Russia
Subterms
More stories
India’s Reasons For Abstaining in the UN on Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine
On February 26, the United Nations Security Council voted on a resolution proposed by the United States. Of the 15 members of the Security Council, 11 voted in favor and Russia unsurprisingly used its veto to kill the resolution. China, India and the United Arab Emirates abstained. Two days later, India abstained on a vote at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva that set up an international commission of inquiry into Russia’s actions in Ukraine. The country also abstained at the UN General Assembly, which voted 141-5 to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
India’s abstentions have led to much heartburn in the US and Europe. One high-flying national security lawyer in Washington argued that India was wrong to ignore Russia tearing down Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations. Like many others, he took the view that India has sided with an aggressive autocrat, weakened its democratic credentials and proved to be a potentially unreliable partner of the West. The Economist has called India “abstemious to a fault.”
American Hypocrisy and Half-Measures Damn Ukraine and Help Russia
READ MORE
In particular, serving and retired American and British diplomats have been wringing their hands at India’s reticence to vote against Russia. For many Americans, this is a betrayal of the good faith that the US has reposed in India by giving the country a special nuclear deal in 2008 and designating India as a “major defense partner” in 2016. In 2018, the US elevated India to Strategic Trade Authorization tier 1 status, giving India license-free access to a wide range of military and dual-use technologies regulated by the Department of Commerce, a privilege the US accords to very few other countries. On Capitol Hill, India’s abstention is further viewed as an act of bad faith because many members of Congress and senators worked hard to waive sanctions against India. These were triggered by the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act when India bought Russian S-400 missile systems.
Many Western business leaders are now wondering if India is a safe place to do business after the latest turn of events. For some in the West, this is yet another example of India slipping inexorably down the slippery slope of authoritarianism under the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Two Unfriendly Nuclear Neighbors
Such fears are overblown. India remains a thriving democracy. Elections just took place in five states after colorful political campaigns. Infrastructure development in India is going on at a record pace and growth remains high amidst inflationary pressures. Despite some blunders such as the 2016 demonetization of high-denomination currency notes and the botched 2017 rollout of the goods and services tax, the Modi-led BJP has become more market-friendly.
As per the World Bank’s Doing Business 2020 report, India ranked 63 out of the surveyed 190 countries, a marked improvement from the 134 rank in 2014 when Modi came to power. Like the US, India is a fractious and, at times, exasperating democracy, but it is a fast-growing large economy. Even as US manufacturers Chevrolet and Ford exited the Indian market, Korean Kia and Chinese MG Motor India have achieved much success.
Embed from Getty Images
India is also proving to be a major force for stability in the region. After “America’s Afghanistan’s fiasco,” India has been picking up the pieces in an increasingly unstable region. The country is now providing humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people even as the US has abandoned them. Thousands of trucks roll out daily from India to Afghanistan via Pakistan as part of India’s effort to feed millions of starving Afghans. India is delivering 50,000 tons of wheat to a country led by the Taliban. Earlier, India sent 500,000 coronavirus vaccines as well as 13 tons of essential medicines and winter clothing to Afghanistan. Despite its reservations about the new regime in Kabul that offered refuge to hijackers of an Indian plane in 1999 and sent jihadists to Kashmir, a government branded as anti-Muslim by The New York Times is behaving magnanimously to help millions of Afghans facing starvation.
Despite its thriving democracy and growing economy, India remains a highly vulnerable nation in an extremely rough neighborhood. To its west lies an increasingly more radical Pakistan that, in the words of the late Stephen Philip Cohen, uses “terror as an instrument of state policy in Kashmir.” To its east lies an increasingly aggressive China led by President Xi Jinping assiduously using salami-slicing tactics to claim more Indian territory. In sharp contrast to the US, India has two nuclear-armed neighbors and faces the specter of a two-front war given what Andrew Small has called the China–Pakistan axis.
National security that occupies much headspace in Washington is a constant headache for New Delhi. Multiple insurgencies, street protests, mass movements, foreign interference and the specter of nuclear war are a daily worry. During the Cold War, Pakistan was an ally of the US and benefited greatly from American funding of the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union. A 1998 report by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) tells us India was among the top three recipients of Soviet/Russian weapons from 1982 to 1996.
More recently, India has diversified its arms imports. A 2021 SIPRI fact sheet makes clear that India is now the biggest importer of French and Israeli arms. From 2011-15 to 2016-20 Russian arms exports to India dropped by 53%, but the country still remained the top importer. In 2016-20, Russia, France and Israel’s share of India’s arms imports comprised 49%, 18% and 13% respectively. A retired assistant chief of the integrated staff estimates that around 70% of India’s military arsenal is of Russian origin.
Given Indian dependence on Russian military hardware, it is only natural that New Delhi cannot afford to annoy Moscow. Critical Russian spares keep the defense forces combat-ready. For high-tech weaponry, which has the added advantage of coming at affordable prices, India relies on Russia. Moscow has also shared software and proprietary interaction elements for weapons delivery systems with New Delhi. Furthermore, Russia allows India to integrate locally-made weapons into its fighter jets or naval vessels unlike the US or even France.
Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries
From New Delhi’s point of view, the India–Russia military-technical cooperation is even more valuable than Russian military kit. Unlike the West, Russia has been willing to transfer technology, enabling India to indigenize some of its defense production. This began in the 1960s when India moved closer to the Soviet Union even as Pakistan became a full-fledged US ally. Since then, Moscow has shared critical technologies over many decades with New Delhi. India’s supersonic anti-ship missile BrahMos that the Philippines recently bought is indigenized Russian technology as is India’s main battle tank.
As a vulnerable nation in a rough neighborhood, India relies on Russia for security. Therefore, New Delhi decided it could not upset Moscow and abstained at all forums.
The China Factor
There is another tiny little matter worrying India. It is certain that Xi is observing and analyzing the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As a revisionist power, China seeks to overturn the postwar order. Beijing has designs on Taiwan and territorial disputes with many of its neighbors. Its most recent armed confrontation occurred with India though. Since that June 2020 clash, Indian and Chinese troops are locked in a stalemate that repeated rounds of talks have failed to resolve.
More than anyone else, India fears a Russia–China axis. If Moscow threw in its lot with Beijing, India — deprived of technology and critical spares — might face a military catastrophe. If Russia sided with China in case of a conflict between the two Asian giants, India would face certain defeat.
Recent military cooperation between Russia and China has worried India. A few months ago, a flotilla of 10 Russian and Chinese warships circumnavigated Japan’s main island of Honshu for the very first time. This joint exercise demonstrated that Russia and China now have a new strategic partnership. Despite their rivalry in Central Asia and potential disputes over a long border, the two could team up like Germany and Austria-Hungary before World War I. Such a scenario would threaten both Asia and Europe but would spell disaster for India. Therefore, New Delhi has been working hard to bolster its ties with Moscow.
