Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Monday, February 28, 2022
Ukraine President Follows Globalist Script, Asks for EU Membership - The Last Refuge
Ukraine President Follows Globalist Script, Asks for EU Membership - The Last Refuge: As the beatification of Saint Zelenskyy continues in the west, the Ukrainian president signs a request for EU membership. The propaganda is thick obviously as these things take years; however, when the social media optics of World War Reddit need an angle, well, the selfie star is mandated to comply. The western propaganda campaign continues […]
Israel stays friendly with Russia, by Steve Sailer - The Unz Review
Israel stays friendly with Russia, by Steve Sailer - The Unz Review: From the New York Times news section: War in Ukraine Forces Israel Into a Delicate Balancing Act Israel is a strong ally of the United States Or, perhaps to be precise, vice-versa. , and its leaders have a good relationship with Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s Jewish president. But Israel also doesn’t want to provoke Russia. By Patrick Kingsley, Isabel Kershner and Ronen Bergman Published Feb. 27, 2022 TEL AVIV — On the day Russia invaded Ukraine, Israel’s prime minister, Naftali Bennett, did not mention Russia once. Mr. Bennett said he prayed for peace, called for dialogue and promised support for Ukrainian
George Soros Speaks Out: US Must Do "Whatever Possible" to Back Ukraine
George Soros Speaks Out: US Must Do "Whatever Possible" to Back Ukraine: Globalist George Soros urged Joe Biden, Democrats to do “whatever is in their power” to support Ukraine against Russia in a series of tweets today. This is concerning. Brave Ukrainians are now on the frontline and risking their lives in an onslaught that reminds me of the siege of Budapest in 1944 and the siege…
Putin's War In Ukraine Could Break The OPEC+ Alliance | OilPrice.com
Putin's War In Ukraine Could Break The OPEC+ Alliance | OilPrice.com: Putin's War In Ukraine Could Break The OPEC+ Alliance
The Russian Way of War – Gilbert Doctorow
The Russian Way of War – Gilbert Doctorow: What I am about to say should be self-evident to anyone following closely the move of Russian forces into Ukraine and having a recollection of what the same Russian general command did in Crimea an…
Ukraine Conflict Update 10 | Institute for the Study of War
Ukraine Conflict Update 10 | Institute for the Study of War: The Russian military has likely recognized that its initial expectations that limited Russian attacks would cause the collapse of Ukrainian resistance have failed and is recalibrating accordingly. The Russian military is moving additional combat
Biden’s confusion over sanctions - The Spectator World
Biden’s confusion over sanctions - The Spectator World: He's using tough economic sanctions to crack down on the autocratic Putin but easing up on autocratic Iran. Why?
‘Oceans of Grain’ Review: The Staff of Life - WSJ
‘Oceans of Grain’ Review: The Staff of Life - WSJ: The 19th-century struggle for empire had more to do with the arrival of cheap foreign wheat in Europe than most historians have recognized.
Sanctions – Warren's space
Sanctions – Warren's space
How should sanctions be used to stop Russia’s war on Ukraine and to create a more secure and peaceful future?
Nolte: You Can Thank Environmentalists for the Invasion of Ukraine | CauseACTION Clarion
Nolte: You Can Thank Environmentalists for the Invasion of Ukraine | CauseACTION Clarion: It is the West’s wacko environmentalists who handed Russian President Vladimir Putin the leverage and money to invade Crimea in 2014 and Ukraine this week. Without these wackos, Putin would be just…
Ukraine stands firm, but so does Putin’s inner circle – Harvard Gazette
Ukraine stands firm, but so does Putin’s inner circle – Harvard Gazette: Russia expert assesses the unfolding conflict, including nuclear tensions, step toward negotiations, and influence of oligarchs.
Sunday, February 27, 2022
The Crisis in Ukraine is not about Ukraine. It's about Germany, by Mike Whitney - The Unz Review
The Crisis in Ukraine is not about Ukraine. It's about Germany, by Mike Whitney - The Unz Review: “The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars-- the First, the Second and Cold Wars-- has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united there, they’re the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn’t happen.” George Friedman, STRATFOR CEO at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs The Ukrainian crisis has nothing to do with Ukraine. It's about Germany and, in particular, a pipeline that connects Germany to Russia called Nord Stream 2. Washington sees the pipeline as a threat to its primacy in Europe and has
On Humiliation
From Michael Brenner
ON HUMILIATION
The Mafia is not known for its creative use of language beyond terms like ‘hitman,’ ‘go to the mattresses,” ‘living with the fishes’ and suchlike. There are, though, a few pithy sayings that carry enduring wisdom. One concerns honor and revenge: ‘If you are going to humiliate someone publicly in a really crass manner, make sure that he doesn’t survive to take his inevitable revenge.” Violate it at your peril. That enduring truth has been demonstrated by Russia’s actions in the Ukraine which, to a great extent – are the culmination of the numerous humiliations that the West, under American instigation, has inflicted on Russia’s rulers and the country as a whole over the past 30 years.
They have been treated as a sinner sentenced to accept the role of a penitent who clad in sackcloth, marked with ashes, is expected to appear among the nations with head bowed forever. No right to have its own interests, its own security concerns or even its own opinions. Few in the West questioned the viability of such a prescription for a country of 160 million, territorially the biggest in the world, possessing vast resources of critical value to other industrial nations, technologically sophisticated and custodian of 3,000 + nuclear weapons. No mafia don would have been that obtuse. But our rulers are cut from a different cloth even if their strut and conceit often matches that of the capos in important respects.
This is not to say that Russia’s political class has been bent on revenge for a decade or two – like France after its humiliation by Prussia in 1871, like Germany after its humiliation in 1918-1919, or like ‘Bennie from the Bronx’ beaten up in front of his girlfriend by Al Pacino in Carlito’s Way. Quite the opposite, for almost a decade Boris Yeltsin was content to play Falstaff to any American President who came along just for the sake of being accepted into his company (and allowing himself to be robbed blind in the process – economically and diplomatically). The West nostalgically celebrates the Yeltsin years as the Golden Age of Russian Democracy – an age when life expectancy dropped sharply, when alcoholism rose and mental health declined, when the tanking economy threw millions into poverty, when the oligarchs strutted their stuff, when the Presidential chauffeur was the most influential man in the country, and when everyone was free to shoot his mouth off since nobody else heard him in the din of their own voices. You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs – to coin a phrase.
Vladimir Putin, of course, was made of sterner stuff. He put an end to the buffoonery, successfully took on the Herculean task of reconstituting Russia as a viable state, and presented himself as ruler of an equal sovereign in cultivating relations with his neighbors. In addition, he insisted that the civil rights and culture of Russians stranded in the Near Abroad be respected.
Still, he gave no sign by word or deed that he contemplated using coercive means to restore the integration of Russian and Ukraine that had existed for more than 300 years. True, he opposed Western attempts to sever the ties between the two by incorporating Ukraine into their collective institutions – most notably the NATO declaration of 2008 stating that Ukraine (along with Georgia) were in the alliance’s antechamber being readied for entrance. Putin’s restraint contrasted with the audacity of Washington and its European subordinates who instigated the Maidan coup toppling the democratically elected President and promoting an American puppet in his place. In effect, the United States has been Ukraine’s overseer ever since – a sort of absentee landlord.
