Russia

Subterms

    More stories

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in World Politics

      Finding a Way to Diss Information

      by

      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

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in World Politics

      American Hypocrisy and Half-Measures Damn Ukraine and Help Russia

      by

      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

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Zelenskiy to address US Congress and call for tougher line against Russia

      by

      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

    • 213 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden to visit Nato and EU in Brussels as pressure over Ukraine increases – as it happened

      by

      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

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in World Politics

      The War in Ukraine Threatens Global Food Security

      by

      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

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Mitt Romney warns of ‘extraordinary challenge’ in preserving democracy

      by

      Mitt Romney warns of ‘extraordinary challenge’ in preserving democracyRepublican senator makes remark and cites Russia’s invasion of Ukraine at private event to raise funds for Liz Cheney At a private event in Virginia, senior Republican senator Mitt Romney delivered a stark warning about the threat to US democracy in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.Mug shot: Republican Josh Hawley told to stop using January 6 fist salute photoRead more“We are really the only significant experiment in democracy, and preserving liberal democracy is an extraordinary challenge,” the Utah senator and former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential nominee said, according to attendees at the event in McLean, Virginia, who spoke to CBS News.The event was held to raise funds for Liz Cheney, the Wyoming Republican whose opposition to Donald Trump over his attempt to overturn his election defeat and the January 6 riot has attracted a far-right challenger backed by the former president and the House Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy, in her primary this year.Cheney’s father is Dick Cheney, the former congressman, defense secretary and vice-president to George W Bush. CBS said he and other Republican establishment figures attended the event on Monday, which raised more than $526,000.Romney, CBS reported, cited the Russian invasion of Ukraine and said the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, was following an authoritarian playbook “rehearsed time and time again, over the many thousands of years of world history”.Romney reportedly said he had a chart in his Senate office tracing 4,000 years of the rise and fall of civilizations. CBS reported: “From the Mongol Empire to the Roman Empire, Romney said, autocracy is the chart’s ‘default setting’.”Critics said Trump was too close to Putin when in office. He has repeatedly praised the Russian leader since the invasion of Ukraine began. He has also condemned the war.Romney said: “What has kept us from falling in with the same kind of authoritarian leader as Vladimir Putin are the strengths of our institutions, the rule of law, our courts, Congress and so forth.“People of character and courage have stood up for right at times when others want to look away. Such a person is Liz Cheney.”Cheney voted against impeaching Trump for withholding military aid to Ukraine in an attempt to extract dirt on political rivals. She voted for impeachment for inciting the Capitol attack.Romney was the only Republican senator to vote to convict Trump in both his impeachment trials. Trump was twice acquitted, although six other Republicans joined Romney in voting to convict over the attack on Congress.Trump is in legal jeopardy over election subversion and his business affairs but he dominates his party, topping polls of potential nominees for 2024 and regularly hinting he will run.Bill Kilberg, an organiser of the Cheney fundraiser, told CBS: “I think people are really hungry for a sensible, rational alternative in our political dialogue. They’re not happy with the direction of the Republican party and they’re not particularly happy with the direction of the Democratic party.”Referring to Cheney and Romney, he said attendees “saw two, sensible, intelligent, rational conservatives, and they were excited. It’s been a long time since we had that opportunity”.Cheney has not ruled out a presidential run in 2024.Romney was given standing ovations, Kilberg said, when he praised the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, and spoke about American democracy.“He said we have to appreciate how fragile this system is.”Kilberg’s wife, Bobbie, said: “That was the essence of Liz’s remarks as well. She said, if someone doesn’t have respect for the rule of law and the democratic system, then it’s all for naught.”TopicsMitt RomneyRussiaUkraineUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in World Politics

      No, the Ban on Russian Athletes Should Not Be Lifted

      by

      In a recent article, Ellis Cashmore raised the provocative question of whether or not we should lift the ban on Russian sport instituted as a result of the invasion of Ukraine. Cashmore advances a number of sensible arguments, most importantly that this ban might turn out to be counterproductive. Instead of coaxing the Russian population to question the neo-imperialist delusions of its “great leader,” President Vladimir Putin, it might provoke an in-your-face backlash, reinforcing rather than weakening the despot’s grip on the minds of his subjects. 

