Category: Media

Airman Sets Himself on Fire to Protest Genocide in Gaza

W.J. Astore

Mainstream Media Outlets Say No One Was Harmed in the Israeli Embassy while Denying the Reality of Genocide 

A young Air Force airman set himself on fire outside the Israeli Embassy in DC to protest genocide in Gaza. Aaron Bushnell, 25, died after being taken to a hospital.

Aaron Bushnell before he set himself on fire. Mainstream media sites chose not to feature any images of Bushnell, focusing instead on the Israeli Embassy or “the crime scene”

This was an extreme and deadly act of political protest directed against the Israeli government’s killing and wounding of 100,000 Palestinians in Gaza and its ongoing war of annihilation there, a war abetted by the U.S. government’s political and military power. Bushnell shouted “Free Palestine!” as he burned.

Bizarrely, an officer at the scene pointed a gun at him as he burned before another first responder asked for fire extinguishers. How a man on fire posed a threat to others is unclear.

[Update 2/26, 1730 EST: CNN provides a decent summary of Bushnell’s intent; follow this link:  https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1762212568398278893]

[Update 2/27, 0820 EST: Disgracefully, this was the headline of a story at the Washington Post on Bushnell: Airman who set self on fire grew up on religious compound, had anarchist past.  At this link. It appears Bushnell grew up in a Christian society in Orleans on Cape Cod, that he joined the Air Force in 2020, served as a cyber defense ops specialist in Texas, and was interested in U.S. history, socialism, and anarchism.  The Washington Post article is at pains to portray him as being raised by a weird, possibly abusive, Christian cult while putting a heavy stress on his interest in anarchism. He also liked cats and Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, so you just know he was a misfit. In all seriousness, Bushnell seems to me to have been an unusually principled and sensitive man who acted out of strong moral conviction.]

Aaron Bushnell, an unusually principled, determined, and thoughtful young man

Coverage in the mainstream media is revealing. I checked three sites: NBC, CBS, and the Guardian in Britain. Let’s look at NBC first.  NBC said that Bushnell’s act was an “apparent protest” against the “Israeli-Hamas war.” NBC later added that Israel’s “crackdown” in Gaza was termed a genocide by Bushnell. NBC itself stuck to the narrative that Israel is engaged in a defensive war, a “crackdown,” against Hamas.

Next, let’s look at CBS.  CBS repeated the narrative of “an apparent protest of Israel’s actions in its war against Hamas.” CBS did mention that Bushnell’s stated motivation was that he could no longer be complicit in an ongoing genocide in Gaza, followed by a lengthy denial by Netanyahu and the Israeli government. Claims of genocide are “false” and “outrageous,” as CBS gave Netanyahu the last word. 

Turning to the British Guardian, its first sentence is more blunt: An active-duty member of the US air force has died after setting himself on fire outside the Israeli embassy in Washington DC, while declaring he will “no longer be complicit in genocide”.

It also included a key statement Bushnell apparently included on his Facebook page: “Many of us like to ask ourselves, ‘What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?’ The answer is, you’re doing it. Right now.”

Nevertheless, the Guardian downplayed the 100,000 killed and wounded in Gaza as numbers generated by the “Hamas-run health service” there.

The final site I’d like to consider is Antiwar.com, an example of alternative media, I suppose. This site gets it right, in my view, so I’m posting the article here in its entirety:

US Airman Sets Himself on Fire in Front of Israeli Embassy to Protest Gaza Genocide

The airman said he would ‘no longer be complicit in genocide’

by Dave DeCamp February 25, 2024 at 9:04 pm ET Categories NewsTags Gaza, Israel

Updated on 2/26/24 at 7:44 am EST

An active duty US airman set himself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy in Washington DC to protest the US-backed slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza.

According to Talia Jane, an independent journalist who obtained the video of the incident, the airman, who was identified as Aaron Bushnell, 25, died of his wounds late Sunday night.

According to Axios, a video of the incident shows the airman saying he would “no longer be complicit in genocide” and that he was about to “engage in an extreme act of protest.”

“But compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers, it’s not extreme at all. This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal,” Bushnell said right before lighting himself on fire.

While on fire, he repeatedly shouted, “Free Palestine.” He burned for about one minute before law enforcement officers extinguished the flames. According to Jane, one officer initially drew his gun on the airman as he burned.