Putin’s views about the preferred principles of organization and conduct that should govern inter-state relations have been elaborated in a series of speeches and articles over the years. The picture it draws is far different from the cartoonish distortion created and disseminated in the West. It clearly delineates ways and means to constrain and limit the element of conflict, above all military conflict, the requirement for rules-of-the-road that should serve as the systems software, the necessity of recognizing that the future will be more multipolar – yet more multilateral – than it has been since 1991. At the same time, he stresses that every state has its legitimate national interests and the right to promote them as a sovereign entity so long as it does not endanger world peace and stability. Russia has that right on an equal basis with every other state. It also has the right to order its public life as it deems best suits its cirsumstances.
Western leaders, and political class generally, have not accepted those propositions. Nor have they ever shown a modicum of interest in accepting Moscow’s repeated, open invitation to discuss them. Rather, every attempt by Russia to act in accordance with that logic has been viewed through a glass darkly – interpreted as confirmation of Russia as an outlaw state whose dictatorial leader is bent on restoring a malign Russian influence dedicated to undermining the good works of the Western democracies.
This attitude has progressively lowered the bar on accusation and insult directed at Russia and Putin personally. For Hillary Clinton he was “a new Hitler” as far back as 2016, for Joe Biden he was a ‘killer,’ for Congress members a Satan using a bag of diabolical instruments to corrupt and destroy American democracy. For all of them, a tyrant turning Russia back to the political dark ages after the glowing democratic spring of the Yeltsin years, an assassin – albeit an inept one whose targeted victims somehow survived in unnatural numbers, for the Pentagon a growing menace who moved rapidly up the enemies list – displacing Islamic terrorism by 2017 and vying with China for the top spot ever since.
The obsession with Putin the Evil spread as Washington pushed its allies hard to join in the denunciation. The grossness of their personal attacks on Putin matched the ever-expanding scope of the accusations. In recent years, no election could be held in Europe without the levelling of charges that the Kremlin was ‘interfering’ by some unspecified means or other – and at Putin’s personal direction. The absence of evidence was irrelevant. Russia became the pinata there to be smashed whenever one felt the urge or saw a domestic political advantage.
None of the above discussion is meant to suggest that Russia’s foreign policy, in particular the invasion of Ukraine, can be personalized or reduced to the level of feelings and emotions. Putin himself constantly displays an exceptional emotional and intellectual discipline. Putin is not a ‘Benny from the Bronx.’ He does not act on impulse nor does he allow his judgment to be clouded by considerations of a purely individual nature. Russia had tangible grounds for concerns about the implications of developments in Ukraine and trends in Eastern Europe generally that jeopardized the country’s security interests. The thinking of Putin and his associates about how to deal with them expressed carefully thought out analyses and strategies – as surely did the eventual decision to take military action.
Revenge per se was less significant than what Western treatment of Russia since 1991 augured for the future. In other words, the constant reinforcement of hostile images and intentions, as felt by Moscow, via the steady barrage of attacks and accusations colored the way that Russian leaders assayed the prospects for alleviating the threats they saw in Western actions – including their conduct throughout 2022.
Conclusion
The West had a variety of options for addressing the Russia question after 1991. One was to take advantage of its weakness to the fullest and to treat the country as a second-class nation in the American directed world system. That was the strategy we chose. It inescapably meant humiliation. What we didn’t recognize is that in doing so we were planting the seeds of future hostility. Over the years, every sign of a Russia rising from the ashes fed latent, if inchoate, fears of the bear coming out of hibernation. Instead of recognizing that the post-Yeltsin political elite resented the decade of disparagement and humiliation, and taking steps to compensate for it (e.g. carving out a place for Russia in Europe’s post-Cold War political configuration), anxiety led the West down the exact opposite course. Putin’s Russia was painted in ever more frightening caricatures while shunning became the order of the day.
Demonstrations of Russia’s growing self-confidence, and unwillingness to be pushed around – as in southern Ossetia in 2008 and then more stunningly in Syria in 2015, quickly evoked all the old Cold War images and set the pre-primed alarm bells ringing. Ignorance of Russian realities, coupled with the demonization of Putin whose actual thoughts didn’t interest them, Western leaders and pundits fretted that their master plan for an American overseen global system was being jeopardized. Now from the old enemy – Russia, and the new enemy – China. One set of anxieties reinforces the other.
Back in the 1990s, the humiliation of Russia logically could have been followed by the traditional mafia act of termination. Forestall any form of retaliation by killing off the victim. Of course, it is a lot harder to liquidate a country than an individual and his close associates. It has been done, though. Think of Rome razing Carthage. After victory in the Second Punic War, the Romans were in a position to act on Cato’s admonition: “Carthage must die !” Legend has it that they sowed the fields with salt. That, of course, is nonsense – the Romans were not that dumb. The Carthogenian lands became one of the empire’s two great granaries. They reconstituted the state and put in place a security apparatus that served their practical interests. (Rome didn’t even have to repopulate the place since most of the inhabitants were partially ‘Punicized’ ethnic Berbers who gradually became partially Romanized Berbers. As, today, Maghrebis are Arabized Berbers for the most part). Roman pragmatism, in this respect, can be contrasted with Germany’s readiness to cut itself off from vitally needed Russian natural gas supplies; admittedly, the Romans were not obeying orders from a United States that doesn’t rely on energy resources from Russia.
Genghis Khan and the Golden Horde, too, acted in accordance with their version of the liquidation strategy. It worked. The Abbasid dynasty and all the other states they destroyed never were in a position to wreak revenge. The Mongols and their Turkic auxiliaries avoided retribution and suffering at the vengeful hands of the countries they ravaged.
There are other methods as well for permanently eliminating a foe. Genocide is the moat extreme – as implemented by Belgium in the Congo, the Germans in Namibia and the European occupiers of North America. Dismemberment is another. The tripartite division and annexation of Poland is the outstanding example. The total breakup of Ottoman Turkey as envisaged at Versailles is another.
A few people in Washington did promote the idea of executing a similar strategy against the Soviet Union/Russia. Beyond enlarging NATO so as to render prospects for a Russian revival as a European power nugatory, they envisaged breaking up the country into a number of fragmented parts. The Polish-born Zbigniew Brzezinski is the best known of these Mongol acolytes. Washington’s unrelenting efforts to build an permanent wall between Ukraine and Russia grows out of this soil; so, too, assiduous efforts to provide aid and comfort to anti-Russian elements in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Belarus and Kazakhstan (as recent events in the last three signify).
The Western approach toward post-Soviet Russia which entailed marginalization and attendant humiliation was favored for a number of reasons, as summarized above. We should add that there was an additional, facilitating factor at work. The chosen strategy was much easier to implement – intellectually and diplomatically. Its simplicity appealed to Western leaders sorely lacking in the attributes of astute statesmanship. That disability skews their attitudes and policies to this day.
Michael Brenner
mbren@pitt.edu
--
Responding to the tragedy in Ukraine
Dear MIT Friends,
Though 4,500 miles separate Kyiv and Cambridge, several factors make the shock of the Russian invasion and its terrible consequences feel very close to home.
I write to let you know how MIT is responding to this catastrophe and to offer some personal reflections.
