#provocative military movements

[sflow-er]

It's Eurovision week, and for the first time in over twenty years, I won't be watching or engaging.

As you probably know, the global BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement has called for a total Eurovision boycott due to the EBU's refusal to ban Israel.

The ESC has been a beloved part of my spring since I was little, and it's really fucking upsetting not getting to enjoy it this year - but that's just it. I know it won't make any difference whether one person chooses to watch or boycott, and that my watching it wouldn't even be registered as a view if I just watched the TV broadcast instead of the stream, but I can't imagine any set of circumstances in which I would enjoy it.

Back when the contest was held in Tel Aviv, I "bought myself a license to enjoy it" by donating to the UNRWA multiple times what I would've normally spent on voting, but no amount of donations would be enough to do that now. Not when every artist will be styled using the products of an Israeli beauty brand (Moroccanoil, a major ESC sponsor and likely a major player in why the EBU wouldn't even consider a ban), and when Israel itself has made its participation a political statement. The only reason their public broadcaster KAN agreed to change the lyrics of their entry, which originally referenced the Hamas attack and is still was called "October Rain" but has now been renamed "Hurricane", was this:

The president [of Israel] emphasised that at this time in particular, when those who hate us seek to push aside and boycott the state of Israel from every stage, Israel must sound its voice with pride and its head high and raise its flag in every world forum, especially this year. (The Guardian, 07 March)

Singer Eden Golan has also said that she believes her "participation is part of a very important mission for the country" and that she expects to begin her compulsory military service soon after the contest:

I still haven't enlisted in the army, and when I return from Eurovision, I'll report for my first call-up. In the first year as a returning resident, they don't call you, but that year passed and I was summoned – and my draft was postponed because of Eurovision. Doing army service is a mission, and I want to take the auditions to the military bands. (Israel Hayom, 22 April)

Yes, really. It's more likely she'll be some kind of PR ambassador for the Israeli army than be sent to Gaza with a gun, but still.

Many people are also upset about Palestinian flags being banned from the arena, and I'm not happy about it either, but I do think it's more or less understandable. The arena is a closed space, and any kind of altercation that might be sparked by those flags would be a big security risk. And at least if we are to believe executive supervisor Martin Österdahl, they haven't actually changed the rules; signs and flags with political messaging were always banned, and in this time, the Palestinian flag does send a powerful political message.

Then there's also the security risk associated with the event itself. Malmö is one of Sweden's most diverse cities, which also has both Jewish and Palestinian communities. According to a survey published on 4 May, 47% of city residents intend to avoid crowds during Eurovision. Mass protests and counter protests are expected. Events such as Quran-burnings by right-wing extremists are still allowed in the name of freedom of expression, even though the terror threat level in Sweden had to be raised to 4 out of the maximum 5 last year/this past winter due to precisely these kinds of provocations, and tensions will be running high. So even if the event itself manages to look as glitzy as always on TV, it will still be shadowed by what might be happening outside. Will there be unrest? Violence? How will the police respond?

There's no enjoyment to be found in any of that, no being "united by music" (the ESC slogan, which is a joke at this point). At least for me.

That being said, I do not judge you if you plan on watching. I understand that it's a huge annual tradition for many of us, and in these times, we need all the joy we can get. I also understand that it can feel like empty virtue signalling to boycott something when millions of others will tune in regardless - although it is good to keep in mind that this isn't some silly boycott started by social media activists on Xitter. It's a serious effort by the BDS movement.

I would challenge you to think about how you engage, though. If possible, watch it on TV instead of on stream, so your view won't be logged. (You could even consider waiting until the show gets posted on Youtube instead of giving views to the official stream, but I get that you probably want to see it live.) Try to abstain from hyping the contest or your fave entries on social media, and also from voting. Consider donating what you can afford to a charity that provides aid to Gaza instead (here's one list I found with a quick search).

And finally, spread awareness of the flip side. Don't be lulled into complacency by the claims of "Eurovision isn't political" when Israel itself has made it very clear it is - and do not make fun of people who want to sit the contest out this year or belittle their efforts.

[sweetiecutie]

OMG! For the event, how about some hcs from when Valeria was in jail? And reader is her cellmate, and just get on her nerves. I go crazy thinking about this. And when Valeria broke out of jail, she take the reader with her aaaaaa.

Pairing: Valeria Garza x fem! Reader

Warnings: jail?, criminal stuff I dunno, lesbians in love and escaping from jail, prison riot but not too intense

A/n: omg YES! Why does this gives off Jojolion vibes?😆

Valeria knows all too well how to behave in a jail. How to handle herself in certain provocative situations, how to gain status around these places. It’s not like she intended to stay in prison for long, but it’s better to be respected among bastards than to be their bottom.

And here were you, her cellmate - a pretty little thing with a personality of a devil, who got in jail for hitting your cheating ex with his car. You weren’t exactly popular or on top of prison’s hierarchy, but you weren’t one of the slaves either.

First week Valeria had to quite literally fight back her urges to strangle you - this is how much you tried to get under her skin. She just clenched her jaw, inhaled deeply and closed her eyes in attempt to calm herself down as you kept on taunting her, with or without any reason.

But at the same time you were never aggressive, indicating that all of your relentless teasing was just your own way of trying to get along with your cellmate. God knows how long you were gonna spend together - it’s better be friends anyways. And without noticing, Valeria made a crucial mistake - started liking you.

You spent numerous nights muddled up in your bunk bed, talking about all the things in the world. You started developing a very intimate connection - not exactly friendship, but something way deeper then that.

At the same time Valeria wasn’t wasting her time, pulling all the right strings inside and outside the prison, getting everything prepared and ready for her escape.

A huge riot was about to happen among prisoners, Valeria’s own people were ready to break into the prison, helping her to get out. Tension was almost palpable in the air, and a dam finally broke as one day a fight occurred between a guard and one of the prisoners - chaos went loose.

Valeria didn’t lose a perfect opportunity, her military skills coming in handy while tackling a few guards to the floor, pocketing their guns and patrons while making her way out of the jail, her cartel soldiers flooding in the building gradually.

You were unlucky to end up in a middle of a huge carnage - people were fighting everywhere, prisoners pubbeling guards and other prisoners, place smelt strongly of sweat and blood, noise so hard, it made your insides shake. You were of a smaller complexion, standing no chance to other, way bigger and stronger women; you were practically dumbstruck, too terrified to move an inch.

Suddenly, someone grabbed you by the shoulder, tugging you forcefully towards them. You squeaked, trying to fight back until two strong hands grabbed both of your wrists, enabling all of your movements. You squeezed your eyes shut, too scared to face the attacker.

“Y/n, for fucks sake!” You heard an angry shout, eyes snapping open to look at the person who grabbed you. It was your cellmate - Valeria, covered in blood and thin sheen of sweat, panting heavily, a few guns attached to her waist.

“We’re leaving, now!” She shouted, letting go of one of your hands, tugging you in direction of the washhouse. Once there, you saw numerous heavily armed people in balaclavas waiting for you two, all windows blown out. Valeria pushed you towards the window, you made quick job of getting out, Garza and her men following closely behind.

About a half a kilometer far in the woods surrounding the prison, a few cars were waiting for you. You didn’t remember much, just how you got shoved into a backseat and Valeria’s shouting as she said something angrily in Spanish, soldiers nodding to her words, replying sometimes as well.

Soon you arrived at the makeshift base, not able to go any further since all police were out in the streets, searching for escaped prisoners. Situation was slightly easier since you were not the only ones who escaped - about half of prisoners used blown out windows of the washhouse to get out, distracting policemen as well.

Once settled in a temporary base, Valeria approached you. “We’re going to Mexico” she informed plainly, plopping down on a couch with a heavy sigh. You nodded your head, at her words; both of you were silent for nearly ten minutes before you decided to break the silence “Why me?” You asked, making Valeria perk up at the sound of your voice.