Washington DC’s Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department said in a post on X that the airman was transported to a hospital with “critical life-threatening injuries.” The department also said the officers who extinguished the fire were members of the US Secret Service.

The dramatic protest comes as the number of Palestinians killed in Gaza by the Israeli campaign is approaching 30,000, and over 69,000 have been wounded. About two-thirds of the casualties are women and children.

The International Court of Justice has ruled that it’s “plausible” Israel is committing genocide and decided to take up the case brought to the court by South Africa. Despite the massive civilian casualty rate and international pressure, the US continues to provide unconditional support for the slaughter.

Life Lessons from Diana Rigg

W.J. Astore

Pay Women! And Find a Way for Death with Dignity

This morning, an article on Diana Rigg caught my eye. I loved her in “The Avengers,” which I watched in reruns in the 1970s. She was sexy, smart, vivacious, and tough, and I saw where Vanessa Redgrave said that Rigg was ahead of her time, that she was sexy and smart when women as actors were supposed to be either/or, not both.

Rigg as Emma Peel in “The Avengers,” 1968

This snippet caught my eye: “I spoke out when I was doing the Avengers and learned I was earning less than the cameraman. I was called ‘money grabbing.’”

Rigg was an absolute star of that show, yet she earned less than a crew member. While the cameraman probably deserved a raise, Rigg deserved to be paid what her male costar, Patrick Macnee, earned. She was as good as gold and better.

The article on Rigg references her painful battle with cancer and how she wished to die with dignity. Death with dignity is something I fully support. I see no reason why people should suffer and die in agony when drugs are available to prevent this. But of course the idea of assisted suicide raises all kinds of ethical and legal questions. And our inhibitions about talking about death and dying contribute to a status quo in which people are expected to “rage against the dying of the light,” no matter how much pain they’re in and no matter how fruitless the raging.

Diana Rigg with costar Patrick Macnee in “The Avengers”

Diana Rigg was a fighter. She wasn’t afraid to speak out for what she believed in. I hope her example inspires others to fight for equity and for dignity in all aspects of life, even death.

Biden 2.0?

W.J. Astore

The Curious Case of Dean Phillips and the Democratic Party

I first noticed Dean Phillips, a Democratic Congressman from Minnesota, a few months ago. He started appearing on mainstream media shows like Meet the Press to suggest that Joe Biden might be a bit too old to run for reelection and that he, Dean Phillips, might be a viable option, a Biden 2.0, if you will. (I say Biden 2.0 because Phillips praises Biden and basically agrees with everything he’s done.) Subsequently, Mr. Phillips has announced a bid for the presidency, garnering notices in outlets like The Guardian and The Atlantic (the latter magazine is a neocon mouthpiece for establishment Democrats).

Biden 2.0? Congressman Dean Phillips (Wikipedia)

Whereas Democratic progressive challenger Marianne Williamson has been completely ignored by the mainstream media, Phillips has won considerable praise. Take this gushing beginning to a piece posted at the end of October at The Atlantic: 

DEAN PHILLIPS HAS A WARNING FOR DEMOCRATS

By Tim Alberta

OCTOBER 27, 2023

To spend time around Dean Phillips, as I have since his first campaign for Congress in 2018, is to encounter someone so earnest as to be utterly suspicious. He speaks constantly of joy and beauty and inspiration, beaming at the prospect of entertaining some new perspective. He allows himself to be interrupted often—by friends, family, staffers—but rarely interrupts them, listening patiently with a politeness that almost feels aggravating. With the practiced manners of one raised with great privilege—boasting a net worth he estimates at $50 million—the gentleman from Minnesota is exactly that.

But that courtly disposition cracks, I’ve noticed, when he’s convinced that someone is lying. Maybe it’s because at six months old he lost his father in a helicopter crash that his family believes the military covered up, in a war in Vietnam that was sold to the public with tricks and subterfuge. I can hear the anger in his voice as he talks about the treachery that led to January 6, recalling his frantic search for some sort of weapon—he found only a sharpened pencil—with which to defend himself against the violent masses who were sacking the U.S. Capitol. I can see it in his eyes when Phillips, who is Jewish, remarks that some of his Democratic colleagues have recently spread falsehoods about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and others in the party have refused to condemn blatant anti-Semitism.

What a guy that Dean Phillips is!  He’s earnest!  A gentleman!  Yet he’s tough too, ready to defend the Capitol armed with a pencil!  He’s rich and Jewish and ready to take on his fellow Democrats, who are hesitant to condemn “blatant anti-Semitism”!