Caring for members of our community
First in our minds are our students, staff and faculty who are from the region or have family there; we have reached out directly to everyone we are aware of from Ukraine. We have in addition been in touch with our students from Russia, who are also a long way from home in a difficult time. (As always, support is available to all students at doingwell.mit.edu).
Our Ukrainian students are speaking out to express their outrage and the pain of being so far from loved ones in danger. You may hear their poignant descriptions in several recent media reports, here and here and here.
Termination of the MIT Skoltech Program
In light of the Russian government’s violent invasion of a peaceful neighbor, we have determined that we must not continue the MIT Skoltech Program.
The program sprang from a particular historical moment. In 2011, the United States was striving to “reset” its Russia relationship. At the same time, Russia was seeking to establish an innovation-based economy, and MIT faculty were eager to create new research alliances in areas of shared interest with top colleagues around the world, including Russia, a nation with a pool of exceptional scientific talent.
At the invitation of the Russian government and in consultation with the US State Department, MIT began working with colleagues in Russia to develop, on the outskirts of Moscow, the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, now known as Skoltech. Today, Skoltech is a vibrant graduate university with highly accomplished faculty and graduate students working at the forefront of scientific research.
Ending our connection to this academic community comes with considerable sadness, but the actions of the Russian government made our choice clear. On Friday, we informed Skoltech that MIT is exercising its right to terminate the program. This does not diminish our pride in the work we did to develop Skoltech and in the first-rate research that has flowed from the relationship.
This decision obviously has direct impacts on principal investigators (PIs) at MIT who have been leading Skoltech program projects, and on their students and postdocs. The Institute is in close communication with the PIs to offer guidance and to make sure that the students involved can complete their research and academic work without interruption, and to support the transition of impacted postdocs to other projects.
Personal echoes
For me, seeing so many Ukrainian families fleeing their homes in advance of hostile forces has inescapable personal echoes. Right before World War II, my parents fled from the western Ukraine-Moldova region as refugees. My father was able to escape first, to Ecuador. My mother followed, bringing my eldest brother, then just a year old. Seeing images of mothers escaping with small children now is particularly piercing.
The circumstances then were different: My parents were running from pervasive antisemitism and the rise of Hitler. In their small town, no one they left behind survived. But their experience is a reminder of the brutal human consequences of state-sponsored aggression and violence.
What is unfolding in Ukraine today presents a profound challenge to the global order. May we all take inspiration from the brave resistance being shown by the Ukrainian people.
In sympathy and solidarity,
L. Rafael Reif
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue | Cambridge, MA 02139
A Look Back -- How Long Did it Take the Nazis to Capture Ukraine?
A Look Back -- How Long Did it Take the Nazis to Capture Ukraine?: We are at the dawn of day four of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and I have heard many media news readers and pundits suggesting things are going badly for the Russians and the operation is bogged down. This led me to ask, “How long did it take the Nazis to capture Ukraine following the launch…
Ukraine Conflict Update 9 | Institute for the Study of War
Ukraine Conflict Update 9 | Institute for the Study of War: Russian forces’ main axes of advance in the last 24 hours focused on Kyiv, northeastern Ukraine, and southern Ukraine. Russian airborne and special forces troops are engaged in urban warfare in northwestern Kyiv, but Russian mechanized forces are not yet
Opinion | Why China Sees Opportunity in Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine - POLITICO
Opinion | Why China Sees Opportunity in Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine - POLITICO: Though the Chinese are treading carefully, the war in Ukraine is a window into the world order both Beijing and Moscow want.
Russian Orthodox patriarch responds to Putin's offensive
Russian Orthodox patriarch responds to Putin's offensive
“The Russian and Ukrainian peoples have a centuries-old common history that goes back to the baptism of Russia,” he then explained, hoping that this history “will help overcome the divisions and contradictions that have led to the current conflict.”
Ukraine–Russia–NATO – Warren's space
Ukraine–Russia–NATO – Warren's space:
In an email February 26, Chas Freeman said: “Regrettably, the place of Ukraine in Europe, which might have been decided through negotiations between Moscow and Washington in consultation with Kyiv, will now be decided through interactions by Russian dictation to Ukrainians without reference to either the United States or NATO. Russia’s coercive diplomacy failed to elicit an offer to address its longstanding, oft-expressed concerns about the possibility that Ukraine might become part of an American sphere of influence on its border under circumstances in which the United States has officially designated Russia as an adversary. So, Moscow made good on its ultimatum, and used force. As it did so, it moved the goalposts. Now Russia appears to seek the subordination of Ukraine to its domination rather than simply its denial to the United States. This is a tragedy that might have been avoided. Now we are left to hope for a resurrection of diplomacy when there is no clear path to it.”
RUSSIA UKRAINE 1 – Russia Observer
RUSSIA UKRAINE 1 – Russia Observer
"What [Putin] is talking about is what the Soviet Union tried to do from 1933 onwards: namely to stop Hitler before he got started. This time Russia is able to do it by itself. In other words, Putin feels that he is making a pre-emptive attack to stop June 1941. This is very serious indeed and indicates that the Russians are going to keep going until they feel that they can safely stop."
Saturday, February 26, 2022
Putin’s spiritual destiny – UnHerd – Breaking News
Putin’s spiritual destiny – UnHerd – Breaking News: Putin's spiritual destiny - UnHerd Read more...
Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer - YouTube
Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer - YouTube: UnCommon Core: The Causes and Consequences of the Ukraine CrisisJohn J. Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor in Political Sci...
Is science dead? -
Is science dead?
I think so. I asked to give a talk about COVID at MIT, but they couldn't find a faculty member to sponsor it. Apparently they don't allow viewpoints that challenge the mainstream narrative.
Steve Kirsch
Feb 26
Comment
Share
Twenty four years ago (in 1998), I donated $2.5M to MIT. They named the auditorium in the EECS building named in my honor: the Kirsch Auditorium, Room 32-123.
Kai von Fintel on Twitter: "The audience for Paul Kiparsky's keynote at #NELS50 is gathering. https://t.co/4Iaa8JXj4P" / Twitter
I’ve never asked to speak in the auditorium until now.
I wanted to give a talk at MIT about what the science is telling us about the COVID vaccines and mask wearing and how science is being censored.
I also wanted an opportunity to defend myself against unfair accusations made in MIT’s Tech Review accusing me of being a “misinformation superspreader.”
Am I a misinformation superspreader? Or is MIT one by publishing their article?
Read my rebuttal and decide for yourself who is telling the truth. There were 652 comments, nearly all of them suggesting I sue MIT for defamation.
They couldn’t find a member of the MIT faculty who was willing to sponsor me to give a talk that would examine the possibility that MIT made a serious mistake that jeopardizes the lives of students, staff, and faculty
MIT requires a faculty sponsor for all talks and they said they couldn’t find one willing to sponsor my talk.
Therefore, students will not have the opportunity to consider that there may be an alternate hypothesis that better fits the evidence on the table.
I had always believed that MIT was above politics, but it is clear I was mistaken in that belief.
Science is about objectively looking at the data and making hypotheses that fit the data
My claim is important and relevant to everyone at MIT. I claim that MIT made a serious mistake in mandating vaccines for students, staff, and faculty.
As Robert Malone has often said, “where there is risk, there must be choice.” The evidence couldn’t be more clear that the COVID vaccines are the most deadly vaccines in human history.
Shouldn’t this be a topic of great interest and relevance?