In December 2021, Russian President Vladimir Putin flew to India to meet Modi. During Putin’s trip, both countries signed a flurry of arms and trade deals. Apart from declarations about boosting trade and investment as well as purchasing various military equipment, Russia transferred the technology and agreed to manufacture more than 700,000 AK-203 rifles in India’s most populous state of Uttar Pradesh where the BJP has just been reelected. In the words of a seasoned Indian diplomat Ashok Sajjanhar, Putin’s visit “reinvigorated a time-tested strategic partnership between India and Russia.”
Embed from Getty Images
Sajjanhar left unsaid what astute Indian diplomats say in private. India’s close relationship with Russia is insurance against China. New Delhi wants Moscow to act as a moderating influence on Beijing and act as an honest broker between the two Asian giants. India believes that there is no power other than Russia that could act as its bridge to China.
The Weight of History
When Sajjanhar was speaking about a time-tested relationship, he meant decades of close India–Russia ties. During World War II and in the run-up to independence in 1947, the US earned much goodwill because Franklin D. Roosevelt championed the Atlantic Charter, promising independence to the colonies. However, relationships soured soon after independence because India chose socialism under its first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru.
When the US conducted a coup against the democratically elected Iranian government of Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, India came to view the US as a neocolonial power. It is easy to forget now that Washington backed the interests of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company over those of the government of Iran, triggering trepidation among Indian leaders who remembered clearly that their country was colonized by the British East India Company. The coup gave both capitalism and the US a bad name and pushed New Delhi closer to Moscow.
In the following years, India’s ties with the Soviet Union strengthened. As Pakistan became a firm Cold War ally of the US, India embraced socialism ever more firmly and became a de facto Soviet ally, claims of non-alignment notwithstanding. In 1956, the Soviet tanks crushed the Hungarian Revolution. Nehru censured Moscow in private but refused to condemn Soviet action even as he railed against the Anglo-French intervention in the Suez. As per Swapna Kona Nayudu’s well-researched paper for the Wilson Center, New Delhi now became “a crucial partner in international politics for Moscow.”
In 1968, the Soviets crushed the Prague Spring, an uprising in then-Czechoslovakia that aimed to reform the communist regime. Nehru’s daughter, Indira Gandhi, was prime minister, and she publicly called for the Soviets to withdraw their troops. In the UN Security Council, though, India abstained in the vote on the Czechoslovakia matter, attracting widespread condemnation from the American press.
Three years later, India went to war with Pakistan to liberate Bangladesh. This did not go down well in the US, despite the fact that the military dictatorship of Pakistan was inflicting murder, torture and rape in a genocide of horrific proportions. During the 1971 India–Pakistan War, Richard Nixon called Gandhi a “bitch” and Henry Kissinger termed Indians as “bastards.” Indian diplomats repeatedly point out that Nixon and Kissinger ignored their own diplomats like Archer Blood who valiantly spoke truth to power about Pakistani atrocities, a story chronicled superbly by Princeton professor Gary J. Bass in “The Blood Telegram.” Instead, they sent vessels from the Seventh Fleet to intervene on Pakistan’s behalf. It was the Soviets who came to India’s rescue by sending their naval vessels to counter the American ones.
Embed from Getty Images
India repaid Moscow’s 1971 favor when Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan. In 1980, India refused to condemn this invasion at the UN. During the decade that followed, the US funded the mujahideen in Afghanistan through Pakistan. Relations between the US and Pakistan became closer than ever at a time when General Zia-ul-Haq launched Operation Tupac to “bleed India through a thousand cuts” by championing insurgencies within India. First Punjab and then Kashmir went up in flames. Terrorism became a feature of daily life for India, but the US turned a Nelson’s eye to the phenomenon until the grim attacks of September 11, 2001.
Since those attacks, India and the United States have moved closer together. Thousands of Indian students study in the US every year, American investment has flowed into India and defense cooperation has steadily increased. The US views India as a valuable partner to contain the rise of an aggressive China, and New Delhi cares more about Washington than any other capital on the planet.
Even as US–India ties have deepened, New Delhi has retained close ties with Moscow. Russia continues to build nuclear power plants in energy-hungry India. Plans to import more Russian oil and gas have also been in the works. Because of these ties, India did not condemn Russian action against Crimea in 2014. The left-leaning government in power at that time went on to say that Russia had “legitimate” interests in Ukraine.
It is important to note that no opposition party has criticized the government’s position. Shashi Tharoor, a flamboyant MP of the Indian National Congress party who said that India was on “the wrong side of history,” got rapped on the knuckles by his bosses. The opposition and the government have almost identical views on the matter. Neither supports Russian aggression against Ukraine, but no party wants to criticize an old friend of the nation.
Political Factors, Domestic and International
War in Ukraine is obviously not in India’s interest. India imports energy, and rising oil prices are going to unleash inflation in an economy with high unemployment. This worries both political and business leaders. In its statement at the UN, India called for peace and diplomacy. In official statements, India has also expressed support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. India does not in any way support Russian aggression but cannot criticize Moscow for a host of reasons described above as well as often overlooked political factors.
Embed from Getty Images
Indian leaders have also been preoccupied with elections in five critical states. Political analysts consider these elections to be a dress rehearsal for the 2024 national elections. With stakes so high, the ruling BJP was under pressure to bring home thousands of Indian students studying in Ukraine safely. For this, India relied on Russia. While some might say this necessitated a Faustian silence, 18,000 Indian lives were at stake.
India also had reservations about Ukraine. Reports of Indian students facing racism in Ukraine have been doing the rounds on social media. These may be info ops by Russians, but they have touched a chord among the masses. Press reports of fleeing Indian students facing racism and segregation at the Ukrainian border have not helped, nor have memories of Ukrainian arms deals with Pakistan, which have triggered Indian suspicions. Even though India is against the conflict, New Delhi does not want to forsake an old friend and support a potentially hostile power.
India also suspects the motives of the West in taking on Putin. There is a strong feeling across nearly all political parties that the US would not show the same concern for a non-white nation in Asia or Africa. Left-leaning parties point out that the US and the UK based their 2003 invasion of Iraq on a pack of lies. A popular Indian television anchor has railed against the “racist reportage” of Western media that treats blue-eyed, blonde Ukrainian refugees differently to Syrian or Afghan ones.
There is also another matter driving India’s hesitation to go along completely with the US in targeting Russia. An increasing trust deficit between the Democrats and the BJP is harming US–India relations. For years, The New York Times and The Washington Post have relentlessly criticized the BJP, accusing the party of being authoritarian, if not fascist. Even food aid to the impoverished citizens in Taliban-led Afghanistan did not get any recognition from the papers of record in New York and Washington.
Billionaires like George Soros who support Democrats have been vocal against the BJP and Modi. Their foundations have also funded Indian organizations opposed to the BJP. Americans see this funding as an expression of idealism that seeks to promote civil society and democracy. On the other hand, many Indians see American funding as a sinister ploy to weaken the nationalist BJP and replace them with weak, pliant leaders. Indians are also irked by the fact that Democrats rarely give credit to the BJP for winning elections, the democratic proof of its platform’s popularity.
Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries
Democrats have also been pressuring India to legalize gay marriage, forgetting that the issue is pending before the Indian Supreme Court. Indians point out that it was the British who decreed “unnatural” sexual acts” as not just illegal but also imprisonable during Queen Victoria’s heyday. The BJP has already come out in favor of legalizing homosexuality but has no power to intervene in a matter pending before the court. The failure of Democrats to recognize this reeks of a white savior complex that destroys trust between Washington and New Delhi.
Many BJP leaders are convinced that the Democrats are plotting some sort of a regime change in the 2024 elections. They believe there is an elaborate game plan in place to discredit Modi and the BJP. In this worldview, the Democrat establishment is manipulating discourse and peddling narratives that could lead to some version of the Orange Revolution in India. They are convinced that once Putin goes, Modi might be next. Even though India is opposed to a war that is severely hurting its economy, this fear of Western interference in domestic political matters is one more reason for India to abstain from turning on its old friend Russia.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More
- in US Politics
Zelenskiy captivates viewers with truth telling in address to Congress
Zelenskiy captivates viewers with truth telling in address to CongressUkrainian president, a former actor and comedian, has an understanding of the camera, and is proving a more serious man for more serious times For four long years members of the US Congress had to smile or scowl as a TV star played the role of president.Donald Trump became infamous for the art of lying. On Wednesday another TV performer turned national leader came before Congress. But this one captivated his viewers with truth telling.The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a former actor and comedian facing down the Russian war machine, has an instinctive understanding of the camera but is proving a more serious man for more serious times. Despite being under siege in Kyiv, Zelenskiy has been on a virtual tour of western capitals over the past three weeks, tailoring his speeches to each nation. Speaking virtually to the British parliament, he cited William Shakespeare and Winston Churchill, while he asked members of its Canadian equivalent to imagine waking at 4am to bombs dropping on Ottawa’s airport or Toronto’s CN Tower.The Axios website described it as a “signature blend of praising, chastising and pleading with his audience to understand the global stakes of Ukraine’s resistance” which has produced unexpected commitments such as oil and Swift banking sanctions.So it was that in a packed auditorium in the basement of the US Capitol in Washington, Zelenskiy, whose words were translated from Ukrainian into English by a female interpreter, conjured the demons of two days when America was attacked from the skies to renew his plea for a no-fly zone above Ukraine.“Remember Pearl Harbor, the terrible morning of December 7, 1941, when your sky was black from the planes attacking you,” said Zelenskiy, looming large on a cinema screen, wearing perfectly trimmed hair and beard and a green T-shirt, against a white backdrop with a Ukrainian flag to one side.“Remember September 11, a terrible day in 2001 when evil tried to turn your cities, independent territories, into battlefields. When innocent people were attacked from the air. Our country is experiencing the same every day, right now, at this moment. Every night for three weeks now … Russia has turned the Ukrainian sky into a source of death for thousands of people.”Combined with references to Mount Rushmore and Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream speech”, Zelenskiy, was pushing America’s most emotive buttons with words. But he also knows that this is the nation of network television, cable news, Hollywood, Netflix and social media. So words alone would not do.Zelenskiy asked the members of the House of Representatives and Senate to watch a searing video compilation showing the hell that Russian troops have rained down on Ukraine and its citizens. It contrasted idyllic images of children playing in peaceful towns and cities with explosions, destruction, sobbing, refugees, hospitals and corpses, accompanied by the lament of a violin.According to a pooled report by the Associated Press, “As Zelenskiy played the video of violence, the room was very quiet and members were mostly still. Some shook their heads or wiped eyes or took video. Small amount of applause afterward.”Then came a simple message written in white letters on a black backdrop: “Close the sky over Ukraine.”Tragic in the truest sense because this is the one thing that Congress, and Joe Biden, will not do, fearing that a no-fly zone, in which US pilots shoot down Russians, could trigger a third world war. Perhaps aware of this reluctance, Zelenskiy did not dwell on the issue for long, pivoting to a request for surface-to-air missile systems and urging Washington to “do more”.But the video had a wider purpose. It was shown to millions of American TV viewers just after 9am. It caught TV executives by surprise and they did not have time to censor it; some anchors apologised for its graphic content. It spread far and wide on social media. In the court of public opinion, the video humanised the victims and conveyed the message that our struggle is your struggle.Zelenskiy had again shown himself to be a master of the medium, inviting comparisons with Vladimir Putin’s efforts to lie low, clamp down on media, crush all dissent and turn Russia into North Korea. Zelenskiy is running rings around Putin in the soft power arena with his speeches and intimate phone videos; Russia is not faring especially well with hard power either.On Wednesday the Ukrainian president ended his speech by addressing the room in English. “Now, I’m almost 45 years old,” he said. “Today my age stopped when the heart of more than 100 children stopped beating. I see no sense in life if it cannot stop the deaths.”There was also a direct appeal to Biden: “I wish for you to be the leader of the world. Being the leader of the world means to be the leader of peace.”The auditorium erupted in a bipartisan standing ovation. Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator, tweeted: “There’s no member of Congress left that room without thinking what more the United States can do to stop this carnage. Just a gut wrenching speech. #SlavaUkraine.”In an era of Trumpism, fake news and disinformation, Zelenskiy, who used to play a fictional president, had cut through with his sincerity. For him and Ukraine, it already feels like a third world war; that is their truth. And the temptation for America to flex its superpower muscles is stronger than ever.TopicsVolodymyr ZelenskiyUS CongressBiden administrationJoe BidenUkraineRussiaEuropefeaturesReuse this content More
Finding a Way to Diss Information
On March 11, at the United Nations, Russia accused the United States and Ukraine of collaborating on developing chemical and biological weapons. Russian officials claimed to have documents proving an attempt to destroy evidence of this illegal activity. None of the coverage reveals whether the documents published on the Russian Defense Ministry’s website make a credible case. In other words, the Russian accusations may or may not be true. Whether such activity is likely or not is another question, but even if it were considered likely, that does not make it true.
The US and Ukraine have consistently and emphatically denied any even potentially offensive operations. The debate became complicated last week when at a Senate hearing, US Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland admitted that the laboratories exist and were conducting research that might have dangerous consequences if it fell into Russian hands. She revealed nothing about the nature of the research. Various US officials explained that the research existed but aimed at preventing the use of such weapons rather than their development. That disclaimer may or may not be true.
Try This Game to Evaluate Levels of Disinformation in Times of War
READ MORE
At the United Nations meeting, the US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield categorically denied any activity with these words: “I will say this once: ‘Ukraine does not have a biological weapons program.’” As The Guardian reports, the ambassador then “went on to turn the accusation back on Moscow” when she accused Russia of maintaining a biological weapon program. That may or may not be true. In fact, both accusations have a strong likelihood of being true.
ABC News summarized the issue in these terms: “Russia is doubling down on its false claims that the U.S. and Ukraine are developing chemical or biological weapons for use against invading Russian forces, bringing the accusation to the United Nations Security Council on Friday.”