Maybe Phillips is simply on a quixotic quest, an ego trip, but I don’t think so. I think he’s been given permission by the Democratic establishment to run against Biden. In essence, he’s a younger, richer, Biden, a 2.0 version in case Joe falters in the next year.

Again, my guess (I stress “guess”) is that he’s been given the nod to run so that Democrats can say Biden does have challengers within the party, that the DNC supports democracy, while at the same time providing a viable backup in case Biden stumbles badly, whether due to advanced age or dramatically falling poll numbers.

If Biden remains relatively strong, Mr. Phillips will quietly slip away, with a couple of winks and perhaps a clap on the back from the DNC. But if Biden is behind catastrophically to Donald Trump next spring or early summer, Phillips may emerge as the Democratic version of Trump: not quite as rich, not nearly as radical, but the model of a successful businessman who allegedly knows how to fix America and put us all “back to work.”

In the person of Dean Phillips, the owners and donors are hedging their bets.  With Kamala Harris and Mayor Pete not ready for prime time, Phillips could be the new Biden. The DNC most certainly prefers Phillips to a Democratic challenger like Williamson or (obviously) third-party/independents like Jill Stein, RFK Jr., and Cornel West.

Stay tuned, America. If Biden falters, Biden 2.0 is already ready to roll in the person of Dean Phillips.

Israel, Gaza, and the Language of War

W.J. Astore

Pay Attention to What You Read

Here’s a typical quick summary of the dire situation in Gaza from CNN this AM:

The US is seeking to delay an Israeli ground offensive in Gaza amid calls to free more hostages held there by Hamas and allow aid into the besieged enclave. A senior Israeli official told CNN there will be “no ceasefire” in Gaza, but emphasized efforts are ongoing to free the more than 200 hostages in the region “as quickly as possible.” However, the official added, “humanitarian efforts cannot be allowed to impact the mission to dismantle Hamas.” More than 4,600 people have been killed in Gaza since October 7 and over 14,200 others wounded, the health ministry there said.

Conditions on the ground in Gaza continue to deteriorate as Israel repeatedly bombards the strip with airstrikes.

For “Israeli ground offensive,” substitute massive military assault.  Note the mention of hostages held by Hamas but no mention of hostages/prisoners held by Israel.  “Besieged enclave”–open-air prison or concentration camp under constant bombing would be more telling.  “Dismantle Hamas”: the IDF goal is the total destruction of Hamas, with the death of civilians being blamed on Hamas because “they” allegedly use human shields, i.e. the Israeli government and military is never to blame.

Note the passive voice: 4600 people “have been killed in Gaza” — well, who’s killed them?  Who’s wounded 14,200 others?  With weapons provided by which countries?

Conditions in Gaza continue to “deteriorate”: What does this mean, specifically?  Lack of food, water, power, people dying in hospitals due to lack of supplies, people screaming in agony due to lack of anaesthesia, etc. And why are they “deteriorating”? It’s not just due to airstrikes by Israel. The Israeli government’s decision to stop food, fuel, electricity, and water to Gaza is creating the conditions for death and illness on a massive scale.

Looks like bombs over Gaza today—what can you do? It’s just the weather (Caitlin Johnstone)

Caitlin Johnstone has a fine critique about how Israeli bombing is being reported by the Western press. In essence, it’s reported as if bombs are simply dropping from the sky on Gaza: massive bombing as a very bad hail storm that must be endured and over which humans have no control.

Pay very close attention to how this war is being reported, especially in the Western mainstream press. For we all know the saying that the first casualty of war is truth.

Update: I’m involved with an effort, “Words About War Matter,” and the group led by David Vine has posted guidance for language related to Israel, Hamas, and Gaza. The link is https://www.wordsaboutwar.org/gaza.html.

The False Comfort of Illusions

W.J. Astore

In the Russia-Ukraine War, what is the truth?

When others asked the truth of me, I was convinced it was not the truth they wanted, but an illusion they could bear to live with. — Anaïs Nin

War, among other things, is a place of illusion. With the Russia-Ukraine War, the illusions are many. For the mainstream media in America, the illusion promoted is this: Ukraine, a quasi-democratic country, is enduring an unprovoked invasion by authoritarian Russia, now in its 18th month. The freedom-fighters of Ukraine have been greatly assisted by benevolent military and economic aid freely offered and given by the Biden administration and NATO countries. Ukraine fights for a noble cause that the U.S. should and must support, since allowing Russia to prevail would lead to further unprovoked Russian invasions of other freedom-loving peoples in Europe.