Or does science dictate that anyone with opposing views must be silenced and not given a platform to speak?
I have a message to the MIT faculty: you are on the wrong side of history.
There is ample evidence on the table now from credible sources that cannot be explained if the vaccines are safe.
This is why nobody will debate us. I even offered $1M to incentivize people to show up at the debate table. No takers. So I raised it to a “name your price” offer. Still no takers.
The MIT faculty doesn’t want to hear any of it. They will not let the MIT students hear any of it either.
The safety and efficacy of the vaccines shall not be questioned. The MIT faculty will not allow it.
That’s not how science is supposed to work.
Is there a single member of the MIT faculty who is the least bit curious that there might be another side of the narrative that is being unfairly suppressed?
Why doesn’t anyone want to know the answer to these questions?
There are many important questions that any critical thinker would have that need to be explored:
Why did all these people suddenly go “rogue” at the same time and adopt the same position on the evidence?
If the vaccines are safe and effective, why do the manufacturers need liability protection?
There are over 10 ways to show that the number of Americans that have been killed by these vaccines (excess deaths that can only be explained by the vaccines) is over 150,000. That is nearly three orders of magnitude more deadly than the smallpox vaccine which is deemed to be too deadly to use. Shouldn’t the vaccines be halted? How can 200 deaths be a stopping condition for smallpox, but 200,000 deaths justifies a mandate?
How does MIT explain over 200,000 excess deaths in the VAERS system? If it wasn’t the vaccine, what caused the spike?
How can there be 4 myocarditis cases at the Monte Vista Christian School after the vaccines rolled out? There are fewer than 400 vaccinated teenage boys at that school so that’s a rate of 1 in 100 which is more than 50 times higher than what the CDC claims.
Why won’t the CDC compute the underreporting factor in VAERS? Did MIT do this before mandating the vaccine? What URF did MIT calculate and why was this never disclosed?
What’s in the vials? Why isn’t anyone allowed to analyze what’s in them? Is the gene sequencing the same in all the vials?
There is new evidence that the mRNA in the vaccines gets reverse transcribed and integrates into your DNA. That was never supposed to happen. Shouldn’t be concerned?
How does MIT explain a 12 sigma deviation in the death rate of those under 65 reported by a large insurance company? Other insurance companies have reported similar results. It can’t be random. It wasn’t COVID. What caused all those deaths?
What causes mysterious blood clots seen in over 40% of cases seen by embalmers? These clots were never seen before the vaccines rolled out and you cannot live with these clots for very long. If the vaccines didn’t cause these clots, what did?
This letter got published in the Lancet that shows that the vaccines aren’t working. If the vaccines work, how do we explain this?
Has anyone seen the risk-benefit analysis done by MIT for why students must be vaccinated?
How do you explain this?
And many more…
Apparently, none of the MIT faculty want to know the answer to any of these questions. It doesn’t even merit a serious discussion.
We are left with an unfortunate, but inevitable conclusion.
Institutional science is dead.
Friday, February 25, 2022
Ukraine ready to discuss neutrality, Zelensky says — RT Russia & Former Soviet Union
Ukraine ready to discuss neutrality, Zelensky says — RT Russia & Former Soviet Union: Ukraine would talk with Russia about neutrality and ending the “invasion” but needs security guarantees, President Volodymyr Zelensky said
Xi-Putin phone call on Ukraine (February 25)
Xi-Putin phone call on Ukraine (February 25)
By Neican – 25 Feb 2022 – View online →
Chinese Source (Xinhua): http://www.news.cn/2022-02/25/c_1128417363.htm
Russian source (TASS): https://tass.ru/politika/13859443
Introduction by Adam Ni, translations by Adam Ni (Chinese) and Anastasiia Rudkovska (Russian)
Introduction
An hour ago (evening February 25, Beijing time), Xinhua reported that Xi and Putin discussed Ukraine over the phone that afternoon. The key takeaway: Putin told Xi that Russia is now ready to negotiate with Ukraine, and Xi expressed his support.
Given the fast-moving pace of events in Ukraine and that many of you are monitoring Beijing's reactions/position, I thought we'd translate both the official Chinese readout and the Russian report of the call for you.
For context, here is our take on Beijing's initial response to the outbreak of conflict in Ukraine. And I'd encourage you to read Evan Feigenbaum's insights on China's irreconcilable choice on Ukraine.
Translation #1: Xinhua readout
Xi Jinping spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin by phone
Xinhua (Beijing), February 25 — President Xi Jinping spoke by phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the afternoon of February 25.
Xi reiterated his thanks to Putin for coming to China to attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Winter Olympics and congratulated the Russian athletes on their second place in the medal table. Putin extended his warm congratulations to all Chinese people on the success of the Beijing Winter Olympics and the outstanding performance of the Chinese [Olympic] delegation.
The two focused on exchanging views on the current situation in Ukraine.
Putin briefed [Xi] on the history of the Ukrainian issue and Russia's special military operations in, and its stance on, the eastern part of Ukraine. He stated that the United States and NATO are challenging Russia's strategic bottom line: they have long-ignored Russia's legitimate security concerns, repeatedly reneged on their commitments and kept pushing military deployments to the east. [President Putin said that] The Russian side is ready to engage in high-level negotiations with the Ukrainian side.
Xi Jinping pointed out that the recent dramatic changes in the situation in eastern Ukraine have aroused great concern in the international community. China's position is determined by the merits of the Ukrainian issue itself. [All countries] should abandon the Cold War mentality, attach importance to and respect the reasonable security concerns of all countries, and form a balanced, effective and sustainable European security regime through negotiations. China supports the Russian side resolving its differences with the Ukrainian side through negotiations. China's basic position on respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries and abiding by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter has been consistent. China is willing to work with all parties in the international community to advocate a common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable concept of security and firmly uphold the international system with the United Nations at its core and an international order based on international law.
Translation #2: TASS report
BEIJING, February 25 via TASS, Chinese President Xi Jinping had a telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin. China Central Television reported this on Friday.
Chinese President Xi Jinping had a telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin on February 25 in the afternoon.
China called for a "move away from the Cold War mentality" concerning the Ukrainian issue and the formation of a stable and effective mechanism for ensuring European security. "It is necessary to abandon the Cold War mentality, take into account and respect the legitimate concerns of countries in the field of security, through negotiations to form a balanced, effective and sustainable mechanism [for ensuring] European security," China Central Television quotes [President Xi] as saying.
The Chinese government favours settling differences between Russia and Ukraine through negotiations. "The Chinese side supports a settlement between Russia and Ukraine through negotiations," Xi Jinping said.
Xi Jinping and Putin exchanged views on the situation in Ukraine.
Putin briefed Xi Jinping on the history of the Ukrainian issue and the special military operation in Eastern Ukraine.
World War II Russia vs. Nazi Germany: The Bloodiest War on Earth? | The National Interest
World War II Russia vs. Nazi Germany: The Bloodiest War on Earth? | The National Interest: The raw statistics of the war are nothing short of stunning.