“Why did you decide to take me with you?” You said, looking at Valeria expectedly. Her expression didn’t change even a littlest bit, as she said plainly - “I like you”. You raised an eyebrow at her reply, obviously not satisfied with her answer. “You seem like one of my people, you know? Don’t give a shit about what others think, do whatever you want but still loyal to your friends. I like these qualities. And I want you close to me. So, what do you say?” She explained, dark eyes looking over to you expectedly.

You stayed silent for a few minutes, trying to take in all the events of this eventful day, before sighing heavily. “Do I have a choice? Your men will come after me if I say no” you joked, slumping against the backrest of an old shabby armchair. Valeria grinned, gazing at your relaxed form with great interest.

She nodded towards the door in the corner. “Shower is over there. Let me know if you suddenly feel lonely” she winked, sly smirk curling her full lips. You got up, heeding towards the bathroom “Oh, I will, don’t worry” you shot back, winking at Valeria as well, making sure to sway your hips seductively on your way there. Hell yes, did Valeria like you.

[milkboydotnet]

Condemn and resist US-led warmongering in Asia-Pacific! Support the Filipino people’s struggle for national liberation and democracy!

Robert Reid | Chairperson FFPS

The Friends of the Filipino People in Struggle (FFPS) condemns Marcos Jr. for surrendering Philippine sovereignty and putting the Filipino people in serious danger. We strongly oppose the continued US military build-up on Philippine soil as part of its war provocations against China, threatening to engulf the entire region into war. 

The ongoing Balikatan US war exercises in the Philippines involves 16,000 troops 11,000 of which are US soldiers, making it the biggest joint military drills to date.

The exercises are part of the US government’s first island chain strategy, which aims to encircle China by creating a fortified chain of US-controlled islands. Part of the exercises will take place on the strategic Batanes islands and Palawan. The Batanes islands being close to Taiwan, allows control over the strategic Bashi Channel. Palawan on the other hand borders the contested West Philippine Sea. From these strategic islands, the US is testing its new Typhon mid-range missile systems that have the capacity to hit China. 

With such military build-up in the first island chain, the US aims to provoke China into striking first, giving the US an excuse to go to war with its imperialist rival. 

US military build-up in the region only brings suffering to the Filipino people. The current Balikatan exercises and the presence of US troops in communities are disrupting the people’s livelihoods, who cannot access their crops, coasts and seas due to increased militarization. In combination with widespread landlessness and a vicious cycle of debt through feudal relations of production, which are aggravated by the current drought El Niño, and the unwillingness of the Marcos Jr. to address the root causes of their hardships, this pushes the majority of the Filipino people into increasingly desperate situations.

Furthermore, communities are traumatised due to the constant bombardment of low flying jets, aerial bombing campaigns and artillery shelling as part of the war drills. All this suffering however would pale in comparison to the catastrophe that would befall the Filipino people in the event of a full-pledged inter-imperialist war. 

One of the biggest obstacles preventing a US-China war in the region is the revolutionary movement in the Philippines. The revolutionary struggle that has roused and mobilized millions of Filipinos in clear opposition to US imperialist oppression and exploitation, and to the despotic ruling landed and comprador bourgeoisie classes, has forced the Philippine puppet government to deploy most of the US-directed AFP forces on ‘internal defence’ instead of ‘external defence’. 

The Filipino people’s resistance to foreign domination is a thorn in the eye of the US and its strategic interests, who have ordered Marcos Jr. to finish off the entire revolutionary movement before the end of the year. However, this is already the umpteenth extension of their deadline to the Government of the Philippines (GRP), as Marcos Jr. and his counterrevolutionary forces have failed to follow through on the previous deadline to end the revolutionary movement, just like all his predecessors including his dictator father Marcos Sr.

Since the US-directed “counterinsurgency” does not try to address the root causes that push the Filipino people to fight for national and social liberation, it can only fail in ending their armed struggle. It has only resulted in a fully-fledged war against the Filipino people. There have been increases in militarizations of rural communities and other violations of International Humanitarian Law, such as increased number of abductions, killings and bombings, to try and squash the revolutionary movement and all dissent through the most vicious means. 

As FFPS we vehemently stand with the Filipino people as they resist the fascist onslaught of the US-directed Marcos Jr. regime and fully support the demand of the Filipino people to dismantle US military bases in the Philippines and end US imperialist aggression and warmongering in the region. We stand with the Philippine revolutionary movement in advancing the national democratic revolution, recognizing that the Filipino people’s revolutionary war for national liberation and democracy is a concrete and essential contribution by the Filipino people to fighting imperialist war in the region.

End US aggression in the Philippines! Stop the bombings in the Philippines!  Militant action against US imperialist war-mongering! We support the Filipino aspiration: National Liberation against US imperialism! Support the advance of the Filipino people’s war for national liberation and democracy!

[theycalledhimastar]

I'm so sorry to the König girlies, but I have this thought and it needs to come out of my head right NOW. I need to say it, so Imma say it:

König is such a loser, sorry not sorry.

(Further elaboration below, König is kinda rude, definitely ooc, prolly nsft, minors DNI. Mostly afab reader)

☄. *.

König is the type to secretly be such a misogynist but his social anxiety keeps him from opening his damn mouth. Like if you're female and you work alongside him, he's just gonna kind of avoid you because wtf are you doing on the frontlines like that? Wouldn't it be better and safer if you just stayed home while some strong man did the hard manual labor? Your husband, perhaps? Oh you don't have one? Probably because you wear baggy military attire all the time.

Like bro isn't trying to set back a movement, he just doesn't get why the hell you're here. You have a free pass to stay home and just cook and clean like he thinks you should. Why wouldn't you take the opportunity, take the easy way out and just be a housewife?

Totally the type to stare anytime you're wearing remotely revealing clothes. I'm talking man would be the reason you can't show your shoulders in the workplace because the sight of you in a tank top gets him going. He cannot go to the gym if you're there simply because the sight of you all sweaty and flushed makes his pants painfully tight and he while he personally wouldn't care if you saw, he would be mortified if anyone else did. So he may or may not have learned your workout schedule so he could come in before you.

He may or may not time his workouts so the end of his and beginning of yours just barely overlap and he can get a glimpse of you in your workout attire. (Goes feral for leggings) Totally doesn't jerk off in the gym showers immediately following, no sir. How could you assume that of him?

If you show the slightest interest in another person, he's jealous beyond belief. Like, he's so much better than that person, his rank is better, his pay is better, he's taller, more muscular, what could you possibly see in them that he doesn't have?

He'll ask you that outright as well, you'll be cornered practically just because he's in his own little world and wouldn't stop to think about how this looks.

Bro is a "nice guy" and he doesn't even know it (Not that he would care, it really wouldn't stop him, he'd just be sneakier about it.)

God forbid this man actually ever catches you in an intentionally provocative state (like in a picture for example). He will lose himself on the spot and prolly make a mess of his pants. Like he has zero self control, he'll probably compliment you on whatever he liked in the picture. Alone, of course, he's not gonna tell you how he wished he could feel you up when you wore that cute little sundress in that picture, or how the sight of your cleavage made him cum in his pants like some sort of depraved teen, not in front of others. He may be a loser and a little awkward, but those words are for your ears only.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

Universities across the world are facing pressure—from students but also from academic staff—to cut ties with Israeli institutions over the war in Gaza. In the US, a dozen universities have struck agreements with activists and partly conceded to their demands, including divestment from Israeli companies. In Europe, dozens of Spanish universities and five Norwegian universities have resolved to sever all ties with Israeli partners deemed “complicit” in the war in Gaza. Several Belgian universities have now suspended all collaborations with Israeli universities because of their collaborations with the IDF. Even without a formal boycott, pressure from anti-Israel protests and the BDS movement has already led to pervasive exclusion of Israeli scientists and students. In the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz, over 60 academics have testified what this amounts to: cancelled invitations to lectures and committees, desk rejections of papers on political grounds, freezing of ongoing collaborations, disrupted guest lectures, and withdrawn co-authorships.Damned in Amsterdam: A Bizarre DeplatformingWe wanted to give a talk on how ideological bias hampers science—and were disinvited because of our politics.QuilletteJerry A. Coyne

What arguments are there for such a boycott? An open letter at Ghent University signed by more than 1500 students and staff, including dozens of professors (mainly from the humanities), denounces the stark “contrast” between the treatment of Israel and that of Russia in the wake of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, when many Western universities cut all ties with Russian universities. According to the signatories, Israel is currently committing a “genocide” in Gaza, and they demand that any cooperation with Israeli universities be suspended “as long as the current war continues.”