It’s an illusion that’s comforting for Americans to live with, since it flatters us while vilifying an old enemy, the former Soviet Union and now Russia. It’s flattering to the Biden administration, which can pose as a stalwart defender of Ukraine, and certainly flattering to U.S. weapons makers, who can pose collectively as the new arsenal of democracy. It’s an illusion, moreover, that elides or disguises any economic motives the U.S. might have in supporting Ukraine so generously since the war began.

Even something as simple as smoke contains great complexity, as I recall from my fluid dynamics classes

The best illusions, the most seductive ones, have elements of truth to them. Yes, Russia did invade Ukraine; yes, Russia is authoritarian; yes, Ukraine has defied the odds and stymied Vladimir Putin’s designs; yes, NATO and U.S. weaponry has been important to Ukraine’s endurance. But partial facts are generally not impartial.

Briefly put, NATO expansion eastwards since the collapse of the Soviet Union is seen by Russia as provocative, constricting, and aggressive. Ukraine itself is very much an imperfect democracy, rating “high” on government corruption indices. U.S. meddling in Ukraine, especially in 2014, is most certainly problematic. The destruction of the Nordstream pipelines and subsequent profits by U.S.-based energy companies can’t be ignored. And, not surprisingly, U.S. weapons manufacturers are enjoying boom times. Not only does Ukraine need weaponry and ammunition, but U.S. and NATO stocks of the same must be replenished as arms and ammo are gifted to Ukrainian fighters. Nor is Ukraine completely free of neo-Nazi influences, which is to say that the situation is muddier and more complex than the comfortable illusion that’s so often sold by the mainstream media. 

Which brings me to CNN’s report today, that showed up in my morning email: 

President Joe Biden is asking Congress for more than $24 billion in aid for Ukraine and other international needs as he works to sustain support for the war amid signs of softening support among Americans. The request — which includes more than $13 billion in security assistance and $7 billion for economic and humanitarian assistance for Ukraine — sets up a potential battle with Republicans in Congress. Biden has promised support will last “as long as it takes,” but an increasingly skeptical Republican Party has cast doubt on US involvement going forward. This comes after a CNN poll released last week found 55% of Americans believe Congress should not authorize additional funding to support Ukraine. 

As the Russia-Ukraine War drags on with neither side apparently having a quick victory in sight, questions accelerate. How much are Americans prepared to pay to Ukraine? Is an open-ended, “as long as it takes” commitment truly wise? What happens if the war escalates even further? And, perish the thought: What happens if someone uses a nuclear weapon or another form of WMD?

Many Americans today are in dire straits. Credit card debt for Americans recently exceeded $1 trillion and rising. The Biden administration has failed to provide promised and significant student debt relief; a public option for health care; a $15 federal minimum wage; while acting to break a railroad strike and promoting more fossil fuel drilling on fragile federal lands as well as offshore.

Americans are not stupid to wonder about the priorities of the Biden administration and why Ukraine gets a blank check as Americans continue to suffer. Illusions may be comfortable, but they don’t put food on the table or pay health care bills. And the price they come at may be high indeed, which is one reason, I think, a majority of Americans are none too comfortable with this illusion.

Silencing Voices for Peace

W.J. Astore

The U.S. Mainstream Media Is Almost Always Pro-War

In the “liberal” New York Times today, I saw an article on “Putin’s forever war” that has the following short synopsis: “Vladimir Putin wants to lead Russians into a civilizational conflict with the West far larger than Ukraine. Will they follow him?”

Is this true?  Does Putin truly seek a “civilizational conflict” with the West?  One that’s “far larger” than the Ukraine war?  It doesn’t seem likely.  Russian forces have struggled in Ukraine.  Already embroiled in a destructive regional war that’s become somewhat of a quagmire, why would Putin seek to widen it?  Is Putin always the aggressor, the bad guy, and the West always the aggrieved party, the good guys, holding back a “red storm rising”?  I thought the West won the Cold War more than 30 years ago.