How the US Instigated the Ukraine Crisis - Antiwar.com Original
How the US Instigated the Ukraine Crisis - Antiwar.com Original: Introduction Russia has sent troops into Ukraine and attacked Ukrainian military forces. In a one hour address, President Putin said the goal was the - Rick Sterling for Antiwar.com Original
What Accounts for Putin's Assertiveness on Ukraine? - Antiwar.com Original
What Accounts for Putin's Assertiveness on Ukraine? - Antiwar.com Original: Russian President Vladimir Putin’s well choreographed decision yesterday to recognize the independence of the pro-Russian Ukrainian provinces of Donetsk - Ray McGovern for Antiwar.com Original
Kash’s Corner: How Clinton-Connected Tech Exec Spied on White House to Mine Trump Info
Kash’s Corner: How Clinton-Connected Tech Exec Spied on White House to Mine Trump Info: Special counsel John Durham’s recent filing has revealed that a tech executive working with former Clinton campaign lawyer ...
Follow the Data, They Said, and Then Hid It
Follow the Data, They Said, and Then Hid It: Commentary Never before has the public had access to so much data on a virus and its effects. ...
COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations Jump Among Vaccinated: CDC Data
COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations Jump Among Vaccinated: CDC Data: COVID-19 case and hospitalization rates increased among people who got a COVID-19 vaccine following the emergence of the ...
Thursday, February 24, 2022
"Bankruptcy For Moderna, Definitely Pfizer" | naked capitalism
"Bankruptcy For Moderna, Definitely Pfizer" | naked capitalism: Pfizer and Moderna stocks have tanked over liabilty worries. The case made by vocal critic Edward Dowd.
'Malignant normality': Professor of religion explains how the US weaponized Christianity to sacralize war - Alternet.org
'Malignant normality': Professor of religion explains how the US weaponized Christianity to sacralize war - Alternet.org: Lately, random verses from the Bible have been popping into my mind unbidden, like St. Paul’s famous line from Galatians, “A person reaps what they sow.” The words sprang into my consciousness when I learned of the death of the 95-year-old Vietnamese Buddhist monk and peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh,...
US Stokes Tensions With Russia by Building Military Base 100 Miles From Border
US Stokes Tensions With Russia by Building Military Base 100 Miles From Border: When the base is operational, Russia will be surrounded by NATO missiles in Poland, Romania and the Baltics.
The Embrace of Vladimir Putin By Some On The Right Is Reminiscent Of The Embrace Of Stalin By Some On The Left In The 1930s And 1940s - micheletkearney@gmail.com - Gmail
THE EMBRACE OF PUTIN BY SOME ON THE RIGHT IS REMINISCENT
OF THE EMBRACE OF STALIN BY SOME ON THE LEFT IN THE 1930s AND 1940s
By
ALLAN C. BROWNFELD
———————————————————————————————————————————
It is sad to see history repeating itself as some on America’s right-wing are now embracing Russian leader Vladimir Putin as he launches an attack upon Ukraine in the same way many on the left-wing embraced Josef Stalin in the 1930s and 1940s.
Putin, a long time KGB agent, is running a country which does not have free elections or a free press. Opposition leaders are in prison. There have been deadly assaults by Putin’s government on Russians who support democracy while abroad, as in the United Kingdom. Why any American would find such a regime congenial is difficult to understand.
Yet, as Putin moves into neighboring Ukraine, in clear violation of international law, former President Donald Trump has called his invasion plan “genius” and has hailed Putin’s “savvy” in sending “the strongest peacekeeping force in the world” to invade Ukraine. What is in Mr. Trump’s mind in referring to an invading army as “peacekeepers?”
Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he had “great respect” for Vladimir Putin. And Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson is regularly shown on Russian television praising the Russian leader. Conservative commentator Charlie Sykes laments those on the right who embrace Putin. He notes that, “By now, the cast of Putin’s useful idiots is familiar, ranging from Tucker Carlson and Josh Hawley to Candace Owens and Maria Bartiromo.”
Alexander Vindman, retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. who served as director for European Affairs at the National Security Council, accused some on the right-wing of fanning the flames and encouraging Putin to invade Ukraine. He declared that, “These people will have blood on their hands. They are fanning flames and encouraging Putin to attack Ukraine.” He shared a video of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) falsely claiming that Hillary Clinton received the majority of her financial donations from Ukraine during her 2016 presidential race.
This strange embrace of an aggressive autocrat is, unfortunately, all too familiar. I worked in the U.S. Senate during the Cold War and was involved with organizing hearings about, among other things, religious persecution in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The number of people who embraced Josef Stalin is shocking to recall. These were men and women who were intellectuals, clergymen, playwrights and politicians. Consider a few examples.
Lillian Hellman, the respected playwright, visited Russia in October 1937, when Stalin’s purge trials were at their height. On her return, she said she knew nothing about them. In 1938 she was among the signatories of an ad in the Communist publication New Masses, which approved the trials. She supported the 1939 Soviet invasion of Finland.
A leading novelist who did his best to promote tyranny was Ernest Hemingway. Discussing Hemingway’s role in promoting the Soviet view of the Spanish Civil War, Paul Johnson in his book “Intellectuals,” writes that, “Hemingway accepted the Communist party line on the war in all its crudity. He paid four visits to the front, but even before he left New York he had decided what the civil war was all about and was already signed up for the propaganda film ‘Spain in Flames’…Hemingway said that the Spanish Communists were ‘the best people in the war.’”
The Quaker leader H.T. Hodgkin provided this assessment: “As we look at Russia’s great experiment in brotherhood, it may seem to us some dim perception of Jesus’ way, all unbeknown, is inspiring it.”
Such naïveté reached our highest political leaders. In 1944, Vice President Henry Wallace and Owen Lattimore, professor at Johns Hopkins University, visited Magadan in the Kolyma region of the Soviet Far East, one of the most notorious places of detention and forced labor. Throughout their visit they remained unaware of having been in the midst of a complex of labor camps.
Wallace wrote: “At Magadan, I met Ivan Feodorivich Nikishev, a Russian director of Dalstroi (the Far Northern Construction Trust), which is a combination of Tennessee Valley Authority and Hudson’s Bay Co. On display in his office were samples of ore-bearing rocks in the region.”
Henry Wallace wrote that, “Today Magadan has 40,000 inhabitants and are all well housed…We were taken to an extraordinary exhibit of paintings in embroidery…made by a group of local women who gathered regularly during the severe winter to study needlework.”
Henry Wallace never understood that what he had been visiting was a massive Soviet slave labor camp. Or consider journalist I.F. stone who hailed the new Soviet constitution of 1936. He wrote: “There is only one party , but the introduction of the secret ballot offers the workers and peasants a weapon against bureaucratic and inefficient officials and their policies.” W.E.B. Du Bois, the black intellectual, thought that, “He (Stalin) asked for neither adulation nor vengeance. He was reasonable and conciliatory.”
We could fill,pages with such examples of indifference to tyranny. In the past, this indifference was largely found on the left. Today, it is elements of the right-wing who are sounding like the left-wing apologists for tyranny in the past. Genuine conservatives must disassociate themselves from this vocal minority within their ranks. If aggression is permitted to succeed in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin will only be encouraged to pursue his goal of recreating as much of the old Soviet Union as he can. Ronald Reagan presided over the end of the Cold War. One wonders what he would think of those Republicans who now embrace Vladimir Putin.