      Should We Lift the Ban on Russian Sport?

      READ MORE

      Furthermore, Cashmore maintains, experience shows that sports bans largely failed to have a significant impact on regime policies in the past. South Africa is a case in point. There are good reasons to believe that the bans and boycotts the country was subjected to did little to hasten the collapse of apartheid. The same could, of course, be said about sanctions in general, as Peter Isackson has recently noted in these pages. Cuba is probably the most prominent example of the failure of prolonged sanctions to undermine a regime; Iran is another. 

      This could also be said about resolutions passed by the United Nations General Assembly condemning acts of aggression. The most recent vote following Russia’s attack on Ukraine has demonstrated once again the futility of symbolic gestures, even if supported by the vast majority of the international community. The reality is that for despots and autocrats, the only thing that counts is brute force. After all, what brought Nazi Germany to heel was not boycotts and sanctions but the overwhelming military might of the allies. 

      The Importance of Sport

      Should we, then, lift the ban on Russian sport? In fact, should we lift all sanctions imposed on Russia, given the fact that, empirically, sanctions more often than not turn out to be counterproductive? The answer to the second question is obvious, at least to me. Sanctions might not be particularly effective in their impact on regime behavior, but they serve as an expression of moral revulsion, a signal that we don’t want to have anything to do with you, or at least as little as possible. This involves all areas, not only economics — and particularly sport.

      Embed from Getty Images

      It is easy to state, as Cashmore does, that “it would be foolish to hyperbolize the importance of sport; obviously it is not as serious as war, or a million other things. So, why hurt people who are not responsible for the original sin?” Anyone who has ever watched Leni Riefenstahl’s 1938 film “Olympia,” which documented the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin, is likely to get a sense of the importance of sport to autocratic regimes. 

      The Berlin Games were supposed to demonstrate the superiority of Adolf Hitler’s Aryan race. But a black athlete from the United States, Jesse Owens, had the audacity to steal the show, making HItler’s sport warriors — “swift as greyhounds, tough as leather, hard as Krupp steel” — literally eat dust. The Führer was not amused; he hastily left the stadium so not to have to bear witness to the Aryan humiliation.

      A famous German strategist once characterized diplomacy as war by other means. The same could be said about sport, particularly during the Cold War period. This was certainly true in the case of the SED regime in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). For the regime, sport was more than a competition, it was a Systemfrage — a question of system, socialism vs. capitalism. Sport victories, particularly against West German athletes, meant confirmation of the superiority of the socialist system and, of course, of the Soacialist Unity Party. 

      At the same time, sport provided the regime with the international visibility it so desperately craved. For this, no price was high enough, including the health of the athletes. Starting in the early 1970s, the regime embarked on a broad-based systematic doping program. Already at a young age, promising athletes were pumped full of drugs, designed to enhance their performance and competitiveness. Many of them still suffer from the long-term consequences.

      Embed from Getty Images

      The East German case is extreme but hardly exceptional. Anyone who has ever visited Rome can attest to that. Rome hosts an Olympic stadium that dates back to the late 1920s, initially forming part of the larger Foro Mussolini. In the 1930s, the stadium was expanded, in preparation for the 1940 Olympics. The games were ultimately canceled because of the war, depriving Mussolini of the opportunity to showcase his Fascist revolution: the massive obelisk at the entrance of the Foro, with its “Mussolini Dux” inscription, the mosaics leading up to the stadium, glorifying the Fascist takeover, the granite blocs bearing excerpts of Mussolini’s speeches. 

      Mussolini’s reign ended in April 1945 at a gas station in Milan’s Piazzale Loreto. Yet at the centennial of Mussolini’s March on Rome, later on this year, the obelisk is still there, in Rome, in front of the Olympic stadium, together with the mosaics and the granite blocs — a silent testimony to a dictator’s hubris and the role of sport in it.