It’s remarkable how easy it is to get alarmist articles about Russia or China published in the U.S. mainstream media (MSM).  Wars and rumors of war dominate.  The West is always portrayed as the defender of democracy; other countries such as China and Russia are portrayed as threats to civilization and its “rules-based order.”  Strictly speaking, this is simplistic, one-sided, propaganda.

Back in 2017, I wrote about how difficult it is in the MSM to read honest accounts of war.  In the runup to the Iraq War in 2003, critical voices were actively suppressed and punished.  Back then, I focused my article on MSNBC, which like the New York Times is allegedly “liberal.”  At “liberal” newspapers and networks, shouldn’t America expect at least a few critical critiques of war narratives?  The answer here is “no,” as I wrote here:

Jesse Ventura, former governor of Minnesota (1999-2003), was a hot media commodity as the Bush/Cheney administration was preparing for its invasion of Iraq in 2003. Ventura, a U.S. Navy veteran who gained notoriety as a professional wrestler before he entered politics, was both popular and outspoken. MSNBC won the bidding war for his services in 2003, signing him to a lucrative three-year contract to create his own show – until, that is, the network learned he was against the Iraq war. Ventura’s show quickly went away, even as the network paid him for three years to do nothing.

I heard this revealing story from a new podcast, the TARFU Report, hosted by Matt Taibbi and Alex Pareene. By his own account, Jesse Ventura was bought off by the network, which back then was owned by General Electric, a major defense contractor that was due to make billions of dollars off the war.

Of course, Ventura was hardly the only war critic to run afoul of GE/NBC. Phil Donahue, the famous talk show host, saw his highly rated show cancelled when he gave dissenters and anti-war voices a fair hearing. Ashleigh Banfield, a reporter who covered the Iraq war, gave a speech in late April 2003 that criticized the antiseptic coverage of the war (extracts to follow below). For her perceptiveness and her honesty, she was reassigned and marginalized, demoted and silenced.

So much for freedom of speech, as well as the press.

As Phil Donahue said, his show “wasn’t good for business.” NBC didn’t want to lose ratings by being associated with “unpatriotic” elements when the other networks were waving the flag in support of the Iraq war. In sidelining Ventura and Donahue, NBC acted to squelch any serious dissent from the push for war, and punished Ashleigh Banfield in the immediate aftermath of the war for her honesty in criticizing the coverage shown (and constructed) by the mainstream media, coverage that was facilitated by the U.S. military and rubber-stamped by corporate ownership.

Speaking of Banfield’s critique, here are some excerpts from her speech on Iraq war coverage in April 2003. Note that her critique remains telling for all U.S. media war coverage since then:

That said, what didn’t you see [in U.S. media coverage of the Iraq war]? You didn’t see where those bullets landed. You didn’t see what happened when the mortar landed. A puff of smoke is not what a mortar looks like when it explodes, believe me. There are horrors that were completely left out of this war. So was this journalism or was this coverage? There is a grand difference between journalism and coverage, and getting access does not mean you’re getting the story, it just means you’re getting one more arm or leg of the story. And that’s what we got, and it was a glorious, wonderful picture that had a lot of people watching and a lot of advertisers excited about cable news. But it wasn’t journalism, because I’m not so sure that we in America are hesitant to do this again, to fight another war, because it looked like a glorious and courageous and so successful terrific endeavor, and we got rid of a horrible leader: We got rid of a dictator, we got rid of a monster, but we didn’t see what it took to do that.

With admirable honesty, Banfield spoke of the horrific face of war at Kansas State Univ. in 2003. Soon after her speech, she was demoted (Image courtesy of KSU)

I can’t tell you how bad the civilian casualties were. I saw a couple of pictures. I saw French television pictures, I saw a few things here and there, but to truly understand what war is all about you’ve got to be on both sides…

Some of the soldiers, according to our embeds had never seen a dead body throughout the entire three-week campaign. It was like Game Boy. I think that’s amazing in two different ways. It makes you a far more successful warrior because you can just barrel right along but it takes away a lot of what war is all about, which is what I mentioned earlier. The TV technology took that away too. We couldn’t see where the bullets landed. Nobody could see the horrors of this so that we seriously revisit the concept of warfare the next time we have to deal with it.

I think there were a lot of dissenting voices before this war about the horrors of war, but I’m very concerned about this three-week TV show and how it may have changed people’s opinions. It was very sanitized.

This TV show [Iraq invasion coverage] that we just gave you was extraordinarily entertaining, and I really hope that the legacy that it leaves behind is not one that shows war as glorious, because there’s nothing more dangerous than a democracy that thinks this is a glorious thing to do.