Today’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:
False claims:
Hypotheses that are likely enough to be true but difficult to prove conclusively
Contextual Note
The basic claim made by ABC News is true, at least if we reduce the message to the incontestable fact that the Russians brought the “accusation to the United Nations Security Council on Friday.” What may or may not be true is the reporter’s assertion that these are “false claims.” As noted above, the Russian claims may or may not be true, meaning they may or may not be false.
Embed from Getty Images
For news reporting in times of war, propaganda becomes the norm. It trumps any form of serious inquiry, that the legacy media in the US bases its reporting on two complementary suppositions: that everything US authorities tell them is true and that most everything Russians claim is false. Those same reporters who suppose their side is telling the truth and the other side is lying also suppose that their readers share the same suppositions. In times like these, propaganda is the most effective and especially the most marketable form of communication.
The second sentence in the ABC News article adds a new dimension to the assertion. It complains that a “web of disinformation, not only from Russian state media but also Chinese propaganda outlets and even some American voices, have increasingly spread the conspiracy theory this week.” The metaphor of a spider’s web conveniently brings back the sinister logic of the McCarthy era, when certain Americans were accused of being witting or unwitting vectors of communist propaganda. And it inexorably links with the idea of spreading a “conspiracy theory.”
It’s worth stopping for a moment to note that each sentence in the ABC News article is a paragraph. Single-sentence paragraphing is a journalistic technique designed to make reading easier and faster. Subtle writers and thinkers, such as Al Jazeera’s Marwan Bishara, can sometimes employ the technique to create a percussive effect. But in times of heightened propaganda, the popular media resorts to the practice to short-circuit any temptation on the reader’s part to think, reason, compare ideas or analyze the facts. In journalistic terms, it’s the equivalent of aerial bombing as opposed to house-to-house combat.
The third sentence in the ABC News article delivers a new explosive payload, this time with appropriately added emotion (“heightened concern”) and a horrified hint at sophisticated strategy (“false flag”). It speaks of “heightened concern among U.S. and Ukrainian officials that Russia itself may be planning to deploy chemical or biological weapons against Ukrainian targets or as part of a so-called ‘false flag’ operation.”
In just three sentences, the article has mobilized the standard web of associations journalists use for propaganda masquerading as news. The vocabulary may include any of the following terms: “disinformation,” “fake news,” “false flag,” “conspiracy theory,” “propaganda,” “misinformation,” and, on occasion, the more traditional pair, “deception and lies.”
Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries
The article’s fourth sentence is a quote from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky: “This makes me really worried because we’ve been repeatedly convinced if you want to know Russia‘s plans, look at what Russia accuses others of.” That is a trope the Biden administration has been using throughout this controversy. Zelensky has read the script and the journalist is there to transcribe it.
Historical Note
The still-developing history of COVID-19 that has been with us for nearly two and a half years should have taught us at least two things. Governments have a penchant for presenting a unique version of the truth that insists no other version is possible. They also excel at putting in place a system that suppresses any alternative account, especially if it appears to approach an inconvenient truth. Whether you prefer the wet market or the lab leak theory is still a matter of debate. Both narratives have life in them. In other words, either of them may or may not be true. For a year, thinking so was not permitted.
The second thing we should have learned is that the kind of experimentation done in biological and chemical research labs will always have both a defensive and an offensive potential. From a scientific point of view, claiming that research is strictly limited to defensive applications makes no sense. Even if the instructions given to research teams explicitly focus on prevention, the work can at any moment be harnessed for offensive purposes. Victoria Nuland appeared to be saying just that when she expressed the fear that Russians (the bad guys) might seek to do something the Ukrainians and Americans (the good guys) would never allow themselves to do.
Or would they? That is the point Glenn Greenwald made in citing the history of the weaponized anthrax that created a wave of panic in the days and weeks following the 9/11 attacks in 2001. George W. Bush’s White House, followed by the media, clearly promoted the idea that the “evidence” (a note with the message “Allah is Great”) pointed to the Middle East and specifically at Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. Even before 9/11, Bush’s White House had told the Pentagon to “accelerate planning for possible military action against Iraq.” In January 2002, the president officially launched the meme of “the axis of evil” that included Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
In retrospect, even though no legacy news media will admit this, the most credible interpretation of the anthrax attacks that killed five Americans was as a failed false flag operation designed to “prove” that Iraq was already using biological weapons. As the White House was preparing for war in Afghanistan, it sought a motive to include Iraq in the operations. The plan failed when it became undeniable that the strain of anthrax had been created in a military lab in the US.
Embed from Getty Images
Years later, the FBI “successfully” pinned the crime on a scientist at Fort Detrick called Bruce Ivins, the Lee Harvey Oswald of the anthrax attacks. The FBI was successful not in trying Ivins but in pushing him to commit suicide, meaning there would be no review of the evidence or reflection on the motive for the attacks. This at least is the most likely explanation because it aligns a number of obvious and less obvious facts. Nevertheless, even this narrative accusing the Bush administration of engineering what was essentially a more lethal version of a Watergate-style crime may or may not be true.
The moral of all these stories is that in times of conflict, everything we hear or read should be reviewed with scrutiny and nothing taken at face value. And just as we have learned to live with unsolved — or rather artificially solved — assassinations of presidents, prominent politicians and civil rights leaders, we have to live with the fact that the authorities, with the complicity of an enterprising media skilled at guiding their audience’s perception, will never allow us to know the truth.
*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Fair Observer Devil’s Dictionary.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More
American Hypocrisy and Half-Measures Damn Ukraine and Help Russia
Shortly after Russian forces invaded Ukraine, the government in Kyiv floated the idea of a no-fly zone to help protect civilians and soldiers. The West gave a swift and decisive refusal: threatening to shoot down Russian planes could set off World War III.
And yet, three weeks into the war, the no-fly zone proposal just won’t die. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky begs for air support almost daily. In protests and social media posts, millions of ordinary people around the world ask NATO to #closethesky.
No, the Ban on Russian Athletes Should Not Be Lifted
READ MORE
Here in America, a nationwide poll showed that 74% of Americans support a no-fly zone. And earlier this month, 27 foreign policy experts published an open letter requesting a limited no-fly zone over humanitarian corridors.
If a no-fly zone is so obviously impractical, why are we still talking about it? The answer — which is conspicuously missing from mainstream Western discourse — lays bare the fundamental problem in the US response to the war.
A False Dichotomy
Politicians and the media offer a single simplistic argument against protecting Ukraine’s airspace: Russia’s nuclear arsenal. Almost every official statement, article and op-ed can be summarized in one sentence: A no-fly zone would start World War III.
Embed from Getty Images
But here’s the part no one says out loud: What happens if the West doesn’t institute a no-fly zone? Will such a move keep us safe from nuclear Armageddon? Can the US manage to stay out of this war and out of Russia’s crosshairs?
Vladimir Putin’s rhetoric — and his actions — offer a clear answer. The US can avoid direct confrontation but at a price: handing the Russian leader an absolute, total victory. In Ukraine, of course, but also in Moldova and Georgia and perhaps the Baltics, and who knows where else? And, of course, carte blanche to commit whatever atrocities he’d like worldwide (à la Syria).