      Get Real

      One of the most often heard arguments these days on the subject of the sport ban is that it is the “innocent” athletes who are most directly affected by it. “I only feel sorry for the athletes” has been an often repeated mantra by those commenting on the ban. Let’s get real. Compared to the suffering and anxieties of millions of Ukrainian civilians subjected to Russian terror bombing, the chagrin of Russian athletes deprived of the opportunity to compete internationally is of little consequence — except, of course, for those, like Daniil Medvedev, who lose money. But then, the ATP has so far refused to follow other sports and ban Russian players. 

      Finally, one last thought. Before FIFA banned Russia from its World Cup competition, Poland, followed by Sweden and the Czech Republic, made it clear that they would not play Russia in the playoffs for the World Cup at the end of this year. Robert Lewandowski, Bayern München’s star forward and winner of the Best FIFA Men’s Player title two years in a row, was particularly adamant in his refusal to play against Russia. 

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      I am quite curious to know what would have happened had FIFA not banned Russia. Would Poland, Sweden and the Czech Republic have been sanctioned for refusing to play the Russian national team? What would have it done to FIFA’s already dismal image if, as a result, Vladimir Putin’s aggression against his neighbor had been compensated with Russia’s automatic World Cup qualification? 

      The reality is that international competitions in certain sports, such as football and ice hockey, are more than just sports. They are sources of national pride and national prestige, particularly for countries with autocratic regimes, with star athletes as national icons who are more often than not close to the regime. Alexander Ovechkin, arguably the best hockey player at the moment, has a long history of supporting Putin, including the 2014 annexation of Crimea. 

      As Czech hockey great Dominik Hasek has put it, this is not a personal matter: “Every athlete represents not only himself and his club, but also his country and its values and actions. That is a fact.” It is for this reason that the ban on Russian sport was imposed. It should not be lifted.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in World Politics

      Try This Game to Evaluate Levels of Disinformation in Times of War

      by

      Although during her three-decade-long career as a US Foreign Service officer Victoria Nuland has done many things, mostly in the shadows, she has had two moments that projected her into the headlines, both related to crucial events in Ukraine. It is worth noting that on both of those occasions, her superiors expected her to remain in the shadows. In other words, it is merely by chance that she has now become a household name in US foreign policy.

      Nuland has loyally served every administration, Democrat and Republican, since Bill Clinton, with a single exception. Donald Trump most likely refused to exploit her acquired competence on the grounds that she had been tainted by working for Barack Obama’s State Department under Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Or perhaps Trump felt she had become too embedded in the culture of the deep state he claimed to abhor.

      A Fictional Debate Between a Biden Administration Spokesman and a Journalist

      READ MORE

      Nuland’s closest direct collaboration with a luminary of American politics occurred between 2003 and 2005 when she held the position of principal deputy foreign policy advisor to Vice-President Dick Cheney. That enabled her to hone her skills as an aggressive agent of US power while playing an influential role in promoting the Iraq War. After that stint, she became George W. Bush’s ambassador to NATO. In January 2021, President-elect Joe Biden named her under secretary of state for political affairs, the fourth-ranking position in the State Department.

      According to Foreign Policy, who quotes Bill Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, Nuland “has a high degree of self confidence and an absolute dedication to working for the administration she is working for, whatever administration that is.” In other words, she is a reliable tool of anyone’s policy decisions, however generous, cynical or perverse they may be. That is what she proved when sent to Kyiv in February 2014 to pilot the operations around the peaceful protests that were then taking place that the State Department judged could then, with the appropriate level of management, be turned into a revolution.

      Embed from Getty Images

      The hacked recording of a phone call between the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, and Nuland sealed the otherwise discreet diplomat’s place in history. In the recording, Nuland’s voice can be heard giving Pyatt orders about who the United States had selected to be Ukraine’s new prime minister. Countering Pyatt’s suggestion of the popular former boxer, Vitali Klitschko, Nuland selected Arseniy Yatsenyuk. After the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych fled the country and Yatsenyuk struggled to lead a new government, an anti-Russian billionaire, Petro Poroshenko, won the presidency in September 2014. He immediately appealed to the Obama administration for military assistance to counter Russia, but President Obama kept him at bay, reasoning that “Ukraine is a core interest for Moscow, in a way that it is not for the United States.”