However, the “contrast” in reactions to both conflicts is perfectly defensible. Ukraine was brutally invaded by Russia without any prior provocation or military threat, simply because Putin imagines that Ukraine is a “fictional” nation that has no right to exist. If thousands of Ukrainian fighters had committed a gruesome massacre on Russian soil in January 2022, methodically slaughtering 1,200 innocent men, women, and children and taking another 250 hostages, only then would there be any semblance of similarity between both conflicts (as with many open letters from pro-Palestinian protestors, the letter completely ignores the terrorist attack of 7 October). It should also be noted that almost all Russian universities pledged their unequivocal support of the invasion of Ukraine, in a statement released by the Russian Union of Rectors and signed by more than 300 academic institutions.

As for the genocide charge, we believe it is as obscene as it is baseless. The tragic death of civilians as an unwanted side-effect of legitimate military objectives is completely different from the deliberate and methodical killing of civilians. It is perfectly reasonable to criticise Israel’s current military strategies and to question the sufficiency of measures taken to prevent civilian casualties, but it is absurd to pretend that the IDF is pursuing the opposite goal. The only genocidal party in this conflict is Hamas, which in its founding charter fantasises about the killing of the last Jew on earth.

In any event, a call for an “immediate and permanent ceasefire” and a boycott “as long as the war continues,” as the open letter demands, entails that no form of warfare against Hamas is deemed acceptable, which amounts to a de facto denial of Israel’s right to self-defence under the international law of war. No country would tolerate a terrorist group like Hamas at its border, least of all after a pogrom like that of 7 October.

Israel has the right to eliminate Hamas’s military capacity in Gaza, but unfortunately this terrorist entity has been digging hundreds of kilometres of reinforced tunnels for over 17 years (but not a single shelter for its civilian population). Hamas also has a long history of using Palestinian civilians as human shields, and deliberately firing rockets from hospitals, schools, UN buildings, mosques, and in the vicinity of humanitarian zones. All these reprehensible tactics are mainly aimed at getting as many “martyrs” as possible in front of cameras, in order to manipulate Western political opinion and turn it against Israel. Judging by the sentiments prevalent on many college campuses, Hamas’s cynical strategy has been a resounding success.

No one in their right mind would deny that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is horrific, and no one can remain indifferent to the unacceptable suffering of Palestinian children. We would all like to see an end to the violence as soon as possible. Still, to demand that Israel accept a permanent ceasefire without any further conditions (the elimination of Hamas’s military capability and the release of hostages) amounts to an unequivocal choice for Hamas and against Israel.

Urban warfare is always hell, and was no less so in Mosul and Raqqa, when a Western alliance carried out a massive bombing campaign against the Islamic State, with broad support from almost the entire Western world. We now know that thousands of civilians died in Mosul alone, and unlike in Gaza, people had little or no opportunity to evacuate.

How many academics in Europe or the US would adopt the same anti-war attitude if a terrorist group had slaughtered over 1,200 of their compatriots (the equivalent of 13 times the casualties of 9/11 for the US) and proudly live-streamed their atrocities? And not on “occupied” or “colonised” land, but on internationally recognised territory. Many Westerners, accustomed to decades of peace and security, no longer understand what it means to live in a fragile democracy (the only one in the region), which has been under existential threat since its founding and is currently surrounded by multiple terrorist groups committed to wiping it off the map.

[usafphantom2]

NORAD head said Chinese aircraft may start operating near the US this year

Fernando Valduga By Fernando Valduga 13/03/2024 - 09:00 in Military

U.S. Air Force General Gregory M. Guillot, the new head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), warned lawmakers on March 12 that Chinese warplanes could start operating near the U.S. Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) as early as this year.

“Fortunately, we have not yet seen Chinese aircraft operating near our air defense identification zones, but I think this will happen as early as this year,” Guillot told the House Armed Services Committee in his first testimony in Congress since he took office as NORAD and Commander of NORTHCOM in February. "This shows a general concern I have about China's growing capacity, not only with aircraft, but also with ships and even submarines capable of moving further away from China and getting closer to our coasts."

Air Defense Identification Zones are buffer regions that extend beyond territorial borders, covering airspace hundreds of kilometers from the coast that nations use to track approaching aircraft. NORAD tracks aircraft using a network of satellites, ground and air radars and combat aircraft, and all aircraft entering or leaving U.S. airspace from abroad must be identified in advance.

Russian fighters and bombers regularly enter the U.S. ADIZ, without entering U.S. or Canadian airspace. Occasionally, NORAD sends fighters to intercept these aircraft and escort them out of ADIZ. In February, NORAD reported three occurrences of Russian aircraft operating in the Alaskan ADIZ.

Russian aircraft then enter the Alaskan ADIZ.

The entry of Chinese aircraft into the US ADIZ, however, would mark an expansion of the reach of the People's Liberation Army. In recent years, the ELP has entered ADIZ around the island of Taiwan hundreds of times, sometimes sending dozens of planes in a single day, in movements that observers warn that they may be probing Taiwan's defenses or inducing them to a feeling of complacency.

U.S. and China aircraft have been dealing with each other in the Indo-Pacific - the Pentagon revealed in 2023 that Chinese aircraft have made more than 180 risky interceptions of U.S. aircraft in the last two years, surpassing the total incidents of the previous decade, increasing concerns about China's unpredictable and increasingly provocative behavior.

At the same time, Chinese surveillance balloons entered U.S. airspace five times in recent years, with the Pentagon losing several at the time they occurred, before one of them crossed the entire U.S. continental territory in January 2023, eventually being shot down after a few days.

The Chinese balloon shot down in January 2023.

Guillot told lawmakers that NORAD has taken steps to better identify objects such as spy balloons that may have gone unnoticed in the past, filling the "domain knowledge gap" highlighted by his predecessor, General Glen D. VanHerck.

"First of all, my predecessor... advised that the radar sensitivities be adjusted, which would allow better detection of objects of low cross-sectional section of the radar, slow movements and high altitude," said Guillot, adding that the system, however, introduces some confusion due to the receipt of more data.

"Secondly, when our operators see intermittent hits that in the past would generally be attributed to the weather or other phenomena that would cause an inconsistent hit, they now continue to track them with more care and consistency to ensure that it is not a balloon or some other phenomenon," Guillot said.

"And the third is a better recognition of dominance among the other combatant commands. As we get the JADC2... the ability to share data from one combatant command to another, instead of stopping on a black line on a map that divides the regions, we can now share that information electronically in a transparent way to increase our consciousness even further away from our backs.”

JADC2 sensor network.

Still, Guillot said that the surveillance systems of NORAD and NORTHCOM need more investments, calling radar beyond the horizon (OTHR) and the long-range discrimination radar (LRDR) as their "main priorities".

The Missile Defense Agency said in January that an LRDR missile defense system in Alaska is almost complete and will start operating at the end of this year. Both the U.S. and Canadian military have invested in the OTHR, with the U.S. Air Force planning to build four OTHR for NORAD and NORTHCOM. Guillot added that Alaska will have an OTHR. As the process is still at an early stage, he stressed that keeping the program on track is essential.

“This would give us capability against cruise missiles, traditional airstrips, as well as hypersonic weapons,” Guillot said. "Keeping this program on track is NORTHCOM's number one priority, due to the large capacity it would bring."

The Long-Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) at the Clear Space Force Station in Alaska includes a multiface radar designed to provide search, tracking and discrimination capability in support of internal defense. The LRDR complex also includes mission control facilities, power plant and maintenance facilities.

Guillot added that hypersonic weapons pose a greater threat than intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) due to their ability to fly at lower altitudes and maneuverability.