--
PATRICK LAWRENCE: ‘Primacy or World Order’ – Consortium News
PATRICK LAWRENCE: ‘Primacy or World Order’ – Consortium News: American Empire, Analysis, Column, Foreign Policy, History, Russia, Ukraine, Vietnam
PATRICK LAWRENCE: ‘Primacy or World Order’
February 21, 2022
Stanley Hoffmann doesn’t mention “multipolarity” in his book—maybe the term wasn’t yet in use—but it is precisely the world he was telling Americans about back in 1978 and that is today coming to pass.
Stanley Hoffmann. (Harvard Gazette)
By Patrick Lawrence
Special to Consortium News
In the second half of the 1970s, the task for those not busy flinching from the U.S. defeat in Vietnam was to understand why America failed in Indochina and the implications of this failure—how, notably, America should conduct itself among what then came to 170 sovereign nations. We got it wrong, the honest among us said. Now what do we do?
I have always counted those years an exceptional passage in the American story. Self-examination of that kind does not come often to our republic. The only other such interim I can recall, a much briefer break from our incessantly shrill triumphalism, followed the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington. Then, too, a few of us asked similar questions. Why? What had we done? What do we need to do diffe
Statement from The American Committee for US-Russia Accord: Diplomacy Is The Only Answer To The Ukraine Crisis ACURA StatementFebruary 23, 2022
https://usrussiaaccord.org/statement-from-the-american-committee-for-us-russia-accord-diplomacy-is-the-only-answer-to-the-ukraine-crisis/
Statement from The American Committee for US-Russia Accord: Diplomacy Is The Only Answer To The Ukraine Crisis
ACURA StatementFebruary 23, 2022
The American Committee for US-Russia Accord believes that diplomacy is key to solving disputes and conflicts, and we have supported and called on all parties to the current crisis in Ukraine to seek a resolution of differences through diplomatic means, respecting international law and international borders.
As advocates of a diplomatic resolution we are gravely concerned that Russia has chosen to abandon the path of dialogue, diplomacy and negotiation by deciding, on February 21st, to unilaterally recognize Donetsk and Luhansk as independent Republics and order peacekeeping troops to these areas of Ukraine. We are also dismayed by US secretary of state Antony Blinken’s decision to cancel a planned meeting with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov this week.
It is not lost on us that the precedent for President Putin’s decision to recognize the breakaway republics was set by the United States. Almost exactly fourteen years ago, on February 18, 2008 the US unilaterally recognized Kosovo’s independence in the face of Russian objections. Nevertheless, Mr. Putin’s actions are a violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, which we do not condone. This action by Russia, coming on the heels of the US and NATO’s rejection of Russia’s security proposals, opens a dangerous new juncture bringing with it an escalation of tensions that will benefit no one.
We appeal to Russia to confine its military presence to the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics and to Ukraine to avoid military action against the breakaway enclaves. A cease-fire in the area is essential if there is any chance of finding a peaceful solution.
Yet, if Moscow’s actions in recent days and weeks, are, as we believe, deeply concerning, so too is the increasingly hardline being taken by Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky who promised voters, when he ran for and won the presidency in 2019, that he would pursue a path to peace and end the war in the Donbas. Unfortunately, his speech to the Munich Security Conference last week amounted, in our view, to something close to a declaration of war.
The Ukrainian government then has to shoulder its share of the blame for the current crisis, particularly for its refusal to implement the essential provisions of the Minsk Protocols (2015), including respect for Russian language rights in Ukraine.
Sadly, we must also recognize that Mr. Zelensky’s profoundly unwise address was no doubt influenced by the same liberal and neoconservative war hawks in America’s political class and media who so loudly applauded it. The resemblance between today and February 2014, when the US aided and abetted Ukraine in its most self-destructive impulses, is hard to miss.
Also shameful is the complicity of our own national security establishment, including the veritable parade of former generals and intelligence officials who now seemingly shape the amnesiac and militaristic coverage of our most influential media outlets.
And so, as Russia and Ukraine inch closer and closer to the abyss of war, what is needed is not a rush to cede to the hawks in both parties who are braying for conflict, but for intense negotiations —at the UN, at the OSCE, and among the signatories to the Minsk Protocols. It is time to recognize that there remain options that, if pursued in good faith, could bring the current crisis to a peaceful conclusion.
To that end, we recommend a moratorium on NATO membership and a return to the Conventional Forces in Europe and Intercontinental Ballistic Missile treaties. We believe the crisis can and should ultimately be resolved by a declaration of Ukrainian neutrality and the withdrawal of Russian forces from the Donbas. To that end, we applaud the restraint shown by both France and Germany, and are particularly supportive of President Emmanuel Macron’s efforts towards ending the crisis.
To our own President, Mr. Biden, we say: American interests in Ukraine will never outweigh those of Russia’s; the US and NATO cannot and will not win a war on the ground against Russia in its own backyard; sanctions will not somehow, some way prevail this time and may indeed damage the American economy. This crisis is fundamentally, at its core, about the grave mistake of NATO expansion.
In the end, we must recognize that diplomacy is the only answer to the crisis. We urge President Biden and his administration to encourage and, if need be, help facilitate, the hard but necessary work of diplomacy that is being undertaken by our allies in Paris and Berlin.
For the American Committee for US-Russia Accord,
Signed,
Katrina vanden Heuvel, President of ACURA; Editorial Director and Publisher of The Nation magazine
James W. Carden, Senior Consultant to ACURA; former Advisor to the Special Representative for Intergovernmental Affairs, U.S. State Department
Christopher C. Dyson, Executive Vice President, The Dyson-Kissner-Moran Corporation
Bernadine Joselyn, founding Director of Public Policy and Engagement, Blandin Foundation; former Foreign Service Officer, U.S. State Department
Cynthia Lazaroff, award-winning documentary filmmaker and founder of NuclearWakeUpCall.Earth
Anatol Lieven, PhD, Senior Research Fellow on Russia and Europe, The Quincy Institute
Jack F. Matlock, PhD, U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union 1987-1991; U.S. Ambassador to Czechoslovakia from 1981-1983
Krishen Mehta, former Partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers; Senior Global Justice Fellow, Yale University
Nicolai Petro, PhD, professor of political science, University of Rhode Island; former special assistant for policy in the Office of Soviet Union Affairs, U.S. State Department
David C. Speedie, former Senior Fellow and Director of the Program on U.S. Global Engagement at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs in New York
--
Wednesday, February 23, 2022
Paul Farmer was my friend. He should be made a saint—and a doctor of the church. | America Magazine
Paul Farmer was my friend. He should be made a saint—and a doctor of the church. | America Magazine: Dr. Paul Farmer was world-renowned for his medical achievements, but he also had a profound impact on friends and colleagues who saw him as a person of great holiness.
Perhaps The US Should Shut The Fuck Up About Respecting Other Countries' Sovereignty
Perhaps The US Should Shut The Fuck Up About Respecting Other Countries' Sovereignty: Listen to a reading of this article: ❖ So Putin has finally made a move, issuing a decree formally recognizing the sovereignty of the separatist-held Donbas territories in eastern Ukraine known as the DPR and LPR. Russian troops are being deployed to the region in what Putin describes as a "peacekeeping" mission amid a dramatic spike in ceasefire violations.
IN CASE YOU WONDER WHERE CHINA STANDS: Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman on Ukraine, Taiwan, and Sanctions
Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying’s Regular Press Conference on February 23, 2022
2022-02-23 21:12
CCTV: On Ukraine, what role has China played in seeking a resolution to the Ukraine issue?