      In other words, not only did the CIA work to overthrow the elected president, Yanukovych, but Nuland managed to manipulate Ukrainian politics from within and thus contribute to what was to evolve into a notoriously corrupt regime under Poroshenko. At the same time, her commander-in-chief, Barack Obama, chose to limit the US involvement in Ukraine by defining a prudent arm’s length relationship with the fiasco that was unfolding, even after Russia seized Crimea from the Ukrainians.

      Back in the News in 2022

      The events around the 2014 Maidan revolution provided the only occasion for the general public to become aware of Nuland’s name until last week when she appeared before the Senate where Florida Senator Marco Rubio questioned her about the current situation in Ukraine. That exchange should have been routine, but Rubio felt it was important to use Nuland’s testimony to refute accusations by Russia and China that the US was funding the development of chemical weapons in laboratories in Ukraine. 

      Nuland could have simply denied that any such laboratories existed and Rubio would have been satisfied. Instead, she uncomfortably explained not only that “biological research facilities” exist, but that the State Department is worried the Russians might effectively gain control of the labs, creating the risk of “research materials … falling into the hands of the Russian forces.” Some attentive observers deduced that the worry Nuland expressed concerned the possible revelation of illicit research funded and encouraged by the United States.

      The scandal that exploded after this exchange provoked two reactions. The first was a firm and over-the-top denial by the Biden administration. It was accompanied by a defensive counter-accusation claiming somewhat absurdly that the Russians were only making the accusation to cover up their own intention to use chemical weapons against Ukraine. The second more serious reaction was Rubio’s attempt to clarify the ambiguity of Nuland’s revelation by interrogating Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines and CIA Director William Burns.

      Rubio counted on Haines not to make the same mistake as Nuland. Clearly, he expected her to give just enough perspective to dismiss any suspicions that the US may be involved in illegal military research. Claiming that “the best way to combat disinformation is transparency,” to make sure Haines would understand the type of response he hoped to hear to dispel the negative effect of Nuland’s testimony, Rubio spent three full paragraphs framing his question and insisting “it’s really important … to understand what exactly is in these labs.” Haines offered this astonishing response: “I think medical facilities — that I’ve been in as a child, done research in high school and college — all have equipment or pathogens or other things that you have to have restrictions around because you want to make sure that they’re being treated and handled appropriately. And I think that’s the kind of thing that Victoria Nuland was describing and thinking about in the context of that.”

      Embed from Getty Images

      Haines tells Rubio not what she knows but what she “thinks,” a verb she uses three times in two sentences. What she describes is nothing more than a subjective memory from her personal past and a vague generalization about medical security. It contains zero information of any kind. The next part of her answer, concerning nuclear power plants, is not only irrelevant but also a vague generalization about the possibility of “damage … or theft.” Her answer clarifies nothing. But Rubio is satisfied and concludes with three words: “All right, thanks.”  

      In his subsequent questioning of CIA Director Burns, Rubio takes four paragraphs to frame his question, again intended to clarify Nuland’s testimony. In the last two paragraphs, however, he veers away from the question of Nuland’s revelation and instead asks Burns about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s strategy concerning negotiations. Burns jumps on the opportunity to avoid answering the initial question about the Ukrainian biolabs. From Rubio’s point of view, the case is closed.

      Growing Curiosity Outside the Circles of Power

      Whereas most news outlets were happy to repeat the Biden administration’s adamant denials that any kind of biochemical research was taking place in Ukraine, various commentators, including Glenn Greenwald, picked up the issue and raised further questions. Greenwald took the time to remind his public of the troubling precedent of the anthrax attacks following 9/11 in 2001. Only months after killing five people did Americans learn that the anthrax originated in the Fort Detrick military lab in Maryland and not in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. (I have written elsewhere on Fair Observer about my own interrogations and investigation of that affair.)