If Putin cannot win, he will lash out against enemies real and imagined. At that point, it won’t matter whether those enemies have instituted a no-fly zone. Putin has already likened sanctions and weapons deliveries to declarations of war on Russia, creating a ready excuse for retaliation. He’s set up a false narrative about Ukraine building a nuclear bomb, building a rationale to use his own nuclear weapons.
America’s Choice
The real question before the US government isn’t whether to institute a no-fly zone. It’s whether America is ready to help Ukraine win or prefers to stand by and watch the rise of a new Russian empire.
If not, we must stand up to Putin now. There are multiple viable policy options for doing so. One is arranging a no-fly zone administered by the United Nations rather than NATO. Another is sending Ukraine decommissioned Western fighter jets and several dozen volunteer air force vets who would be granted Ukrainian citizenship. Yet another would be to send only jets — Ukrainian fighter pilots have confirmed that they can, in fact, learn to fly Western jets in just a few days.
The specific mechanism matters less than the political will — the decision to send Putin a clear message that the US will not let him take Ukraine, backed up by sufficient military support. This option is not risk-free. But it’s impossible for Ukraine to prevail without angering Putin.
Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries
Is the risk worth it? Ukrainians believe so because they see something most Americans haven’t yet figured out: World War III has already started. Putin’s grand ambitions are reminiscent of a certain German dictator 80 years before him, as is the US strategy of appeasement. In the end, US involvement is inevitable, so why not be strategic and proactive rather than reacting years later when the human and economic costs of Putin’s empire-building are too high to be ignored?
Of course, the US government may disagree with this perspective and opt for appeasement 2.0. Maybe this time around, the unstable dictator will be more reasonable?
If this is the case, and the US government is not ready to stand up to Putin, it’s essential to make it clear that Zelensky is on his own. If we cannot make a commitment to let Ukrainians win, we should let them lose. Ukraine’s government deserves an honest understanding of what it can and can’t expect from the US so it can make decisions accordingly.
The Worst of Both Worlds
So far, American politicians have spurned both of these options. Instead, they’re pursuing an immoral, dangerous fantasy, waiting for someone to stop Putin without America getting its hands dirty. To this end, they offer half-measures that drag out the conflict and cost thousands of lives. They wear blue and yellow, they send aid and enact sanctions, but they consciously steer clear of any support that could lead to a Ukrainian victory.
This brings us back to the absurd situation we started with: ongoing calls for an impossible no-fly zone, which we can now see are absolutely logical. Let’s review.
America: Ukraine, we support you in your brave fight for freedom!
Ukrainians and their friends abroad: Great! So, the one thing we need is support with our airspace.
America: No can do. But believe us — we’re on your side here and we’re ready to help!
Ukrainians: Thank you. We’re dying here and we can’t win without air support.
America: Once again, no. But we stand with you.
This hypocrisy goes well beyond the debate over the no-fly zone. For instance, on March 6, Secretary Blinken gave the green light for Poland to donate its fighter jets to Ukraine. When Poland agreed to cede the jets to the US for immediate transfer to the Ukrainian army, American officials backpedaled in a truly impressive display of doublespeak.
Embed from Getty Images
Ukraine cannot win this war without the US taking tangible steps to protect Ukrainian airspace. Pretending otherwise and willfully extending the bloodshed with partial measures is the worst possible option for the United States.
The US government doesn’t owe Ukraine support. But it does owe Ukraine an immediate end to the falsehoods and the empty words — a bullshit ceasefire, if you will. An admission that, no matter how many civilian deaths, no matter what kind of banned weapons Russia uses or how many war crimes it commits, no matter if Russia drops a nuclear bomb on Kyiv, the US will not step in.
Until then, Russia pushes new boundaries every day with impunity, Ukraine holds out hope for help that will never come and Joe Biden wavers while children die.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More
- in US Politics
Zelenskiy to address US Congress and call for tougher line against Russia
Zelenskiy to address US Congress and call for tougher line against RussiaUkrainian president expected to press once again for no-fly zone and urge US to facilitate transfer of fighter jets The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, will deliver a virtual address to the US Congress on Wednesday, the latest in a series of speeches to western leaders as he works to galvanize support for his besieged nation.‘Would-be tyrant’: Republican targeted by Trump at rally hits backRead moreThe remarks to both chambers of Congress come on day 21 of the battle for Ukraine’s survival under an intensifying assault from Russia.Russian troops are advancing on the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, in a war that has already killed hundreds of civilians in aerial and artillery bombardment, including at least 100 children.More than 3 million people have fled Ukraine since the invasion, causing the fastest-growing refugee crisis in Europe since the second world war.Zelenskiy’s speech follows similar addresses to the UK parliament, in which he invoked Shakespeare and echoed Winston Churchill’s famous wartime oration to the House of Commons about defiance in the face of an apparently overwhelming aggressor.On Tuesday, Zelenskiy appealed to Canada’s parliament, and the nation’s large Ukrainian diaspora, to rally behind his country. That evening, the prime ministers of Nato allies and Russian neighbors Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovenia traveled by train to Kyiv, which was under a 35-hour curfew as Russian shells and missiles rained down on the capital, striking residential areas and civilian infrastructure.It came on the same day Zelenskiy acknowledged that Ukraine’s longstanding hope of joining Nato was unlikely.“For years, we heard about the apparently open door, but have already also heard that we will not enter there, and these are truths and must be acknowledged,” the Ukrainian president said in a speech before the leaders of the Joint Expeditionary Force, a UK-led initiative bringing together 10 north Atlantic countries to create a capability for responding rapidly to crises.In his remarks on Wednesday, which will come nearly two weeks after Zelenskiy met virtually, behind the scenes, with a small group of members of Congress, he is expected to call on the US once again to “close the skies” over Ukraine.He is also likely to press to be supplied with fighter jets by Nato allies that Ukrainian pilots can fly up against Russian air forces, and steeper economic sanctions in the face of an advancing Russian assault.The Biden administration has so far flatly ruled out an option of the west imposing a no-fly zone over the country, determined to avoid inevitable direct combat between the US and Russian forces – a conflict the US president has said would lead to “world war three”.The Biden administration also rejected an offer from Poland to turn over its Soviet-era fighter jets to Ukraine, which had been made only if the US and Nato facilitated the transfer. Administration officials argued the move could be seen as escalatory by Moscow.But Biden is facing growing pressure to reconsider his position. A growing chorus of lawmakers on Capitol Hill are publicly pressuring Biden to increase military aid to Ukraine, including sending fighter jets and air defense systems.The calls come as the US and allies tighten their economic vice on Russia, apparently leading Moscow to turn to China for financial support.On Tuesday, Biden signed into law a funding measure that will provide a record $13.6bn in emergency aid to Ukraine and its European allies.This week, lawmakers are expected to take up legislation that would end normal trade relations with Russia after Biden last Friday said the US would join Europe and other allies in revoking its preferred trade status.Biden will travel to the Belgian capital, Brussels, next week for a meeting with Nato leaders to discuss the ongoing crisis in Ukraine and reassure allies of the US’s commitment to the defense alliance.“His goal is to meet in person, face-to-face with his European counterparts and talk about where we are at this point in the conflict in the invasion of Ukraine by Russia,” the White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, said on Tuesday.She added: “We’ve been incredibly aligned to date – that doesn’t happen by accident. The president is a big believer in face-to-face diplomacy, so it’s an opportunity to do exactly that.”TopicsUS CongressUS politicsUkraineRussiaVolodymyr ZelenskiyEuropeJoe BidennewsReuse this content More
- in US Politics
Biden to visit Nato and EU in Brussels as pressure over Ukraine increases – as it happened
Biden administrationBiden to visit Nato and EU in Brussels as pressure over Ukraine increases – as it happened
Congress pressures president to transfer jets from Poland to Ukraine
Sarah Bloom Raskin withdraws nomination from Federal Reserve Board
Ukraine crisis – live updates
Sign up to receive First Thing – our daily briefing by email
Updated 9m agoVivian HoTue 15 Mar 2022 17.09 EDTFirst published on Tue 15 Mar 2022 09.22 EDT Show key events onlyLive feedShow key events only
Joe Biden will meet with Nato alliance leaders and the European Commission next week about the situation in Ukraine.