Hua Chunying: On regional hotspot issues, China is always committed to promoting peace and negotiation and playing a constructive role in seeking a peaceful resolution of these issues.
On the Ukraine issue, lately the US has been sending weapons to Ukraine, heightening tensions, creating panic and even hyping up the possibility of warfare. In stark contrast, China has all along called on all parties to respect and attach importance to each other’s legitimate security concerns, strive to resolve issues through negotiation and consultation, and jointly safeguard regional peace and stability. As you may have noted, President Xi Jinping stressed in a telephone conversation with French President Emmanuel Macron on February 16 that relevant parties should stick to the general direction of political settlement, make full use of multilateral platforms including the Normandy format, and seek a comprehensive settlement of the Ukraine issue through dialogue and consultation. State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi also stressed while attending a special event on China during the 58th Munich Security Conference that all sides should earnestly assume their responsibility and work for peace instead of increasing tensions, stoking panic, or hyping up war.
A key question here is what role the US, the culprit of current tensions surrounding Ukraine, has played. If someone keeps pouring oil on the flame while accusing others of not doing their best to put out the fire, such kind of behavior is clearly irresponsible and immoral.
Phoenix TV: Spokesperson of the Taiwan region’s leader and the head of Taiwan’s foreign affairs department compared the Ukraine issue to the Taiwan question, and expressed the hope that the international community will continue to provide Taiwan with weapons so that China’s mainland dare not “invade” Taiwan by force. Some people also said that we should not make Ukraine’s today Taiwan’s tomorrow. Do you have any comment?
Hua Chunying: It is unwise of certain people of the Taiwan authorities to latch on to and exploit the Ukraine issue to their benefit.
Taiwan for sure is not Ukraine. Taiwan has always been an inalienable part of China’s territory. This is an indisputable historical and legal fact. The one-China principle is a universally recognized norm governing international relations. The Taiwan region’s peace hinges on the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations, rather than brown-nosing foreign forces for arms sales and military support. “Taiwan independence” only leads to a dead end. No one shall have any illusion or make any miscalculation on this issue.
Since the Ukraine crisis broke out, Taiwan has been frequently mentioned by some people. Some of their remarks fully reveal their lack of knowledge of the history of the Taiwan question. I’d like to take this occasion to share some basic facts with you.
It is common knowledge that the Taiwan question was caused by a civil war, and there is political confrontation between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait due to that civil war. However, China’s sovereignty and territory have never been divided and cannot be divided. This is the status quo of the Taiwan question.
I also want to remind you that this year marks the 50th anniversary of President Nixon’s visit to China. During that visit in February 1972, the two sides issued the China-US Joint Communiqué in Shanghai, marking the normalization of China-US relations. There are very important lines on the Taiwan question in the Shanghai Communiqué. The U.S. side stated: There are essential differences between China and the United States in their social systems and foreign policies. However, the two sides agreed that countries, regardless of their social systems, should conduct their relations on the principles of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, nonaggression against other states, noninterference in the internal affairs of other states, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. The U.S. side also declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan. In the meantime, it will progressively reduce its forces and military installations on Taiwan.
In the August 17 Communiqué issued by the Chinese and US government in 1982, the US government stated that it attaches great importance to its relations with China, and reiterates that it has no intention of infringing on Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity, or interfering in China’s internal affairs, or pursuing a policy of “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan.” The United States Government states that it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan, that its arms sales to Taiwan will not exceed, either in qualitative or in quantitative terms, the level of those supplied in recent years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, and that it intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution.
These are some historical facts that I’d like to take this opportunity to share with you about Taiwan and the relationship between the US and Taiwan, so you may have some idea as to whether the US honors its commitment or not. In the context of what’s happening now in the world, I believe this will help you to better understand the Taiwan question. On this issue, we would also like to advise certain people, including some on the Taiwan island, not to have any illusion or make any miscalculation on the Taiwan question.
AFP: Multiple countries and organizations, including the US, the EU and the UK, have announced new sanctions against Russia for its actions toward Ukraine. Are there any circumstances whatsoever in which China would do the same?
Hua Chunying: Apparently you lack basic knowledge of the Chinese government’s policy. Our position is that sanctions are never fundamentally effective means to solve problems. We consistently oppose all illegal unilateral sanctions.
According to data released by the US Treasury, the US’ sanctions use has increased ten times over the past 20 years. The previous US administration imposed as many as 3,800 sanctions, which means wielding the stick of sanctions three times per day on average. Since 2011, the US has imposed more than 100 sanctions on Russia. However, have the US sanctions solved any problem? Is the world a better place because of those sanctions? Will the Ukraine issue resolve itself thanks to the US sanctions on Russia? Will European security be better guaranteed thanks to the US sanctions on Russia? We hope relevant sides will give this some serious thought and strive to resolve issues through dialogue and consultation.
I would also like to point out that the illegal unilateral sanctions by some countries including the US have caused severe difficulties to relevant countries’ economy and livelihood. When handling the Ukraine issue and relations with Russia, the US mustn’t harm the legitimate rights and interests of China and other parties.
China Daily: A few US media outlets believe that China’s remarks and position on Ukraine contradict the principle of respecting state sovereignty and territorial integrity that China always champions. Do you agree?
Hua Chunying: China’s position on the Ukraine issue is consistent and stays unchanged.
China’s remarks are in line with our position that regional hotspot issues should be resolved through dialogue and consultation. China always upholds objectivity and fairness, stands for peace and justice, and decides its position based on the merits of the matter concerned. We believe that all countries should settle international disputes in a peaceful way in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. Those who accuse China of violating the principle of respecting state sovereignty and territorial integrity on the Ukraine issue either harbor ulterior motives or are misguided by misrepresentation.
Reason and causality are important when trying to understand things. There is a complex historical context on the Ukraine issue and the current situation is the result of the interplay of many complicated factors. In order to have an objective understanding of the situation and seek a reasonable and peaceful settlement, it is necessary to learn the whole story on the Ukraine issue and properly address each other’s legitimate security concerns on the basis of equality and mutual respect. Certain countries should ask themselves: When the US drove five waves of NATO expansion eastward all the way to Russia’s doorstep and deployed advanced offensive strategic weapons in breach of its assurances to Russia, did it ever think about the consequences of pushing a big country to the wall?
Under the current circumstances, the door to a peaceful settlement of the Ukraine issue is not completely shut. We hope relevant parties concerned can stay cool-headed and rational, and commit themselves to a peaceful resolution through negotiation in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. China will continue to promote peace talks in its own way. We welcome and encourage all efforts dedicated to advancing diplomatic settlement of the issue.
Beijing Youth Daily: According to reports, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said its Task Force of experts has completed on-site visit to review the safety of Japan’s plan to dispose of nuclear-contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station and will release a report on the mission in about two months’ time. What does China think of the mission? Will it maintain communication with the IAEA over the report to be released?
Hua Chunying: I noted relevant reports. Japan’s unilateral decision to discharge nuclear-contaminated water from Fukushima into the sea has been widely questioned and opposed by the international community, especially stakeholders. The IAEA Task Force has drawn much attention from various sides. It must be pointed out that the Japanese side didn’t agree to review by the Task Force of disposal means other than the ocean discharge option, which means that the IAEA was unable to review the optimal option. This is not the result the international community was expecting. China supports the Task Force in carrying out its work, but that does not mean we endorse Japan’s erroneous decision to release nuclear-contaminated water into the sea.