      Nuland’s testimony was seriously embarrassing. Rubio’s follow-up failed to put the scandal to bed. It was time for the White House to go into full denial mode. Predictably, presidential Press Secretary Jan Psaki stepped up with the intent to kill all debate by peremptorily tweeting: “This is preposterous. It’s the kind of disinformation operation we’ve seen repeatedly from the Russians over the years in Ukraine and in other countries, which have been debunked, and an example of the types of false pretexts we have been warning the Russians would invent.”

      We may be justified in asking whether, in times of armed conflict, anything is more preposterous — and indeed more dangerous — than seeking to kill debate on a serious topic that might permit a better understanding of the context of the war. The refusal of debate would be especially preposterous concerning a war in which one’s own nation is theoretically not involved. (In reality, the Ukraine War is a showdown between the United States and Russia.) But now that fighting on the ground is real, preposterous discourse of any kind from either side becomes dangerous as the perspective of using weapons of mass destruction, either chemical or nuclear, has clearly become part of the equation. Since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the prospect of nuclear war has never been so evident.

      In this case, unfounded speculation about evil intentions cannot be considered an appropriate response. After all, the Russian contention expressed at the United Nations that the Ukrainian “regime is urgently concealing traces of a military biological program that Kiev implemented with support of the US Department of Defense” was at least partially confirmed by Nuland in her response to Rubio. It was met at the UN by a simple denial: “Ukraine does not have a biological weapons program. There are no Ukrainian biological weapons laboratories supported by the United States — not near Russia’s border or anywhere.”

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      The Russian accusation, citing purported facts, should require at least a consideration of those facts rather than a blanket denial or a counter-accusation. Nuland never walked back her statement. Haines mentioned only what she “thinks” and Burns was spared even answering the question.

      Psaki is nevertheless right to bring to the public’s attention the criterion of preposterousness. That is something worth focusing on in times of massive propaganda. Reading the news in all the legitimate press today, it should be clear that, as always, preposterousness becomes the dominant feature of public discourse in times of conflict. Psaki’s tweets themselves are wonderful examples of preposterous blathering.

      A Game for Spectators in Times of War

      It may be time to propose an instructive game for anyone interested in paring down the level of preposterousness in public discourse and even news reporting. Anyone can play the game, but it requires forgetting about the beliefs and reflexes our various authorities expect us to acquire.

      The game simply consists of ranking, on a scale of one to 10 in terms of the degree of apparent preposterousness, any official statement or authoritative-sounding opinion made about the conflict, whether pronounced by political authorities or the news media. In other words, it requires accepting as a default position that every simple assertion one sees or hears is as likely as not to be preposterous. 

      The first criterion is to weigh the amount of emotional force in the assertion in relation to informational content. If emotion is clearly present and dominant, three or more points should be added to the potential preposterousness score.

      The inclusion of some authentic context, real information, can, on the other hand, make the proposition potentially less preposterous, bringing the score proportionately back down. The score can be improved by the inclusion of serious context, including facts drawn from historical background, reducing the level of preposterousness. On the other hand, citing purported trends from the past, what are presented as reflexive patterns of behavior or supposed “playbooks” will add points, pushing the preposterousness level further upward. A simple denial or the categorizing an opposing comment as “disinformation” will add two or more points to the preposterousness.

      An important consideration is the identity of the source of the statement. If the author of the proposition is clearly associated with one or the other of the two opposing sides, five points will be added to the level of perceived preposterousness. Those points can only be reduced by the citation of facts. Neutral sources, unaffiliated with one side or the other, receive no preposterousness points but they may still say preposterous things. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      This neutral or non-neutral identity of the source can become complicated by other considerations, some of which may themselves prove preposterous. For example, anyone aware of the track record on controversial events of Glenn Greenwald, cited above, knows that he has no loyalty to either Vladimir Putin or Joe Biden. That fact can be easily proved. But because he is American and criticizes American leaders and pundits who demonize Russia, some preposterously believe he is favorable to Putin. This phenomenon of seeing nuance as opposition is a direct consequence of a longstanding trend in US culture that consists of believing that those who are not for us (i.e., those who do not automatically endorse all our actions) are against us.