Fox News cameraman Pierre Zakrzewski, 55, and Ukrainian journalist Oleksandra “Sasha” Kuvshynova, 24, were killed when their vehicle was struck by incoming fire. Fox News correspondent Benjamin Hall was also wounded in the incident.
Sarah Bloom Raskin withdrew her nomination for Federal Reserve Board following staunch opposition from Republicans.
The White House is warning of dire consequences should Covid-19 relief funding remain stalled in Congress.
That’s all for today – thanks for following along. You can keep up to date with news from Ukraine here, in our dedicated live blog:Ukraine-Russia war latest: More than 3m have now fled Ukraine, says UN, as Czech, Polish and Slovenian leaders arrive for Zelenskiy meeting – liveRead moreWhile Joe Biden hasn’t changed his stance on facilitating the Polish fighter jets to Ukraine or establishing a no-fly zone, it looks like there’s still some movement in Congress to exert some pressure. McConnell signals that GOP still undecided on trying to force administration’s hand on Ukraine fighter jet issue. Asked him if getting MiGs to Ukraine is an issue he’ll insist on getting into legislation, and he said “exactly how to make that happen is still under discussion.”— Manu Raju (@mkraju) March 15, 2022
Talks between Dems and GOP over stripping Russia of its trade status have yet to lead to an agreement as the two sides are still haggling over the bill language.Pelosi promised to pass the bill in the House this week. But a bipartisan deal would ease its passage in the Senate.— Manu Raju (@mkraju) March 15, 2022
Sherrod Brown, the chair of the Senate banking committee, has made a comment on Sarah Bloom Raskin: Sherrod Brown, Senate Banking chairman: “Republicans engaged in a disingenuous smear campaign, distorting Ms. Raskin’s views beyond recognition and made unsubstantiated attacks on her character. Committee Democrats were united, and we did our jobs.” (Manchin not on the committee)— Manu Raju (@mkraju) March 15, 2022
Joe Biden has issued a statement about Sarah Bloom Raskin withdrawing her nomination from the Federal Reserve Board:
After serving as the second-in-command at treasury and with prior service on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Sarah Bloom Raskin knows better than anyone how important the Federal Reserve is to fighting inflation and continuing a sustainable economic recovery. She has unparalleled experience pursuing solutions to enhance our country’s critical financial infrastructure, with expertise in cybersecurity and climate risk, and protecting consumers in the financial marketplace.
Sarah’s nomination had broad support—from the banking and financial services community, former members of the Board of Governors, multiple Nobel Prize winners, consumer advocates, and respected economists from around the country. That experience and support are among the many reasons why I nominated Sarah to be the vice chair for supervision, a critical role in regulating our nation’s financial institutions.
Despite her readiness—and despite having been confirmed by the Senate with broad, bipartisan support twice in the past—Sarah was subject to baseless attacks from industry and conservative interest groups. Unfortunately, senate Republicans are more focused on amplifying these false claims and protecting special interests than taking important steps toward addressing inflation and lowering costs for the American people.
I am grateful for Sarah’s service to our country and for her willingness to serve again, and I look forward to her future contributions to our country.
I urge the senate banking committee to move swiftly to confirm the four eminently qualified nominees for the Board of Governors—Jerome Powell, Lael Brainard, Philip Jefferson, and Lisa Cook—who are still waiting for an up-or-down vote. This group has the experience, judgment, and talent necessary to lead the Federal Reserve at this critical moment in our economic recovery, and the senate should move their nominations forward.
Ukrainian journalist Oleksandra “Sasha” Kuvshynova was killed in the same attack that killed Fox News cameraman Pierre Zakrzewski and wounded Fox News correspondent Benjamin Hall yesterday. Adding to our sadness at @FoxNews – Ukrainian journalist Oleksandra “Sasha” Kuvshynova was also killed in the attack against our Fox News team. Sasha was working for us as a local producer. Prayers going out to her family.— John Roberts (@johnrobertsFox) March 15, 2022
This comes a few days after Brent Renaud, an award-winning US film-maker, was killed reportedly by Russian forces in the town of Irpin. A US photographer, Juan Arredondo, was wounded in the same incident.More than half of Americans do not think Joe Biden will run for re-election in 2024, a new poll has found. The poll, conducted by the Wall Street Journal between 2-7 March, revealed that 52% of Americans do not think Biden, 79, will run again in two years while 29% expect him to do so.41% of Democrats indicated that they think Biden will pursue re-election while 32% said otherwise. 26% remained uncertain. Biden has said that he plans to run. At the first formal news conference of his presidency, he said: “My answer is yes. I plan on running for re-election. That’s my expectation.” In December, Biden reiterated his plans to run again, telling ABC News: “If I’m in the health I’m in now, if I’m in good health, then in fact, I would run again.” In 2021, Biden made history by being the oldest American president sworn in for the firt time. Before that, Donald Trump was the oldest president inaugurated for the first time, at 70. The WSJ poll also revealed that 49% of Americans expect Trump to run for a third time while 27% did not. Just under a quarter of voters remained unsure. Among Republicans, 60% believed Trump will pursue reelection. Asked who they would vote for in a hypothetical rematch, voters were split 45%-45%, unchanged since the WSJ’s previous poll, in November. Following staunch opposition from the Republicans, Sarah Bloom Raskin has withdrawn her nomination from the Federal Reserve Board, the New Yorker is reporting. Breaking: Sarah Bloom Raskin Withdraws Her Nomination to the Federal Reserve Board https://t.co/IPoDqYH0Mv— Jane Mayer (@JaneMayerNYer) March 15, 2022
Republicans last month boycotted a meeting to vote the nominations for Federal Reserve Board – including the chair – to the next step in the process because of their opposition to Raskin. In particular, they were concerned that her views on the climate crisis could harm fossil fuel companies. In addition, she is married to Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin, who helped lead the second impeachment of Donald Trump.But the White House has stood by their nomination, with press secretary Jen Psaki saying yesterday, “She is one of the most qualified individuals to be nominated to this position.”Though the White House said they would work on garnering bipartisan support for Bloom after senator Joe Manchin announced he would be parting with the Democrats on this vote, Psaki would not confirm any actual Republicans they had on board.Joe Biden said the US and its allies were overcoming “exceedingly difficult” conditions to get humanitarian supplies into Ukraine.Speaking at the White House, as he signed the consolidated appropriations act into law, the president said his administration’s priority was to provide essential supplies for civilians suffering during the “rapidly evolving crisis” caused by Russian attacks.“We’re airlifting emergency relief supplies in staging positions in the region, thermal blankets, water treatment equipment, so they can be shipped into Ukraine,” the president said. “Essentials like soap, laundry detergent, simple sounding things to refugees who fled really with nothing but the clothes on their backs.“It’s exceedingly difficult to get supplies into Ukraine while the Russian onslaught continues. But we’re managing to get supplies in… thanks to the bravery of so many frontline workers who are still at their posts.”Biden said the world food program, with US support, had purchased 20,000 metric tons of food “to address the growing needs of individuals affected by this conflict” at refugee reception centers in countries neighboring Ukraine.“With billions more included in this bill for new humanitarian assistance, we’re going to be able to quickly ramp up our response and help alleviate the suffering that Putin’s war is causing the Ukrainian people in the region.” Biden added.The US Congress last week passed a $13.6bn aid package for Ukraine, which Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer said was more than double what Biden’s administration originally asked for.