“The hypersonic weapon is probably the most destabilizing weapon we face now,” Guillot said. "They shorten the detection time and the fact that they do not follow a traditional ballistic track means that they are very unpredictable and the area of uncertainty is huge, based on their speed and manoeuvrability. That's what makes them a challenge not only to detect, but also to track and eventually defeat."

Source: Air & Space Forces Magazine

Tags: Military AviationNORADPLAAF - China Air Force

Sharing

tweet

Fernando Valduga

Fernando Valduga

Aviation photographer and pilot since 1992, he has participated in several events and air operations, such as Cruzex, AirVenture, Dayton Airshow and FIDAE. He has works published in specialized aviation magazines in Brazil and abroad. He uses Canon equipment during his photographic work in the world of aviation.

Related news

MILITARY

Denmark prepares for delays in the delivery of F-35 fighters and seeks alternatives

13/03/2024 - 08:15

MILITARY

F-35 program reaches milestone C and full rate production

12/03/2024 - 23:37

HISTORY

Airbus C295 reaches 300 orders: learn interesting facts about this leading global aircraft

12/03/2024 - 22:47

MILITARY

IMAGES: RAF's Voyager refuelier operates with Swedish and North American fighters in Scandinavia

12/03/2024 - 18:07

AERONAUTICAL ACCIDENTS

India Air Force loses its first Tejas jet in an accident

12/03/2024 - 14:00

AERONAUTICAL ACCIDENTS

VIDEO: What we know so far about the accident with Russian Il-76 after engine fire in flight

12/03/2024 - 11:00

[empiredesimparte]

Charlemagne: Glad to hear your honeymoon went well. Napoléon V: Thank you, Sir. It was a real change of scenery. We're delighted to be back in Paris. Charlemagne: Sire.

Napoléon V: I've read the files you left with me. Charlemagne: Do you have any comments to make?

Napoléon V: I notice that there are anti-monarchist movements all over the French territories. Charlemagne: There always will be, Sire. That's what democracy is all about. Napoléon V: Stop your provocations, Prime Minister. I intend to extend the duration of the state of emergency for attacks on French territory: our armed forces must take the time to analyze the situation before my coronation.

Charlemagne: That's a good idea, Your Majesty. The event is imminent and the danger still exists. Napoléon V: In the meantime, I'll keep a few commitments in Europesim and abroad. Charlemagne: Your father fought long and hard to march on French soil again; you should, Sire, follow his example.

Napoléon V: I'll be renewing my ties with the French soon during and after my coronation. I'll discuss all this with my personal chief of staff. Charlemagne: As you wish, Your Majesty.

⚜ Le Cabinet Noir | Paris, 18 Messidor An 230

Beginning ▬ Previous ▬ Next

His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Napoléon V of the French, today received the Prime Minister Charlemagne de Maupas in audience at the Tuileries Palace. The two men agree to extend the state of emergency in Francesim, which gives more executive powers to the government and allows military forces to be deployed in all institutions.

⚜ Traduction française

Charlemagne : Heureux d'apprendre que votre lune de miel se soit bien déroulée. Napoléon V : Merci Monsieur. Ce fut très dépaysant. Nous sommes tout de même ravis de retrouver Paris. Charlemagne : J'en suis enchanté, Sire.

Napoléon V : J'ai pris connaissance des dossiers que vous m'avez laissé. Charlemagne : Avez-vous des commentaires à formuler ?

Napoléon V : Je remarque qu'il existe un peu partout des mouvements anti-monarchistes dans les territoires français. Charlemagne : Il y en aura toujours, Sire. C'est cela, la démocratie. Napoléon V : Arrêtez vos provocations, Premier Ministre. Je compte allonger la durée de l'état d'urgence attentat sur le territoire national : nos forces armées doivent prendre le temps d'analyser la situation avant mon sacre.

Charlemagne : C'est une bonne idée, Votre Majesté. L'événement est imminent et le danger toujours existant. Napoléon V : D'ici là, je tiendrai quelques engagements en Europesim et à l'étranger. Charlemagne : Il ne faudrait pas que cela suppose que vous craignez les Français. Votre père s'est longtemps battu pour marcher à nouveau sur le sol français ; vous devriez, Sire, suivre son exemple.

Napoléon V : Je ne crains rien, je renouerai bientôt avec les Français après mon couronnement. Je discuterai de tout cela avec mon chef d'état major personnel. Charlemagne : Comme vous le souhaitez, Votre Majesté.

[haggishlyhagging]

If the "infertility epidemic" was the first round of fire in the pronatal campaign of the '80s, then the "birth dearth" was the second. At least the leaders of this campaign were more honest: they denounced liberated women for choosing to have fewer of no children. They didn't pretend that they were just neutrally reporting statistics; they proudly admitted that they were seeking to manipulate female behavior. "Most of this small book is a speculation and provocation," Ben Wattenberg freely concedes in his 1987 work, The Birth Dearth. "Will public attitudes change soon, thereby changing fertility behavior?" he asks. "I hope so. It is the root reason for writing this book."

Instead of hounding women into the maternity ward with now-or-never threats, the birth dearth theorists tried appealing to society's baser instincts—xenophobia, militarism, and bigotry, to name a few. If white educated middle-class women don't start reproducing, the birth-dearth men warned, paupers, fools, and foreigners would—and America would soon be out of business. Harvard psychologist Richard Herrnstein predicted that the genius pool would shrink by nearly 60 percent and the population with IQs under seventy would swell by a comparable amount, because the "brighter" women were neglecting their reproductive duties to chase after college degrees and careers—and insisting on using birth control. "Sex comes first, the pains and costs of pregnancy and motherhood later," he harumphed. If present trends continue, he grimly advised, "it could swamp the effects of anything else we may do about our economic standing in the world." The documentation he offered for this trend? Casual comments from some young students at Harvard who seemed "anxious" about having children, grumblings from some friends who wanted more grandchildren, and dialogue from movies like Baby Boom and Three Men and a Baby.

The birth dearth's creator and chief cheerleader was Ben Wattenberg, a syndicated columnist and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, who first introduced the birth dearth threat in 1986 in the conservative journal Public Opinion—and tirelessly promoted it in an endless round of speeches, radio talks, television appearances, and his own newspaper column.

His inflammatory tactics constituted a notable departure from the levelheaded approach he had advocated a decade earlier in his book The Real America, in which he chided population-boom theorists for spreading "souped-up scare rhetoric" and "alarmist fiction." The fertility rate, he said, was actually in slow decline, which he saw then as a "quite salutary" trend, promising more jobs and a higher living standard. The birth dearth, he enthused then, "may well prove to be the single most important agent of a massive expansion and a massive economic upgrading" for the middle class.

Just ten years later, the fifty-three-year-old father of four was sounding all the alarms about this "scary" trend. "Will the world backslide?" he gasped in The Birth Dearth. "Could the Third World culture become dominant?" According to Wattenberg's treatise—subtitled "What Happens When People in Free Countries Don't Have Enough Babies"—the United States would lose its world power status, millions would be put out of work, multiplying minorities would create "ugly turbulence," smaller tax bases would diminish the military's nuclear weapons stockpiles, and a shrinking army would not be able “to deter potential Soviet expansionism.”

When Wattenberg got around to assigning blame, the women's movement served as the prime scapegoat. For generating what he now characterized as a steep drop in the birthrate to "below replacement level," he faulted women's interest in postponing marriage and motherhood, women's desire for advancing their education and careers, women's insistence on the legalization of abortion, and "women's liberation" in general. To solve the problem, he lectures, women should be urged to put their careers off until after they have babies. Nevertheles, he actually maintains, "I believe that The Birth Dearth sets out a substantially pro-feminist view."

Wattenberg's birth dearth slogan was quickly adopted by New Right leaders, conservative social theorists, and presidential candidates, who began alluding in ominous—and racist—tones to "cultural suicide" and "genetic suicide." This threat became the subject of a plank in the political platforms of both Jack Kemp and Pat Robertson, who were also quick to link the fall of the birthrate with the rise in women's rights. Allan Carlson, president of the conservative Rockford Institute, proposed that the best way to cure birth dearth was to get rid of the Equal Pay Act and federal laws banning sex discrimination in employment. At a 1985 American Enterprise Institute conference, Edward Luttwack went even further: he proposed that American policy makers might consider reactivating the pronatal initiatives of Vichy France; that Nazi-collaborationist government's attack on abortion and promotion of total motherhood might have valuable application on today's recalcitrant women. And at a seminar sponsored by Stanford University's Hoover Institution, panelists deplored "the independence of women" for lowering the birthrate and charged that women who refused to have many children lacked "values."