      Another important rule of the game is that an identical counter-accusation, of the kind Psaki has made, should automatically add six points to the preposterousness index. In some cases, the counter-accusation may be true, so it cannot be assumed to be totally preposterous. If that can be established, some of the points can be canceled. The reason for adding so many points for an identical counter-accusation is simple. It is almost always an attempt not to clarify but to avoid addressing the evidence that exists. It goes beyond simple denial, which is worth only two or three points at best. A truthful counter-accusation should be accompanied by some form of concrete evidence other than vaguely reputational. If not, the six points should stand.

      Another rule is that citing sources for whom the suspicion of preposterously lying has become part of a standard mindset merits two supplementary points of preposterousness. This is a standard trick of lawyers in criminal cases who conduct research to impugn a witness who may have lied on another occasion. They want the jury to believe that lying on one occasion means lying on all occasions. Case dismissed.

      Two other significant factors of preposterousness that often go together are, first, the attempt to account for the psychology of the adversary by reducing to a particular (and generally ignoble) cause, and, secondly, predicting bad behavior to come. This last is often a clever gamble to the extent that the predictor may have some ability to provoke the predicted bad behavior. Depending on the odds, such predictions are worth two to four points. 

      Finally, repetition of stereotypes — often cited accusations or memes built up by past propaganda to provoke a predictable reflex in the public — may be worth from three to five points, depending on the status of the stereotype in the ambient culture.

      Those are the basic rules. Now, let’s look at a practical example to see how the game can be played. Jan Psaki provided another tweet that can serve that purpose: “Now that Russia has made these false claims, and China has seemingly endorsed this propaganda, we should all be on the lookout for Russia to possibly use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine, or to create a false flag operation using them. It’s a clear pattern.”

      Psaki has accomplished a lot in this tweet to achieve a high score in preposterousness. “False claims” and “propaganda” are gratuitous assertions that need to be supported by evidence, which she has no intention of providing. This indicates the presence of a strong emotion of indignation. Citing China is an example of discrediting anything a witness has to say as being unreliable. The suggestion of being “on the lookout” appeals to the reflex of fear. The “false flag” accusation repeats a meme that has occurred so often in recent weeks that it deserves being compared to the boy crying wolf.

      And finally, Psaki uses the idea of a “pattern,” with the intention of making the public believe there is no reason to explore the facts, since the discourse is a simple repetition of predictable behavior. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      Psaki has a reputation for making preposterous statements sound reasonable, unlike, for example, Donald Trump’s former spokesperson, Kelly-Anne Conway, who excelled in sounding preposterous. In all fairness to Psaki, the state of war she is commenting on admits of so much ambiguity and uncertainty, even concerning basic facts, that the preposterousness level of her tweet should not be considered to have attained the maximum of 10;  seven or eight may be a more fitting appraisal.

      Other Applications of the Game

      Those interested in this game might try applying it to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s latest stab at being preposterous on the same issue in this clip from Sky News. In videos like this, body language and speech cadences can add a significant element to the score, two factors that became evident to observers in the Nuland hearing. 

      Of course, the same game can be played with Russia’s or any other country’s official discourse. War is not only an assault on people, infrastructure and property. It is always an assault on dialogue, curiosity and truth itself. Commenting on the “1984” communication atmosphere that we are now subjected to, Matt Taibbi notes that a “healthy person should be able to be horrified by what’s happening in Russia and also see a warning about the degradation that ensues from using “pre-emptive” force, or from trying to control discontent by erasing expressions of it.” Preposterous statements are just one way of disqualifying and erasing discontent. They may also seek to stir up the kinds of emotions that could trigger a nuclear war.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More