic republic. Worse yet, people were unemployed en masse and became frustrated by the lack of a “freedom dividend” and eventually there was support for a strongman leader. The collapse of the USSR left a power vacuum waiting to be filled. Yeltsin proved to be the wrong guy to inherit the reigns of power from the collapsed Soviet Politburo. He was widely seen as a drunken fool.
Russia had no history of conducting private business within the umbrella of international business law and capitalistic norms. What business law and intellectual property protection there may have been was from the Soviet era. Instead, there was a scramble to acquire the big industrial and financial pieces left over from the old USSR.
I’ve not found anything in the history of Russia that may have been a home-grown template for constructing a workable version of democracy. Russia’s long geographic and cultural isolation from the West doesn’t seem to have helped with the migration of what we might call the norms of democratic society. To be sure, Tsar Peter I (Peter the Great) had spent time in England and learned a great deal about shipbuilding and navigation, eventually leading to the formation of the Russian Baltic Fleet. King William III of England welcomed Peter because of the potential for trade with Russia.
The Soviets were successful in adopting some Western technologies and just enough consumerism to placate their population … partly. Unlike Western Europe, the USA, Canada and even Mexico who continue to be inundated by migrants wanting to get in, the USSR, on the other hand, had to contend with its citizens trying to escape. This is still a problem today in Russia. People vote with their feet.
Back to the initial question. Why can’t Vlad play nice? We can only guess. He is not burdened with a national history of a capitalistic democratic republic or with utopian visions of a liberal democratic society bursting with opportunities for everyone. Vlad is a product of his upbringing as a KGB officer in a closed and isolated security state with a population long accustomed to going along with what the central authoritarian leadership forcibly requires. As a former KGB operative in East Germany, he understands authoritarian rule at the ground level. While bubbling up the chain of command he mastered the complex internal Kremlin politics and managed to get selected by Yeltsin to succeed him. Lucky guy. But when will he decide enough is enough? Today, his poorly conceived plan to expand Russian influence by overtaking Ukraine has backfired, leading to over 500,000 Russian military casualties. Along with the loss of a large fraction of his conventional military armaments like tanks, cannon, radar, air defense systems, aircraft, naval vessels and so on, he has singlehandedly exposed the Russian military for what it is- a paper tiger, but only in conventional arms. He still has a potent nuclear triad to serve as his final stinger.
The news today from Faux News is that picayune Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., wants to rename the Exclusive Economic Zone after Donald J. Trump. All 4,383,000 square miles of it. He proposes to call it the “Donald John Trump Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States.” The EEZ extends out 200 miles offshore around the entirety of the US and possessions.
According to Mirriam Webster-
picayune • \pik-ee-YOON\ • adjective. : of little value : paltry; also : petty, small-minded.
This is after the earlier attempt to rename Washington-Dulles Airport after the orange felon. The brainwave behind this was Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, R-Pa., the House GOP’s chief deputy whip. This was supported by Reps. Michael Waltz, R-Fla.; Andy Ogles, R-Tenn.; Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn.; Paul Gosar, R-Ariz.; Barry Moore, R-Ala.; and Troy Nehls, R-Texas.
Do we actually have to say it? How can this be any more than open groveling for favor by orthodox MAGA-mites at the top of the pyramid holding up an offering to the Orange Sun God. Could it actually be more pathetic?
Congressional Republican Mandarins pleading before the Orange Sun God for a bountiful election.
Here is a link to an article reporting on comments made by Wael Sawan, CEO of oil major Shell plc. He stated that Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act “seem to be working in terms of attracting a significant amount of capital in different states, whether it’s a red or blue state,” at a meeting of the centrist Center for Strategic and International Studies.
It wasn’t all sweetness and light. He was critical of the Biden administration for its decision to pause new LNG export permits pending a thorough review of climate impacts. Sawan explained his view-
“I think sometimes the disagreement stems from the fact that it is a fossil fuel, therefore it cannot be clean. There is an almost absolutist perspective on this that some have” in parts of Washington and some European capitals, he said. “While I respect that view, the reality is it is an energy transition. And we need to be able to transition to lower-carbon solutions.”