These men were as anxious to stop single black women from procreating as they were for married white women to start. The rate of illegitimate births to black women, especially black teenage girls, was reaching "epidemic" proportions, conservative social scientists intoned repeatedly in speeches and press interviews. The pronatalists' use of the disease metaphor is unintentionally revealing: they considered it an "epidemic" when white women didn't reproduce or when black women did. In the case of black women, their claims were simply wrong. Illegitimate births to both black women and black teenagers were actually declining in the '80s; the only increase in out-of-wedlock births was among white women.

-Susan Faludi, Backlash: the Undeclared War Against American Women

[mariacallous]

On April 25, 1974, a left-leaning military coup overthrew Portugal’s 48-year dictatorship. The uprising, known as the Carnation Revolution, represented the country’s pivot to democracy after decades under António Salazar’s oppressive rule and a boost for women’s rights. In 1976, a new constitution afforded equal rights to men and women. More recently, in 2011, Portugal signed the Istanbul Convention, a treaty addressing violence against women and domestic violence; it was ratified in 2013. But as is often the case with gender, Portugal’s laws and norms do not sync up. “Some things are the same as they were before the 25th of April,” journalist Fernanda Câncio said. “Machismo is one of them.”

As a Portuguese American woman, I’ve rubbed against that machismo for as long as I can remember. During a visit to Lisbon last summer, I was reminded yet again of the country’s confining gender roles as I hosted a visiting American. During lunch one day, an older friend described the ex-girlfriend of a mutual acquaintance, saying, “Ela é muito atrevida.” The American, who didn’t speak Portuguese but had a keen ear for gossip, asked what was said. Here I fumbled: The direct translation is, “She’s very sassy,” but “precocious,” “bold,” and “cheeky” were also trotted out. Though all are technically correct, they missed the point. Finally, I offered “boundary-pushing,” but even then my translation failed.

Part of the problem is that atrevida means something different when applied to a woman than a man. For a man, as with the word’s English counterparts, the gendered atrevido easily serves as a compliment. But any Portuguese speaker would have known the comment at lunch was not kindly meant. The woman we were discussing, my friend had intimated, was a troublemaker who pushed against norms, perhaps even for pleasure. As such, she is best avoided.

I asked Anália Torres, a sociologist at the University of Lisbon and the director of its Interdisciplinary Centre for Gender Studies, to articulate my misgivings. “The word atrevida for a woman is not positive,” she said. “It is different when applied to a man. For a woman, you’re implying that she is too forward, that she has a flirty personality. It means she says things that are a little provocative, in the sense that she is offering herself. It has a sexual implication.” For a man, Torres said, “it is not negative. It can mean he says things that are provocative but he is amusing. It implies he is bold, has a sense of humor, and is open.”

In considering the negative connotations of atrevida, and especially its sexual dimensions, I wondered if concern over the label might help explain why the #MeToo movement has floundered in Portugal. Since the movement took off seven years ago, very few Portuguese women have put their names on sexual harassment allegations that detail abusive acts while naming the perpetrators outright.

Perhaps because of this, few investigations have run in the Portuguese press. While one could assume there aren’t many #MeToo stories to report—as a Portuguese man suggested to me—a host of anonymous complaints have surfaced that suggest otherwise. In fact, Câncio said, she was recently investigating sexual harassment claims against a famous media personality. Despite looking into credible allegations for months, she gave up on the story when none of the five women interviewed were willing to go on the record. “If I didn’t,” she said, “I’d be at risk of defamation.” The reason for their silence? Fear.

Last spring, Câncio helped break Portugal’s most significant #MeToo story yet with an article that named Boaventura de Sousa Santos as the professor accused of sexual harassment by anonymous former students at the prestigious University of Coimbra. Santos admitted to Câncio that he had been accused but said the allegations had no merit. Days later, two other women—one from Brazil and one from Argentina—went on the record and shared their stories in detail. No Portuguese women joined them in speaking out with specifics. (This year, the university released a report on its investigation into allegations within the department where Santos served as director emeritus.)

In my own #MeToo reporting in the United States, I’ve also encountered reluctance from women when it comes time to go public. But the explanations I’ve received pertain mostly to concerns of professional blacklisting or legal jeopardy. While the process is not simple, I never felt that any woman was concerned with being thought of as atrevida in the Portuguese sense. I have spoken to well over 100 women, and societal perceptions were not raised. That is not the case for Câncio. “Of course I think women are worried about how they’re going to be perceived by society,” she said. “They don’t want to be talked about.”

She understands their reluctance. For 36 years, Câncio has reported on gender issues in Portugal, and she believes that women’s silence around #MeToo reflects their standing within the country. “The feminist movement never really took off here,” she said, “especially compared to what’s happened elsewhere in Western Europe or even right next door in Spain.”

One reason for the lag may relate to Salazarism, which, until the 1974 revolution, was enshrined in the nation’s laws. Anne Cova, who, along with António Costa Pinto, co-wrote the chapter “Women and Salazarism” in Political and Historical Encyclopedia of Women, explained that the ideology is based on the motto “Deus, pátria e família” (God, Fatherland, and Family). Women, she and Pinto wrote, had limited freedoms when Salazar was in power, and only a few—such as widows and heads of family—had suffrage. Married women, Cova wrote in an email, were especially powerless and were “prohibited from working in the judiciary, in diplomacy, and in public administration.”

According to the European Institute for Gender Equality’s 2023 Gender Equality Index, Portugal still ranks below the average European Union member state. A separate 2014 survey, conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, found that from the age of 15 onward, 24 percent of women in Portugal experienced physical and/or sexual violence, and 9 percent reported stalking.

In 2017, the same year #MeToo took off in the United States, a different story made headlines in Portugal. That year, a male and female judge in an appeals court in Porto, the country’s second-largest city, upheld a light sentence—15 months of suspended jail time and a fine—for an assailant who violently beat his ex-wife with a nail-spiked club. The Washington Post reported that he coordinated with the woman’s former lover, who kidnapped and held her down during the attack. In their ruling, the judges wrote, “Adultery by a woman is a very serious attack on a man’s honor and dignity,” adding that “society has always strongly condemned adultery by a woman and therefore sees the violence by a betrayed, vexed, and humiliated man with some understanding.” Reuters, which also reported on the case, provided context: “Ultra-orthodox patriarchy—one of the cornerstones of the fascist dictatorship of Antonio Salazar up until the 1974 revolution—still survives in parts of Portugal.”

Fifty years have passed since the Carnation Revolution and seven since #MeToo forced an international reckoning on the pervasiveness of sexual harassment in the workplace. To ensure that the goals of Portugal’s democratic revolution come closer to actualization, perhaps it is time for atrevida to finally serve as a compliment, just as it does for men in Portugal. After all, change requires boldness, and it won’t come for Portuguese women until the descriptor is embraced.

[zvaigzdelasas]

[Atlantic Council is NATO's thinktank]

Another major concern for Egypt is the Rapid Support Forces’ (RSF) strong ties with Ethiopia. Egypt has sought the backing of Sudan in its ongoing dispute with Ethiopia over the downstream country’s share of Nile waters. This, following the construction and filling of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), considered by Egypt to be an “existential threat.” Should Egypt decide to use the military option against Ethiopia at any time in the future, it may have to do so unilaterally, as it would no longer have Sudan on its side.

President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi has ruled out any intervention in Sudan, arguing that the Sudanese crisis was an “internal” matter. He has also pledged that Egypt would not take sides in the conflict and has offered to mediate between Sudan’s rival factions. However, skeptics suggest that Egypt is already deeply involved in Khartoum. They affirm that the Egyptian military backs the Sudanese army with which it forged strong ties following the overthrow of the Islamist-leaning former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in 2019.  