War is ugly and it’s dangerous, and in this world the way we are discussed on the Arab street, it feeds and fuels their hatred and their desire to kill themselves to take out Americans. It’s a dangerous thing to propagate…

I’m hoping that I will have a future in news in cable, but not the way some cable news operators wrap themselves in the American flag and patriotism and go after a certain target demographic, which is very lucrative. You can already see the effects, you can already see the big hires on other networks, right wing hires to chase after this effect, and you can already see that flag waving in the corners of those cable news stations where they have exciting American music to go along with their war coverage.

Nothing has changed since Banfield’s powerful critique. Indeed, the networks have only hired more retired generals and admirals to give “unbiased” coverage of America’s military actions. And reporters and “journalists” like Brian Williams have learned too. Recall how Williams cheered the “beautiful” U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles as they were launched against Syria earlier this year [2017].

It’s not just that U.S. media coverage actively suppresses dissent of America’s wars: it passively does so as well, which is arguably more insidious. Any young journalist with smarts recognizes the way to get ahead is to be a cheerleader for U.S. military action, a stenographer to the powerful. Being a critic leads to getting fired (like Donahue); demoted and exiled (like Banfield); and, in Ventura’s case, if you can’t be fired or demoted or otherwise punished, you can simply be denied air time.

When you consider that billions and billions of dollars are at stake, whether in weapons sales or in advertising revenue tied to ratings, none of this is that surprising. What’s surprising is that so few Americans know about how pro-authority and uncritical U.S. media coverage of war and its makers is. If anything, the narrative is often that the U.S. media is too critical of the military to the detriment of the generals. Talk about false narratives and alternative facts!

America’s greed-wars persist for many reasons, but certainly a big one is the lack of critical voices in the mainstream media. Today’s journalists, thinking about their career prospects and their salaries (and who is ultimately their boss at corporate HQ), learn to censor themselves, assuming they have any radical thoughts to begin with. Some, like Brian Williams, even learn how to stop worrying and love the beautiful bombs.

[After I wrote this in 2017, I added this comment at the site.]

One thing that troubles me is the mindset that criticism of America’s wars undermines the troops. That it could even be a form of betrayal. This mindset is very dangerous. It not only protects the decisions and actions of those at the highest levels of the military and government. It acts to prolong wars and to endanger the lives of the troops (and of their “enemies” as well).

During the Iraq war, I recall instances of U.S. troops speaking clearly and frankly against the war. Their voices were heard, yet their advice was not taken. Instead, generals like David Petraeus were trotted out to assure the American people that the war was being won, even if the gains were characterized by weasel words like “fragile” and “reversible.” And so those gains have proved — even so, Petraeus remains in demand, and is still trotted out, now in mufti, to explain how we must stay the course and continue to defer to the military.

There’s a powerful book to be written here, and it should focus in part on the silencing or marginalization of anti-war voices (even those that wear or wore the uniform), even as pro-war elements are given the main stage as the voices of probity and sanity.

Back on Podcast by George

W.J. Astore

Today, I had a great conversation with George A. Clark on his show, “Podcast by George.” We talked about a lot of themes in my recent articles for this site.

Check it out if you have some time. George and I thank you!

Back on Podcast by George, talking about themes from recent articles:

The Russia-Ukraine War and the Management of Expectations

W.J. Astore

The U.S. Mainstream Media Finally Admits to a Costly Stalemate

It can’t be coincidence. In the past few days, I’ve seen articles at mainstream media outlets like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal that the much-hyped and much-delayed Ukrainian “spring” counteroffensive has stalled, and at high cost to Ukrainian troops. Here’s a quick online headline from the NYT on Monday:

The war is approaching a violent stalemate. Ukraine has made only marginal progress lately and is deploying less experienced soldiers after heavy casualties.

And here’s what the WSJ had to say (intro here from an article by Caitlin Johnstone):

In a new article titled “Ukraine’s Lack of Weaponry and Training Risks Stalemate in Fight With Russia,” the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Michaels reports that western officials knew Ukrainian forces didn’t have the weapons and training necessary to succeed in their highly touted counteroffensive which was launched last month.

Michaels writes:

“When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons — from shells to warplanes — that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day.