I have to agree with his comment. Given the colossal size of the global oil & gas (O&G) industry and the extensive reach of our reliance on petroleum fuels and chemical products like plastics, there must be a transition shallow enough to evolve into renewables without crashing the global economy and the political upset that will come from that. The path to renewables has to start sometime, but maybe there should be some negotiation on the LNG export permits, if there already hasn’t been any. Sawan’s comments on this were valuable.
The matter of climate change is pressing and the motivation to change rapidly is irresistible to many. But it took many decades to get into this mess and it looks like it will take some time to ameliorate it. In the meantime, we the public can alter our consumption and driving habits en masse and make real change faster than government policy.
The top-tier scientific journal Nature published on June 5, 2024, a research paper on the effects of Twitter de-platforming 70,000 accounts providing fake news. Unfortunately for many (most?) of us, online access to Nature is behind a paywall.
I won’t waste time on an analysis of someone else’s brief analysis of the hidden Nature article “Post-January 6th deplatforming reduced the reach of misinformation on Twitter.” Am I too miserly for not paying for a Nature article or a subscription? Yes, I am. I will include a link here to a brief online review article at TechPolicy.press for the readers consideration.
“The report makes clear that the authors could not reliably identify the magnitude of the observed effects due to the complexity of the events surrounding the insurrection and the volume of the news reporting on it, and that the results may not be generalizable to other platforms or events. But while Twitter normally “benefitted enormously from Trump’s volatile tweets” by keeping the platform “at the center of public discourse,” they say, the events at the US Capitol marked a moment of crisis for the company. “January 6th is a moment that highlights the relationship between real-world violence and misinformation, as well as the attempt at purposeful control over political speech on Twitter by its leadership,” the paper reads. In th [sic] moment of crisis, perhaps the bluntest of content moderation tools appears to have had the intended effect.” Source: TechPolicy.Press [Emphasis mine]
Instead of relying on words and handwaving, the authors of the Nature paper above used actual Twitter data from 500,000 users over June 2020 to February 2021 to extract trends about the very complex behavior surrounding the Jan 6th, 2021, event. Again, from the TechPolicy.press article …
“To answer these questions, the researchers used data acquired during the two most recent US election cycles to compare the misinformation sharing rates on Twitter. The 2020 election share rate among all Twitter users was five times higher than in the 2016 elections, and about twice as high among misinformation sharers. Following the November 2020 elections, and up until January 6th, the rates of misinformation remained “relatively high,” which is in direct contrast with the 2016 elections, where misinformation “declined immediately following Trump’s victory.” These results suggest “a marked change in the misinformation ecosystem on Twitter over time,” according to the paper.” Source: TechPolicy.Press [Emphasis mine]
It is interesting how the “misinformation declined immediately following Trump’s victory.” Golly, why would that be?
[Note: I’m about to make a mistake. I am commenting on the Israeli/Hamas conflict on the internets for the whole world to see.]
Basic to the Israel/Hamas conflict is the general matter of who has the right to reoccupy ancestral land. In the Levant, possession of the land has changed hands many, many times over history. Today, Russia is claiming that it has the right to “re-absorb” Ukraine back into what is now the greater Russian empire. The Chinese Communist Party claims that Taiwan belongs to the mainland Chinese. Conflicts over entitlement to territory is a persistent threat to global peace, especially now that nuclear-tipped missiles can cross great distances in a short time or can suddenly pop out from under coastal waters.
The bloody war between Hamas and Israel drags on. I think a few forget that the conflict between Palestinians and Israeli Zionists has been raging for many years. The current war is only the latest outburst and a particularly bloody one at that. The right of requital, or the principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth is the guiding theory there.