Some analysts argue that the stakes are too high for Cairo to stand idly by and watch as the situation deteriorates.

It is no secret that Cairo has long backed the Sudanese army with the conviction that it is the sole institution that can restore stability in Sudan. Egypt cemented its ties with the Sudanese army by conducting joint military exercises with Sudan after Bashir was deposed by the military in the wake of mass protests in Sudan. Egyptian authorities are looking to Abdel Fattah El-Burhan, Sudan’s de facto military leader, to quash the nascent pro-democracy movement that emerged during Sudan’s 2019 mass uprising and to restore security and stability in Sudan—moves that Cairo perceives as serving its interests. 

The capture of two hundred Egyptian soldiers—the majority of whom were air force personnel—at a military base in the northern Sudanese town of Meroe by the RSF in mid-April, as well as a leaked video showing the soldiers in a state of defeat, were perceived as an act of provocation by Cairo. The humiliating episode also provoked an outcry on social media platforms. 

The RSF believed Egyptian soldiers were siding with the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) but later apologized for releasing the video. Meanwhile, in an apparent attempt to save face, Sisi insisted that the Egyptian troops were in Sudan “for training purposes” and gave the RSF a seventy-two-hour ultimatum to return the soldiers home safely. The troops were indeed sent back to Egypt on April 19, but some analysts believe that the incident has not been forgotten and are guessing Cairo may be waiting for the right moment to retaliate.      

There have been unconfirmed reports that Egypt has provided the SAF with military intelligence and tactical support. Sources have also cited unconfirmed bombings of RSF positions by Egyptian fighter jets and say Egypt is contemplating invading Sudan to fight the powerful paramilitary forces (RSF) led by Mohamed Hamdan Daglo, known as Hemetti. 

 If the reports are accurate, this will this pit Egypt against the United Arab Emirates (UAE)—Egypt’s longtime ally and principal financial backer—which has thrown its weight behind the RSF. It would also pit Egypt against Libyan warlord General Khalifa Haftar,  another RSF supporter, whose forces control much of eastern Libya and who was backed by Egypt and the RSF during his failed onslaught on Tripoli in 2019. All of this puts Egypt in a dilemma. On the one hand, it would like to see stability and security restored in Sudan for fear of violence spilling over into its territory. On the other, Sudan’s northern neighbor does not wish to risk ruffling the feathers of the UAE by overtly taking an opposing side in the conflict. Cash-strapped Egypt has been selling government-owned assets to the wealthy Gulf nation to shore up its troubled economy. Agitating the UAE’ may cause it to halt its investments in Egypt, denying the North African country the cash it badly needs to plug a financing gap of $17 billion over the next four years.

By brokering a truce between rival factions in Sudan, Egypt also stands to win favor with global powers—the United States in particular—which had been pinning their hopes on a  handover of power to a civilian government. A return to civilian rule had been a bone of contention between Burhan and the RSF, with the latter accusing Sudan’s military leaders of clinging to power. 

Helping end the conflict in Sudan would also allow Egypt to align its foreign policy and interests with the United States, reversing a previous trend of having conflicting viewpoints on regional issues. This would pave the way for greater cooperation between the US and its longtime Middle Eastern ally, and would undoubtedly help in defusing tensions over opposing stances on several issues, including Egypt’s backing of Haftar during the civil war in Libya and recently leaked reports of Egypt’s secret plans to supply rockets to Russia.  

Egypt’s strategic relations with Russia have irked the United States the most. It may now be the time for Cairo to show the Biden administration that Egypt’s cooperation with Russia—which has included arms deals and a contract for a civilian nuclear facility—is not an attempt to turn its back on US support, but rather, diversify its sources of support. 

Thus, while there are many complex factors that might dissuade Egypt from intervening overtly in Sudan, the possibility of an invasion cannot be ruled out. The chance to smooth over ties with the US is a juicy incentive, as are the benefits that would arise from bringing stability and security to the surrounding region

1 Jun 23

[theculturedmarxist]

Posted onNovember 6, 2023 by Yves Smith

Although some analysts have given reasons why negotiated solutions to the wars in the Gaza and Ukraine are not in the cards, for the most part, they have also been hesitant to say that in a simple noun-verb sentence. Perhaps they hope against hope that a frame-breaking event will radically shift the current boundary conditions for the various parties. Or they hew to the “messaging can create realities” school of thought, and don’t want to legitimate very bad outcomes, no matter how likely they seem. Or it may be that as a matter of personal style, they are averse to being declarative.

So let’s look at why, despite the new round of Western officials (and in the case of Gaza, what is coming to be called the Global Majority) and the press making noises about talks the Middle East and Russia-Ukraine, there are yawing chasms between what the two sides are willing to do, and no prospect of meaningful movement in their positions even if the key players change. If you parse down the problem to key considerations, it’s not hard to find the underlying rigidities.

With Israel and Palestine, there is a widespread consensus, which includes many non-Zionist Jews, that the only route to a durable peace is the two state solution. But the current hard right government and an ever-more-powerful settler cohort are committed to a policy of securing Israel for Jews only, and on top of that, a “historical” Israel which means more territory. Existing conditions, such as the degree of balkanization of Palestinian living space, also render a two state solution untenable. And the Hamas October 7 attacks have radicalized some of the moderate Jews in Israel. A Palestinian state would have a military. Not hard in the current climate to scaremonger around that prospect.

It is true that Prime Minister Netanyahu has powerful personal incentives to keep the crisis going as long as possible. The prospect of imprisonment wonderfully focuses the mind. Therefore US punditocracy too often depicts Netanyahu were the problem. The implication is f he could be removed, the situation would become more tractable. That’s false.

While Netanyahu has been the lead architect of the anti-Palestinian policies and is an extremely cunning politician, those positions and practices are now very well embedded. As former British ambassador Alastair Crooke explained:

“Israel” has shattered into two equally weighted factions holding to two irreconcilable visions of “Israel’s” future; two mutually opposing readings of history and of what it means to be Jewish. The fissure could not be more complete. Except it is. One faction, which holds a majority in parliament, is broadly Mizrahi — a former underclass in Israeli society; and the other, largely well-to-do liberal Ashkenazi. So, what has this to do with Al-Aqsa Flood? Well, the Right in Netanyahu’s government has two long-standing commitments. One is to rebuild the (Jewish) Temple on ‘Temple Mount’ (Haram al-Shariff). Just to be clear, that would entail demolishing Al-Aqsa [one of the holiest sites for Muslims]. The second overriding commitment is to the founding of “Israel”, on the “Land of Israel”. And again, to be clear, this (in their view) would entail clearing Palestinians from the West Bank. Indeed, the settlers have been cleansing Palestinians from swaths of the West Bank over the past year (notably between Ramallah and Jehrico). On Thursday morning (two days preceding Al-Aqsa Flood), more than 800 settlers stormed the Mosque Compound, under the full protection of Israeli forces. The drumbeat of such provocations is rising. This is nothing new. The First Intifada was triggered by (then) PM Sharon making a provocative visit into the mosque. I was a part of Senator George Mitchell’s Presidential Committee investigating that incident. Even then, it was clear that Sharon intended the visit to fuel the fire of Religious nationalism. At that time, the Temple Mount Movement was a minnow; today it has ministers in Cabinet and in key security positions — and has promised its followers to build the ‘Third Temple’.