Joe Biden will travel to Brussels next week to meet with the leaders of the Nato alliance and the European Commission about the war in Ukraine.
The announcement of the trip comes as pressure on Biden grows to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine and to facilitate the transfer of fighter jets from Poland to Ukraine. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Biden’s stance on those points have not changed.
The White House warned of dire consequences if Covid relief funding remains stalled in Congress.
Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell called for the White House to pull their nomination of Sarah Bloom Raskin for Federal Reserve board following yesterday’s announcement from Democratic senator Joe Manchin saying he will not vote to confirm her.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that the administration is having “ongoing internal discussions about how we can play the most effective role in supporting the large number of refugees who are coming out of Ukraine” but would not reveal anything more about actually bringing refugees to the US. Psaki said most of the assistance the US has been providing in terms of the refugee crisis has been in the “large number of humanitarian assistance that we are providing not just to Ukraine but to neighboring countries that are providing a haven for refugees as they’re leaving Ukraine.” When pushed further, Psaki said, “The president would welcome Ukrainians coming here. Currently they can apply through the refugee process, but we’re discussing what other options may exist.”Russia today announced personal sanctions against Joe Biden and a number of other administration officials, including White House press secretary Jen Psaki.When asked about the sanctions at today’s press briefing, Psaki responded, “I would first note that President Biden is a junior, so they may have sanctioned his dad, may he rest in peace.”She continued: “The second piece I would say that won’t surprise any of you is that none of us are planning tourist trips to Russia and none of us have bank accounts that we won’t be able to access, so we will just forge ahead.” White House press secretary Jen Psaki took a moment at the beginning of the briefing to go off on how the US has struck Russia on an economic front since the invasion began: “We’ve made President Putin’s war of choice a strategic failure,” she said. “The unprecedented cost we imposed with allies and partners have reversed 30 years of economic progress, something that President Putin himself has pushed for, and that has happened in less than a month. She continued: “It hard at the things that President Putin cares for the most – degrading his military, access to cutting edge technology, an ability to exert power and influence.”Psaki pointed out that with the central bank reserves, about half of Putin’s war chest has been immobilized. “He can’t use these rainy day funds to support his war in Ukraine,” she said. Psaki continued: “The ruble is less than penny. It’s the worst performing emerging market currency. The Russian stock market has been closed for nearly three weeks, the longest in its history as they try to prevent a market crash. Inflation in Russia is rampant. Some forecasters are predicting 20% inflation for Russia by the end of the year. Trillions in dollars of businesses have been disrupted by sanctions, putting the Russian financial sector in severe stress. The economic outlook for the country. Forecasters around the world are projecting a collapse for the country.”In the private sector, major companies either have left or are leaving Russia as world leaders look to “ratchet up pressure on Putin’s oligarchs”. Janet Yellen, the treasury secretary, and attorney general Merrick Garland will tomorrow announce the creation of the Russian elite proxies and oligarchs multilateral task force as “a way to go after corrupt gains of some of the individuals closest to Putin,” Psaki said. In terms of security assistance, the omnibus package that the president is secheduled to sign this afternoon will provide $13.6bn for Ukraine. That comes in addition to the $1.2bn in security assistance already provided, including $550m in the last two weeks. Psaki noted that Biden has also approved four emergency security assistance packages to provide Ukraine with “the type of weapons they are using so effectively to defend their country”. Despite rising pressure from Congress and the public, Joe Biden remained steady on his stance on establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine and facilitating getting the fighter jets in Poland to Ukraine. “Nothing has changed about the analysis that the Department of Defense has provided last week,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said. “Because of the challenges in delivery and the impact, providing these would be greater risk than there would be benefit.” Psaki on Biden: “He continues to believe that a no-fly zone could be escalatory and could prompt a war with Russia.”— David Smith (@SmithInAmerica) March 15, 2022
The way the US has been aiding Ukrainians in their fight against Russian aggression is by “providing the type of military assistance and equipment that the Ukrainians have used to push back and fight in the last 19 days. “That is what we will continue to do with the omnibus,” Psaki said. White House press secretary Jen Psaki kicked off today’s press briefing by warning of “dire consequences” should Covid-19 relief funding remains stalled in Congress. The White House had originally requested $22.5bn in Covid relief funding, which Democrats negotiated down to $15bn. Ultimately, however, the funding had to be taken out of the $1.5tn omnibus package in order for it to pass.Psaki warned that without the funding, there will be “fewer monoclonal antibodies sent to states, an inability to purchase additional treatments, fewer tests, less surveillance for future variants and a risk of running short on vaccines.”Democrats have expressed frustration with how the White House has handled the funding issue, but Psaki made it clear that the administration has been communicating with Congress about the funding since January, in more than three dozen calls and meetings and briefings with committees. “With cases rising abroad, scientific and medical experts have been clear that in the next couple of months, there could be increasing cases of Covid-19 here in the United States as well,” Psaki said. “Waiting to provide funding until we’re in a worse spot with the virus could be too late. We need more funding now so that we’re prepared for whatever.”Joe Biden will travel to Brussels next week to meet with the leaders of the Nato alliance and the European Commission to discuss the Russian invasion of Ukraine. White House press secretary Jen Psaki confirmed Biden’s planned 24 March meeting at today’s press briefing. President Biden @POTUS comes to @NATO HQ next week to participate in an extraordinary meeting of the leaders of all #NATO Allies. #WeAreNATO pic.twitter.com/Pd08Tk2KTs— US Mission to NATO (@USNATO) March 15, 2022
Joe Biden came into the White House vowing to restore American leadership on the world stage. But the tumultuous end to the war in Afghanistan last year shook Americans’ confidence, raising doubts about Biden’s competence and judgment and sending his approval rating tumbling.Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has given Biden a second chance to demonstrate the steady leadership he promised, raising hopes among Democrats that the White House’s efforts to punish Moscow for its shocking aggression will resonate with voters in this year’s midterm elections.But Democrats face stiff headwinds in their attempt to defy historical trends and maintain their narrow majorities in Congress. Among their biggest obstacles are Biden’s deep unpopularity and the rising cost of gas, food and rent, for which Republicans have faulted Democrats.At the Democrats’ annual retreat in Philadelphia last week, party leaders spoke of a world – and an electorate – reshaped by Russia’s invasion of its democratic neighbor. They said the conflict provided a new clarity of purpose – and a new villain: Russian leader Vladimir Putin.As the war in Ukraine threatens to push already rising gas prices even higher, Democrats are blaming “Putin’s tax hike”. At the same time, they are touting the administration’s role coordinating a worldwide response to Russia, and the devastating impact of economic sanctions, highlighting a contrast with former president Donald Trump, who has continued to praise Putin.Full story:Will Biden’s handling of the Ukraine crisis prove popular with US voters?Read moreThe White House is reopening again for public tours. INBOX: Public tours are coming back to the White House! pic.twitter.com/AMPasjhUS1— Asma Khalid (@asmamk) March 15, 2022