“They haven’t. Deep and deadly minefields, extensive fortifications and Russian air power have combined to largely block significant advances by Ukrainian troops. Instead, the campaign risks descending into a stalemate with the potential to burn through lives and equipment without a major shift in momentum.”

So: We have both the NYT and WSJ admitting the war is likely to be stuck in a destructive stasis for the foreseeable future.  This isn’t that surprising.  Russia is deploying “defense in depth” tactics with minefields and other traps.  Ukrainian forces try bravely to advance, they get stuck, and Russia replies with withering artillery fire.

A destroyed Russian tank from March 2023, part of the poisonous detritus of war

There’s much of World War I here.  WWI only ended when Germany collapsed from exhaustion after four terribly long and incredibly costly years of war.

I don’t know if Russia or Ukraine will collapse first.  Certainly, Ukraine would collapse quickly without massive infusions of U.S./NATO aid.

What’s striking to me is how the MSM hyped the “decisive” spring counteroffensive, and how that narrative is now largely forgotten as a new narrative is rolled out, one where the course must be stayed until all those new U.S. weapons turn the tide, like M-1 tanks and F-16 jets.

Only time — and lots more dead — will tell. Supporters of Ukraine allege that progress is being made, that Russia is suffering more dearly, and that U.S./NATO aid must continue at the highest possible level to ensure that the forces of democracy will prevail against those of authoritarianism. These same supporters reject calls for diplomacy as misguided at best and at worst treasonous to Ukraine and appeasement to Putin. As long as Ukraine is apparently willing to fight to the last Ukrainian, the U.S./NATO should help them to do so.

I confess I don’t support this idea, which I hope doesn’t imply I’m a Putin puppet. Sorry, I don’t want to see Ukraine destroyed in a lengthy, murderous, and destructive war fought on their turf. Assuming this war is truly stalemated or otherwise bogged down, what better time for both sides to come together for a truce and some wheeling and dealing? The worst that could happen if talks bore no fruit, i.e. more killing, more war, is already happening and will continue to do so.

And indeed there are much worse things than a costly stalemate here: an expanded war that goes nuclear.

Interestingly, so far the mainstream sources I’ve read may be admitting to a stalemate but they’re not suggesting diplomacy in earnest. When they start doing that, I suppose that’ll mean things have truly gone bad for the embattled people of Ukraine.

Higher Military Spending Will Save Democracy

W.J. Astore

So the “liberal” New York Times says

Four days ago, I got a story in my New York Times email feed on “A Turning Point in Military Spending.” The article celebrated the greater willingness of NATO members as well as countries like Japan to spend more on military weaponry, which, according to the “liberal” NYT, will help to preserve democracy. Interestingly, even as NATO members have started to spend more, the Pentagon is still demanding yet higher budgets, abetted by Congress. I thought if NATO spent more, the USA could finally spend less? 

No matter. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as the hyping of what used to be called the “Yellow Peril,” today read “China,” is ensuring record military spending in the USA as yearly Pentagon budgets approach $900 billion. That figure does not include the roughly $120 billion or more in aid already provided to Ukraine in its war with Russia. And since the Biden administration’s commitment to Ukraine remains open-ended, you can add scores of billion more to that sum if the war persists into the fall and winter.

Here’s an excerpt from the New York Times piece that I found especially humorous in a grim way:

[Admittedly,] The additional money that countries spend on defense is money they cannot spend on roads, child care, cancer research, refugee resettlement, public parks or clean energy, my colleague Patricia points out. One reason Macron has insisted on raising France’s retirement age despite widespread protests, analysts believe, is a need to leave more money for the military.

But the situation [in Europe of spending more on butter than guns] over the past few decades feels unsustainable. Some of the world’s richest countries were able to spend so much on social programs partly because another country — the U.S. — was paying for their defense. Those other countries, sensing a more threatening world, are now once again promising to pull their weight. They still need to demonstrate that they’ll follow through this time.

Yes, Europe could continue to invest in better roads, cleaner energy, and the like, but now it’s time to buckle down and build more weapons. Stop freeloading, Europe! Dammit, “pull your weight”! You’ve had better and cheaper health care than Americans, stellar educational systems, child care benefits galore, all sorts of social programs we Americans can only dream of, but that’s because we’ve been paying for it! Captain America’s shield has been protecting you on the cheap! Time to pay up, you Germans, you French, you Italians, and especially you cheap Spaniards.