The second problem is that the economic marginalization and cordoning of the Palestine population has become so advanced that it looks impossible to unwind it….tacitly, without costs to Israelis that they would not accept. Key sections from an article in Vox from February 2023 by Jonathan Guyer. Note his prescient call of the risk of a third Initifada:

The US policy does not take into account how entrenched the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem has become. Israeli settlement growth in the West Bank has made a viable Palestinian state all but impossible. The US-led talks between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization have been on hiatus since President Barack Obama’s second term, and even at the time, there was little hope that they would amount to much. And Arab states like Morocco, UAE, and Bahrain have abandoned Palestinians, as they normalize relations with the State of Israel and eliminate any incentives for negotiations toward a Palestinian state… But the actions that have foreclosed the possibility of a two-state solution are decades in the making….Israeli actions, like construction of a hulking, concrete separation barrier between Israel and the occupied West Bank, have rendered the proposed borders of the future Palestinian state moot. Further cut off by Israeli settlements, Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank has been reduced to unconnected cantons, with a network of settler-only roads sometimes being the only connection between them. This brutal new geography puts into question a Palestinian state’s economic viability… Meanwhile, the Palestinian government run by 87-year-old Mahmoud Abbas is fractured, dysfunctional, and increasingly authoritarian. It also essentially is the subcontractor of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

The third issue is despite the US in theory having leverage over Israel, in practice we don’t due to the power of the Israel lobby in the Beltway. Guyer’s article pointed out that when the Biden State Department top human rights appointee Sarah Margon had her confirmation held up for two years over a tweet that approved of AirBnB removing listings in settlements in the West Bank. Ranking member and gentile James Risch depicted Jewish Margon as an anti-Semitic. She eventually withdrew her candidacy.

As Professor John Mearsheimer put it in his interview last Friday with Judge Napolitano (starting at 1:34):

The fact is the United States and Israel are joined at the hip. There are no two countries in recorded history that have a closer history that have a closer relationship than the United States and Israel. And when this crisis broke out on October 7, President Biden made it very clear we would give Israel whatever aid it needed, and that meant both weapons and money, that we would support Israel to the hilt. And we have done that. Once you take into account that tight relationship, how committed we already are to this war, it’s very difficult for us to back off and to begin to put pressure on Israel to do X or Y or Z. There is no question that Blinken can try to go to the Middle East and pressure Israel, but the Israelis can tell him “No” and then what is he going to do? And if he decides he’s going to then get tough, which he isn’t going to do, American domestic, the power of the Israel lobby, would kick in and make it very difficult for the Biden Administration to put pressure on Israel.

Mearsheimer charitably depicts Biden and Blinken as interested in curbing Israel, if nothing else for the benefit of Israel. But that’s hard to see. Alastair Crooke pointed out in (also in a Judge Napolitano interview) that Biden had done less than any recent president to advance the two state solution (I infer that means even Trump gave it more lip service).

Biden also has the established habit of saying things that are expedient at the time that have no relationship to his policy aims, like telling China’s President Xi that the US supports the China one-state policy, then turning around and continuing to escalate in Taiwan. So he and Blinken are mouthing the two state remedy because even though it is no answer, it at least makes them appear responsible and fair-minded when they are anything but.

So one has to wonder what the latest Blinken round of visits to the Middle East was supposed to accomplish, since all it did was expose our impotence. Even the Financial Times could not hide that the meetings with Netanyahu and then Arab leaders were a train wreck. Netanyahu rejected even any itty bitty ceasefire, branded a humanitarian pause, to get relief in, demanding that Hamas release all hostages first.1 The fact that Israel has welched or underperformed on its past begrudging promises to let trucks from Egypt in, would make that a non-starter even before getting to Hamas being sure to stick to its position of wanting to trade hostages for Palestinian prisoners. And of course the Arab states are not about to budge. Blinken got a more pointed version of what he was told before. From the pink paper:

Antony Blinken faced intense pressure from regional allies to facilitate an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, laying bare the stark gap between US support for Israel and the outrage in Arab capitals over the siege and bombardment of the strip…. Sameh Shoukry, the Egyptian foreign minister, demanded an unconditional ceasefire, a commitment that Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu bluntly rejected after meeting Blinken on Friday.

This section reveals Blinken as a rank amateur:

Blinken had been expected to “brainstorm” with Arab diplomats the future of Gaza, home to 2.3mn Palestinians, after the war ends. Safadi bluntly rejected those talks as premature. “How can we even entertain what will happen in Gaza when we do not know how Gaza will be left?” he asked Blinken. “Are we going to be talking about a wasteland? Are we talking about a whole population reduced to refugees?”

This comes off as the sort of thing someone who had just read classic texts on negotiating trying to put in practice: “Gee, let’s get a dialogue going! Let’s get to ‘Yes’ on some less fraught issues to pave the way for further agreement!”

In addition, “brainstorming” is cringemakingly American. You don’t do that with people who are mad at you. You don’t do that in a crisis. Between independent entities, you do not do that at the top level. You have low level people or emissaries float ideas.

So why this exercise? The worst is that Biden and Blinken come off as so disconnected from reality that they though they might get someone to accommodate US needs.

But some more generous possibilities: To try to get in front of a mob and pretend we the indispensable power, are leading a parade? To try to reverse some of the damage to our reputation as more of the world recoils from our not stopping or even criticizing the genocide in Gaza? To try to placate American Muslims who are moving away from Team Dem to the degree that the party might lose Michigan? Perhaps insiders comfort themselves with the thought that American supporters of Palestine have nowhere to go; Donald Trump is a rabid supporter. But they forget that these voters can just stay home. If there was a PR angle, that turned out to be a bust too.

The information on the IDF progress against Hamas fighters is thin and not likely to be reliable. But even though it seems likely that Israel will be able to declare a victory even though that will amount clearing Gaza of civilians more than destroying Hamas, Israel is likely to suffer real damage in the process.

As to the inevitable failure of the kinda-sorta revival of the idea of having Ukraine negotiate with Russia, that’s an even more obvious non-starter, despite Putin making polite noises that he’s willing to talk. The excitement about a new NBC article stating that the US is pressing Ukraine to negotiate is just another example of the Ukraine coalition side talking to itself without considering seriously what it might take to get the other side to agree.

However, on a practical level, this does start to let the air our of the Ukraine hype balloon.

As with Israel, we have the apparent obstacle of a non-negotiable leader obscuring other fundamental problems. We can go through the usual litany. The West has repeatedly been a bad faith actor, with its welching on its “not one inch further east” promise, its gleeful admission of duplicity in the Minsk Accords, it not delivering on its part of the grain deal bargain, and getting Ukraine to renege on its preliminary deal in March 2022. The West keeps talking about having Ukraine negotiate with Russia when Russia knows and the West has admitted that Ukraine is a proxy. You don’t talk to the money, you talk to the organ grinder.

The West also continues to be well behind the state of play for what its side would need to concede even to get Russia’s attention. Merely allowing Russia to keep the territory it presently occupies won’t do when the Ukraine army is now increasingly admitted in the Anglosphere press to be low on arms and men with no prospect of getting to adequate levels. That translates into collapse being in the foreseeable future. As many observers, including yours truly, have pointed out, Russian officials have increasingly signaled that they intend to return formerly Russian land to Russia. That has been taken to mean areas with significant ethnic Russian populations, meaning the territory east of the Dnieper and the Black Sea coast.2

But we described the showstopper in our September post, Original Sin: How the Weak Legal Foundations of NATO Make Negotiations With Russia Virtually Impossible. One of Russia’s fundamental demands is that Ukraine never enter NATO. NATO so far has rejected that idea with hostility. But even if NATO were to have a Damascene conversion, “NATO” cannot commit as a body. Each member state has to agree individually. As we wrote then, expanding on an important post by Aurelien:

So this goes a long way towards explaining why the so-called Collective West gets so wrapped around the axle of having to negotiate with itself. If “NATO” has to act in some manner to settle the conflict in Ukraine, every member of NATO (an as Aurelien argues, potentially even interested parties like Switzerland) would have to come to an agreed position, since each country would have to sign off individually on any pact for it to amount to a NATO-equivalent treaty.

Aside from the procedural mess, do you think the Baltic states would ever agree?

So again, we need to remind readers that despite the US floating yet more negotiation trial balloon, nothing had changed. And tragically, it’s pretty certain nothing will change.

____

1 Seymour Hersh’s new article, How the Hostage Crisis Could End, based on accounts from “an American official” on the claim that ngotiations with the Hamas political leadership are underway. Hersh also cites a supposed Middle East expert, but this expert was spitballing on how Hamas political leader Yayha Sinwar might respond (I really do not like Hersh’s slippery formulation with respect to this guy: “…who knows of the seriousness of current hostage talks.” If he really had inside knowledge, he would not need to speculate.) His other sources, which include an Israel general, are not corroborating the fact of these supposed negotiations.