Prior to this war I’ll admit that I was somewhat biased toward Israel because, even as a non-theist, I find their culture generally agreeable. But the bombing and mass extermination of civilians in Gaza as well as the embargo on food and medicine getting into Gaza is beyond any justification. Having been a victim does not give anyone the right to victimize other parties. An eye-for-an-eye is a specious argument.
Destroying whole buildings, neighborhoods, cities or territories with weapons where civilians may be present could be an indiscriminate attack. A quote from Indiscriminate Attack in Wikipedia-
“In 1977, Protocol I was adopted as an amendment to the Geneva Conventions, prohibiting the deliberate or indiscriminate attack of civilians and civilian objects in international armed conflicts; the attacking force must take precautions and steps to spare the lives of civilians and civilian objects as possible. Although ratified by 173 countries, the only countries that are currently not signatories to Protocol I are the United States, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, and Turkey.” Source: Wikipedia.
What about the Geneva Conventions relating to civilians? There have been 4 Geneva Conventions. The Fourth Geneva Convention covers humanitarian protections of protected civilians in a war zone.
Even if a nation is not a signatory or it hasn’t been ratified, from my western point of view the Geneva Conventions seem to outline the shape of decency, kindness and humanity.
Irrespective of the Geneva Conventions as at least an optional guide, neither combatants are concerned with the guidelines. Whether or not the Geneva Conventions could even include organizations like Hamas and others is unclear (to me).
I’ve noticed that social media is filling up with anti-Israel content. I’ve given up trying to understand who the more righteous party in this conflict is. I am unable to support either side. The attack by Hamas on October 7, 2023, was obviously a savage orgy of murder. Hamas had to have known that this act would provoke a retaliation that would affect Palestinian civilians.
I’ve long admired Israel because it has built a modern thriving civilization from the ground up. But, it has done so on homelands claimed and occupied by others. As an outside observer I’m sad for the Palestinians for their long suffering under Israeli control since 1948. The Israelis have built an apartheid zone and have confined a large number of Palestinians to the tiny Gaza strip and the West Bank. On the other side, however, numerous extremist groups have taken hold and shelter in Palestinian territories with the aim of killing all Israelis and have been doing so intermittently for years. These groups have received support from Iranian leaders and other players making the conflict a proxy war. Iran wishes for nothing less than demolition of the state of Israel and installing a far-reaching Islamic caliphate. They seem prepared for the long game. Just connect the dots.
Now, the US has bombed Yemen to prevent the Houthis from further attacking international shipping. A coalition of forces, principally the UK and US, has been intercepting drones and cruise missiles aimed at Israeli targets and ships intending to transit the Suez Canal. The Houthis, who have been engaged in a lengthy civil war in Yemen, have been building their military bona fides to further their ties with Iran, or so some say. The boldness of Iranian provocation continues to rise. Who knows what will happen after they test their first nuclear weapon?
From within the Hamas frame of reference, perhaps a big provocation followed by a big retaliation might rally Islamic nations against Israel and its sponsors?? As I understand it, what isn’t helping their cause is the bad taste Palestinians left in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon in the past. There is a sense that to accept Palestinian immigration is to accept a population carrying militancy with it.
Israel’s response to the attack was to retaliate with shock and awe in Gaza in an effort to exterminate Hamas once and for all. From within the Israeli frame of reference, there is a certain cold military logic to their strategy in greater Gaza. However, whatever support Israel may have had from the 10/7/23 attack has withered. Israel cannot shake the historical facts of its founding- that it was established by displacing Palestinians from their home territory. Palestinians are still furious about Zionist colonization. Palestinians were simply removed from their homes and driven out. The same thing is happening in slow motion in the West Bank. While the world’s attention was elsewhere, Gaza was cemented into an open-air prison camp far short of liberties that we in the US take for granted.
Unfortunately for Israel, Hamas represents a political belief system strongly coupling homeland with Islam. Extinguishing a belief amounts to long term Wack-A-Mole. Palestinians are in desperate straits and have no place to call their own. In their abysmal location in Gaza, why should they stop the struggle?