The disposal of the nuclear-contaminated water is not just a nuclear security issue, but could cause great harm to marine ecology, food safety and human health. China hopes that with the deepening of the Task Force’s work, Japan could be brought around to rectify its mistake and instead dispose of the nuclear contaminated water in an open, transparent, science-based and safe manner through full consultation with relevant international organizations and stakeholders.
China News Service: According to reports, the Nepalese government’s decision to submit the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) agreement with the US in Parliament a few days ago has triggered a huge controversy as mass protests were held in places like Kathmandu. The US State Department said that Nepal’s failure to ratify the compact will impact bilateral relations. Some analysts say that the MCC agreement gives itself higher authority than Nepal’s domestic law, US program staff’s activities in Nepal will not be subjected to local jurisdiction, and the project’s accounting and audit is supervised, managed and conducted by the US side. Experts in Nepal believe that accepting the MCC will be detrimental to Nepal’s security and sovereignty. Do you have any comment?
Hua Chunying: I noticed that a US State Department spokesperson said earlier that Nepal’s failure to ratify the MCC compact will affect bilateral ties. The US Embassy in Nepal described the $500 million MCC grant as “a gift from the American people to Nepalis. I wonder, since when does a gift come with the package of an ultimatum? How can anyone accept such a “gift”? Is it a “gift” or Pandora’s box? I’m afraid it will turn out like a Nepalese saying: It looks good, but you will find the meat difficult to chew.
It is China’s consistent belief that in pursuing international development cooperation, the principle of mutual respect and equality should be upheld, the sovereignty of the country concerned and the will of its people should be fully respected, and there should be no interference in any country’s domestic affairs, no political strings attached, no coercive diplomacy, and certainly no infringement on other countries’ sovereignty and interests for selfish gains. As Nepal’s friendly close neighbor and development partner, China will continue to support the Nepalese people in choosing independently their own development path and offer support and assistance to Nepal’s socioeconomic development to the best of its capability.
Bloomberg: China has temporarily detained a diplomat working for Japan in Beijing this week. This has prompted protests from Japanese officials who said the action was a breach of an international agreement protecting envoys. Does the ministry have a comment on this matter?
Hua Chunying: We found upon verification that the Japanese diplomat engaged in activities inconsistent with the individual’s capacity in China. Relevant Chinese departments conducted investigation and inquiry about this person in accordance with laws and regulations. The Chinese side has lodged solemn representations with the Japanese side, demanding it to respect Chinese laws and strictly discipline its diplomatic personnel in China to prevent similar incidents from occurring again. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations have clear provisions on the boundaries of the conduct of diplomats. Foreign diplomats have the obligation to comply with host country laws and regulations.
Shenzhen TV: US President Joe Biden said in a speech that Russia’s action on Ukraine is the beginning of an invasion. We also noted that President Aleksandar Vučić of Serbia said that the President of Ukraine should first condemn the aggression against Serbia by the US, the UK and other countries. Do you have any comment?
Hua Chunying: The Ukraine issue has a complicated historical background. The current situation is the result of the interplay of multiple factors. I noted that the Russian side has said on many occasions that it does not intend to start a war on Ukraine and stands ready to have dialogue with the US and relevant sides on Ukraine’s accession to NATO.
It is worth mentioning that the principle of indivisibility of security is included in the preamble of the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe, the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation in 1997, the Charter for European Security adopted by the OSCE in Istanbul in 1999 and the preamble of the 2011 New Start Treaty, among others. However, the US clearly has not been abiding by its commitment. The US is not meeting Russia halfway when Russia proposes to have a dialogue with the US over the European security safeguards initiative.
China always believes that there should be common, cooperative and sustainable security for all countries, no country or group should seek to maximize its security interests, and Russia’s legitimate security concerns should be taken seriously and accommodated. I noted some reports saying that President Putin said the best solution is for Ukraine to refuse to join NATO and remain neutral. Relevant sides including Ukraine and the US all said they don’t want war. This shows that there is still hope for peaceful settlement of the Ukraine issue. Whoever tied the knot is responsible for untying it. We hope all sides can exercise restraint and remain cool-headed and clear-eyed, appreciate the importance of implementing the principle of indivisible security, keep the door of dialogue open and commit themselves to easing the situation, resolving differences and jointly safeguarding peace through negotiation.
You mentioned the remarks by President Vučić. I noted that many people believe that there should not be double standards on the issue of respecting other country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Some people in the US attempt to distort China’s position and even sling mud on China. Such moves with ill intentions are unacceptable. Many people are asking the US: Did the US respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia when US-led NATO bombed Belgrade? Did the US respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq when it launched military strikes on Baghdad on unwarranted charges? Did the US respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Afghanistan when US drones wantonly killed innocent people in Kabul and other places? Did the US respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries when it instigated color revolutions and meddled in their internal affairs all around the world? It is hoped that the US take these questions seriously and abandon double standards.
Reuters: China has said that the Minsk agreement is the only way out in resolving the Ukraine situation. But Russian President Putin has said that the Minsk agreement no longer exists. What is China’s comment on this?
Hua Chunying: The current situation in Ukraine is the result of various factors working together and has much to do with the long delay in the effective implementation of the Minsk-2 agreement. Even today, we still hope that relevant sides could exercise restraint, deescalate the situation through dialogue and consultation, and avoid further escalation.
Kyodo News: A follow-up on the statement by Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Can you share the details with us? You mentioned the diplomat engaged in activities inconsistent with the individual’s capacity. What activities are you referring to exactly?
Hua Chunying: You’d better ask the Japanese Embassy in China what activities inconsistent with the capacity of a diplomat the individual concerned engaged in. We hope the Japanese side could properly discipline the behavior of its diplomats in China and prevent similar incidents from recurring in the future.
Fuji TV: The two spokesmen have been hosting the foreign ministry’s regular press conferences for a long while. Is there any special significance to your presence today? Also, I would like to mention that quite some time ago, my colleague reported how you misheard the name of the giant panda Xiang Xiang for Sugiyama. Again nice to see you here today.
Hua Chunying: Any special significance?(laughter) There seems to be none. I simply miss you guys so much.
I’d like to thank Fuji TV for getting me a big fan crowd in Japan. It was actually an embarrassing moment for me because I misheard the name. But, unexpectedly, it turned out to be a very heart-warming episode. Xiang Xiang is an ambassador of friendship between China and Japan. We are very glad that she has brought lots of joy to the Japanese people.
At present, despite some discordant and sometimes unpleasant noises in China-Japan relations, we have seen friendly interactions between the two peoples during the recently-concluded Winter Olympics. For example, figure skater Yuzuru Hanyu, who is very popular in Japan, is also warmly welcomed by the Chinese audience and has a huge fan base here, almost monopolizing trending topics every day. The story of young Chinese snowboarder Su Yiming and his Japanese coach Mr. Sato is also deeply moving and heart-warming. I think the story of their mutual trust, mutual support and joint success is a valuable source of warmth and positive energy in China-Japan relations. We really hope that more stories like these that bring warmth, light, hope and positive energy will be reported by Japanese media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)