Look at all those cheap Spaniards. They have good stuff because of Captain America. Freeloaders! (NYT Chart, 7/12/23)

As the NYT article says: NATO allies need to “follow through this time” on strengthening their militaries. Because strong militaries produce democracy. And European “investments” in arms will ensure more equitable burden sharing in funding stronger cages and higher barriers to deter a rampaging Russian bear.

Again, you Americans out there, that doesn’t mean we can spend less on “defense.” What it means is that the U.S. can “pivot to Asia” and spend more on weaponry to “deter” China. Because as many neocons say, the real threat is Xi, not Putin.

We have met the enemy, and he is us. That’s an old saying you won’t see in the “liberal” NYT.

The “Campaign Cash Dash” of Biden/Harris

W.J. Astore

Seeing the True Face of U.S. Politics

At NBC News is a straightforward story, presented in a gushingly positive way, of the “campaign cash dash” of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. It’s all about Biden and Harris “hitting the trail—and donors’ wallets”—for money. It’s presented as perfectly normal, almost as laudable, an admirable example of democracy at work in America. Biden and Harris need money—what better way to get it than to beg for it from big donors, who of course want nothing in return for their “contributions,” better known as bribes.

I realize I’m stating the obvious here. The U.S. political system is throughly corrupted. What amazes me is how it’s presented in the mainstream media not only as normal but as desirable, even commendable. Here I recall watching a documentary that explained that the first duty of a newly elected member of Congress is fundraising for the next election cycle. Very quickly, you realize the donors are largely running the show, buying access and bribing officials to make or change policy as the donors see fit.

Off they go, begging for money (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds / AFP via Getty Images)

Again, this is hardly a shock; I suppose I just remain somewhat amazed how this is reported in almost gushing terms by outlets like NBC News.

A necessary part of the solution to restoring the republic is getting big money out of politics, which the Supreme Court made even more difficult to achieve with its Citizens United decision. Where corporations are citizens and money is speech, you necessarily have an oligarchy or a plutocracy. And that’s what America is.

Anyhow, here are a few excerpts from the NBC News article:

President Joe Biden is raising money again.

The commander in chief plans to accelerate his campaign cash dash after the White House paused overt political activity during debt-limit negotiations with Congress… Biden will be hitting the hustings — and donors’ wallets — harder over the next couple of weeks … The Biden re-election calendar has 20 fundraisers planned in the last half of June, most of which will be headlined by Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris …

The still-skeletal Biden campaign apparatus has a joint fundraising agreement with the DNC and all of the state parties that are allowed to tap donors for more than the $3,300 contribution limit that governs the president’s principal campaign committee.

On June 26, for example, top donors will be asked to pay $100,000 to sponsor the Harris-headlined DNC LGBTQ gala on Park Avenue in New York — a price that brings with it two “platinum” tables, passes to a VIP reception and an invitation to the photo line. A single seat at the dinner costs $1,500, and there are several giving thresholds between the top and bottom levels that are accompanied by various levels of access.

The ramp up is certain to haul in millions of dollars to support Biden and fellow Democrats, but it may not entirely put to bed the concerns of allies who worry that the debt-limit freeze on political events caused harm and that too much emphasis has been put on filling the DNC’s coffers … [O]ne longtime Democratic donor said he was “surprised” Biden has not put together a finance committee of heavyweight money-bundlers.

This donor pointed out that contributors can give hundreds of thousands of dollars to the DNC and its state affiliates while just $3,300 per donor per election — primary and general — can go to Biden under federal campaign finance limits. That is, big-dollar joint fundraising events benefiting the DNC and Biden’s campaign are orders of magnitude more lucrative for the party than the candidate.

As an aside, I’m not sure why Biden is identified as “the commander in chief.” There’s no military content to this article. “Beggar in chief” is far more accurate here. Also, I just love the way the mainstream media suggests this is like a sport, a “cash dash,” and to the victors go the spoils. Which, I suppose, is true.

It’s nice to know the DNC will profit greatly from those fundraising efforts. Small wonder the DNC still supports the Biden/Harris gravy train. Of course, there’s no suggestion in this NBC article that there’s anything wrong with this process. Indeed, Biden is being criticized for his laxness in not putting together “a finance committee of heavyweight money-bundlers.” C’mon, Joe. Show us the money!

Well, dear reader, it’s time for me to take my $100K to Park Avenue in New York. Look for me in the photo line with Kamala Harris.