Unfortunately for Hamas, the State of Israel in its present location is a long-held dream come true for Zionists. Israelis have nowhere to go even if they did give up the land. Israelis will fight to the death rather than handing over what they believe is their ancestral homeland. Israel is a nuclear state and will likely use their nuclear weapons if state collapse is threatened. Isn’t that what every nuclear state threatens to do?
What we see is a never-ending cycle of retribution. One side is brutalized and eventually strikes back. Many take the view that past Israeli or Palestinian victimhood does not justify continued victimization. The killing of non-combatants is simply unjustifiable and must stop. The Palestinian death toll is over 33,000, most of whom are reportedly women and children. The Islamic world will not soon forget this assault on Gaza and the role of the US.
The role of the US in this conflict is troubling. We’ve always been supporters of Israel. Israel and Turkey are claimed to be the only countries in the Levant resembling a democracy. There is strong political support from Jewish and Christian Zionist communities in the US. The magnitude of this translates into hard support for Israel in terms of funding and weapons. Israel’s soft power is US backing in international matters including military support.
For the US to support the Palestinians would be taken as an affront to the Israelis and would be political suicide for any US administration taking such a position. Israel enjoys considerable support in the US and such a stance would not survive. Obviously.
I am a supporter of the Biden administration and the direction he has taken the country generally. I agree there is a logic to long term support of democracies around the world. However, Biden’s public and unwavering support of Netanyahu’s Israel has been, I believe, a strategic mistake during this conflict. There are indications in the news that there is a quiet effort behind the curtains to convince Netanyahu that the mass killing of Gazans is the wrong choice. Recently Biden and Netanyahu have spoken and signs that the severity on Gazans lightening is apparent.
I’m an American and I agree with and support our democratic values emphasizing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So, to militarily and politically support a nation that is exterminating civilians, democracy or not, is immoral.
US policy toward both the state of Israel and Palestine/Gaza/West Bank must undergo major recalibration to a more balanced approach in the region. The Palestinian demand for the return of their homeland did not suddenly fall from the sky. It has been there from the beginning. The State of Israel is the result of documented actions taken by the United Nations following the expiration of the 1917 Balfour Declaration. US President Harry Truman was the first head of state to formally recognize Israel as the legitimate Jewish state in 1948. Truman did express misgivings, however.
America’s credibility in backing a righteous path has been damaged by our own expeditionary zeal in post WWII. The big skeleton in the American closet is that in our history is full of examples of appropriating territory from the Native Americans and our appalling treatment of them. Plainly, they were here first. Settlers pushed them off their land, encouraged by the government, and confined them in ever diminishing remote spaces. The point is that the US can hardly lecture Israel on the way their state was formed. Israel is a technologically advanced nation with many accomplishments to their credit. But, in the political choices made before and after 1948 leading to nationhood, they have set themselves up for this conflict.
In history there are endless examples of conquest and defeat. Lands are taken by invading armies, people die and the social order tipped over. Over time, conquerors are eventually conquered themselves, people die and yield to new military and political forces. Borders and power shift, people die and settle for a time, but eventually a new order arrives, people die and things shift again. This has been seen in history all over the world and it will continue to happen. The Palestinians have lost their homeland and might just have to live with it as so many others have done in the last 10,000 years. Perhaps one day what is left of the Native Americans population will reclaim North America after some kind of large-scale apocalypse wipes out the colonist population.
It is difficult to see how Israel and the Palestinians can come to some sort of armistice without Israel surrendering some land and the Palestinians committing to less than full repossession of the land.
Taking the cosmic viewpoint, the human inhabitants of Earth are wrecking the biosphere, raising the temperature of the atmosphere, altering the climate, and while all of this is happening, murdering each other over beliefs and notions. Normally I might have said “let ’em go at it”. But we’re all on the same small speck of dust in empty space. There is nowhere else to go.
Lamentations on Chemistry 