NewestNewestPrevious1 of 2NextOldestOldestTopicsBiden administrationJoe BidenUS CongressUS politicsUkraineRussiaEuropeReuse this content More The War in Ukraine Threatens Global Food Security
Russia’s war against Ukraine directly impacts agricultural markets. First of all, the conflict impedes the delivery of existing stocks and the upcoming sowing of many types of grains. Due to the occupation and destruction of major ports, exports will continue to collapse. Agricultural exports from Russia are currently still possible on the main transport route via ports on the Black Sea.
However, shipping companies report limiting their transport due to the perceived danger and concerns about loss of business. Recently, Ukraine announced that it would restrict its own exports to secure domestic supply.
Russian Ballet’s Soft Power: Will Dance Outlast Autocracy?
READ MORE
Ukraine and Russia have become key players for the export of both grain and sunflower (oil) in the post-Soviet era. For quite some time, their crop yields have influenced international volumes and prices, with Ukraine providing on average 10% of the world’s wheat export supply, and Russia as much as 24%; for maize, Ukraine supplied 15% of the staple feed and fodder.
The international market for fertilizer is even more concentrated. With trade shares of individual fertilizer components reaching up to 50%, Russia dominates the market for ammonium nitrate and Belarus, at 16%, for potash fertilizer.
Wartime Uncertainty
Due to general business uncertainty, the financial sanctions of numerous states and the EU against Russia currently affect agricultural exports indirectly while specific sanctions directly target respective exports. For example, last year, in response to the crackdown on the opposition in Belarus, the EU imposed sanctions on the market-dominating Belarusian potash producer Belaruskali, extending them last week.
Prices for many agricultural products determined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations currently already exceed the historic highs during the food price crises of 2007 and 2011. Fertilizer prices have also been rising to record levels for months. In addition, shortages due to reduced or canceled supplies of grain and fertilizer from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are driving up prices.
Embed from Getty Images
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia, like many countries, has been using export restrictions on agricultural products to secure its own supplies despite international warnings against these price-increasing measures. Just last week, the government recommended that Russian companies also limit fertilizer exports.
Besides Ukraine, crop and supply shortfalls initially affect countries that import agricultural products from the war-affected region and are currently looking for readily available alternative sources. This drives up prices on global markets, thereby burdening all importers worldwide but hitting low-income countries and people the hardest. Egypt has an import share of 60% of Russian grain and 20% of Ukrainian grain.
To date, other countries that are already vulnerable to supply insecurity, such as Lebanon, Libya, Yemen, Bangladesh and Turkey, also purchase the majority of their grain from the region. Chad and Niger imported up to 80% of their fertilizer and raw materials from Russia and Belarus; Europe, as well as many countries in Latin America, also purchased large shares.
Options for Adjustment
Affected countries have different options for adjustment. Egypt still has limited but probably sufficient grain stocks of its own for the time being, despite strong supply dependence vis-à-vis the region. In Lebanon, on the other hand, the 2020 explosion at the port of Beirut destroyed wheat warehouses, reducing storage capacity from six months to one month, necessitating a continuous flow of supplies.
The remaining supply gaps that cannot be solved in importing countries by means of shifts in consumption toward more food rather than energy use require both food and fertilizer support. However, these are becoming more expensive as a result of rising prices for procurement and delivery. Transport and delivery must be additionally protected when sourcing from the region along vulnerable routes.
Embed from Getty Images
Trade must remain open and possibly protected on routes perceived as dangerous by shipping lines. Typical crisis-induced but price-pushing export restrictions must be avoided, both within the EU and internationally. Failing supplies from the major agricultural region will show their full effects in the coming autumn crop season, which may only be offset to a certain extent by crops from other major producers such as Australia, the US and the EU.
Large agricultural countries could pursue forward-looking, coordinated market relaxation in order to quickly identify food supply potentials. However, in order to avoid symbolic politics or protectionist reflexes to support domestic production, the volume and price effects of possible approaches — suspension of set-aside programs, reduced use of agro-fuels or land rededication from fodder to food production — need to be assessed accurately. If a contribution to market relaxation is to be expected, corresponding measures should be quickly initiated for the upcoming crop year as a temporary crisis measure.
Similarly, the US is discussing the suspension of the conservation reserve program to allow farmers to bring set-aside areas into production. Price-driving sanctions with regard to fertilizers and agricultural goods should be avoided — or at least be accompanied by aid concepts to absorb linked supply risks.
As during the onset of the COVID-19 crisis, the Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) — a monitoring mechanism developed by the G20 in response to past food price crises — should be used for an international information campaign to prevent price-pushing export restrictions by means of appeals. However, more important than appeals would be the adoption of strict criteria and deadlines for these measures that are enforceable at the World Trade Organization level.
Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries
In the future, AMIS should cover not only agricultural products, fertilizers and energy sources but also the conditions of and access to trade infrastructure. Here, restrictions heavily influence supply and price and should be included in a comprehensive warning system for international supply potential.
Furthermore, a future international political offensive for fertilizers and their raw materials is needed. Not only must the market situation be monitored and, in the event of shortages, be accompanied by aid early on. Technologies to make their use more efficient and to increase fertilizer production capacities as well as approaches to their substitution, whether technologically or by cultivation, are also needed.
*[This article was originally published by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), which advises the German government and Bundestag on all questions related to foreign and security policy.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More