The claim here is that the Hamas political leadership was in the dark as to what the military wing was going to execute on October 7, the military force is collapsing, about to suffocate in the tunnels, and the political leadership is willing to sell the armed forces out to save their hides. Specifically, we are told Israel is negotiating for the men in the tunnels to be released if Hamas also frees all hostages and will subject everyone who participated in the October 7 attack to war crimes trials, including “combat leaders” who are accused of witnessing the purported crimes and not attempting to stop them. This account also presupposes that most of the hostages still alive after all the shelling and the political wing of Hamas can get whoever is left standing in the military wing to release them. Pray tell, why should they cooperate? Even Hersh has to concede this scheme comes off as something “out of a bad novel.” One has to think the Hersh account is nothing more than yet another idea cooked up by the US that is going nowhere.

Perhaps Hersh will be proven correct, but I have trouble buying this as anything more than the US and Israel depicting Hamas as a spent fighting force in Gaza and to get the meme that Hamas committed war crimes back in circulation as Israel is being correctly accused of mass scale war crimes in Gaza, and increasingly, genocide. Scott Ritter can be melodramatic, but as an ex-Marine, he often talks about soldiers putting their lives on the line, as in that’s understood to be fundamental to the role. Hamas fighters had to expect that they could die in this operation. Not that anyone welcomes that outcome, but one has to think that the rank and file, and even more the leadership, were prepared. Why should they let Israel attempt to reclaim the moral high ground, particularly since Israel is also demanding death for any Hamas member who is successfully prosecuted? Dead is dead. Better to die with some dignity, fighting.

2 Putin has started to argue that Kiev might be subject to incorporation as “historical Russia.” However, Putin has also made a point to hold elections to validate territorial acquisition and it’s doubtful there would be a credible win in Western Ukraine ex its South. And holding hostile territory is corrupting. So this section of his speech may be a warning that Russia sees it as legitimate to march to Lviv if it has to….but then what happens? Alexander Mercouris also called attention to his remarks at Meeting with members of the Civic Chamber. Key section:

First of all, we all know very well – these are the facts of history – that all, as you said, the South Russian lands were given to the Soviet Ukraine during the formation of the Soviet Union. There was no Ukraine as part of the empire, there were regions, and it came in the 16th century, Ukraine, consisted of three regions: Kiev and the Kiev region, Zhitomir, Chernigov – that’s all. It came from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, from Poland voluntarily. We have a letter in our archives – I have already mentioned it – we, the Russian Orthodox people, appeal to Moscow, to the Tsar, and so on. In an attempt to defend our rights, we addressed the same letter to Warsaw: we, the Russian Orthodox people, ask to preserve this and that, demand, and so on. Then what happened happened. They started to form the Soviet Union and created a huge Ukraine, and primarily and to a large extent at the expense of the South Russian lands – all the Black Sea region and so on, although all these cities, as we know, were founded by Catherine the Great after a series of wars with the Ottoman Empire. Ok, so it happened, modern Russia came to terms with it after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But when they started to exterminate everything Russian there – that is, of course, extreme. And in the end they declared that Russians are not an indigenous nation in these lands – it is a complete outrage, you know? And at the same time, they also started exterminating Russians in Donbas to the applause of the West.

So if you read this carefully (and what follows), Putin is still concerned with the treatment of ethnic Russians, but warns this issue could be considered expansively.

[readyforevolution]

On a daily basis, much of the world stands silent while Zionists, Israeli butchers, murder Palestinian civilians, with a particular focus on children and youth. The over 2 million Palestinians living in Gaza effectively live in an open air prison without any rights, freedom of movement, or control of their lives, and are denied self-determination. Crying “enough is enough,” A coalition of Palestinian resistance groups, courageously carried out a well coordinated offensive against their oppressors. In response, Israel has declared war against the Palestinian people, labeling them terrorists and claiming the attack to be unprovoked. But the fact of the matter is, Israel declared war on Palestine in 1948 when over 750,000 Palestanians were forcibly expelled from their ancestral lands . In recent times, Israel has exponentially increased their violence and dispossession of the Palestinian people. The present response is simply an act of organized resistance to decades of Israeli aggression. It is an attempt to end Israel’s inhumane persecution of the Palestinian people– a crime against humanity.

Without provocation, Israeli settlers routinely raid and attack Palestinian villages, killing and injuring people, burning and destroying Palestinian homes, cars, shops and farms, killing livestock, and cutting down olive trees, a key element in the Palestinian economy. Israel keeps a “knee on the neck” of every Palestinian man, woman, or child, making life unbearable for them. Israel’s goal is to force the Palestinians off of their own land, sending them into exile in other countries, as Israel builds new settlements, further expanding their illegal occupation. These perpetrators are never held accountable. On the contrary, they are rewarded with increased access to stolen land. Not only do the powerful Western imperialist nations refuse to challenge Israel’s crimes, they support them, declaring that Israel “has a right to defend itself,” or labeling any criticism of Israeli policies as “anti-semitic” or “supporting terrorism.” The United States government picks-up much of the cost. Israel has been one of the top US aid recipients for decades, most recently receiving pledges of more than 38 billion US dollars over a 10 year period, plus additional funding for missiles.

The All-African People’s Revolutionary Party unequivocally condemns the 75 years of Israeli settler colonialism. As we have consistently pointed out, Zionism is racism. These same Zionist forces train the police and military in Africa and around the world to repress dissent by oppressed and exploited people. Israel is also a guarantor of imperialist access to Africa’s vast material resources. We stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people and their legitimate national aspirations. We uncompromisingly support their inalienable right to self-determination and freedom in their independent State of Palestine.

[brokenbluebouquet]

Van Dyck, Archbishop William Laud, 1636, National Portrait Gallery, London

Even someone with a natural talent for sycophancy like van dyck could not make Laud look anything other than thin skinned and awkward. Despite this, you really should not underestimate this man, as too many did in his own lifetime.

William Laud (1573-1645) pronounced “lord” not “loud” (I learnt this the hard way) is probably the most important Archbishop of Canterbury of the period bar Thomas Cranmer from the previous century. Modern Anglicanism/Episcopalism is as much his vision as it is Cranmer’s.

He’s often associated with a movement called Arminianism which sought to reverse some Calvinist excesses such as the doctrine of predestination and a renewed emphasis on sacraments, liturgy and hierarchy. It, in Laud’s variant anyway, also emphasised royal power and was a theological basis for Charles’s vision of sacredotal kingship.

Laud’s strategy and vision was to return the Church in England back to its pre reformation status and wealth, albeit purged of “Romish” errors and puritan troublemaking. This was music to both Charles and George’s ears who were looking for allies and tools to shut down opposition and increase crown revenue.

Christopher Hill was on to something when he said that what Charles and Laud were doing was using the tools of the Catholic counter reformation to build an ostensibly Protestant autocratic monarchy boosted by a hierarchal authoritarian church; at the expense of the Calvinist aristocratic grandees, landowners, and merchant class who dominated the governance in the three kingdoms and their parliaments.

All this was part of a larger ideological programme of turning back the erosion of crown power and church wealth in both kingdoms, as well as the elimination of resistance theory and popular sovereignty as ideological alternatives to authoritarian monarchy and hirachical religion.

You don’t need to be a church historian or a theologian to see how grossly unrealistic and needlessly provocative this was. It all came to grief in Scotland where Laud and Charles’s hubristic ambitions met reality and their attempts to impose a revised liturgy for Scotland (really a copy and paste of the BCP) led to the Covenanter movement and the Scottish invasion of northern England, supported by treasonous lords like Warwick, Manchester, and Essex in England as a way to force Charles hand into recalling parliament. Soon Charles lost his authority, the country was engulfed in civil war. Laud was impeached, arrested, imprisoned on bogus charges of promoting “popery” and executed in 1645.

Laud was a thin skinned man who was often the subject of much criticism for his “low born” origins. Even Charles would later state that he was too indulgent of Laud’s “peevish humours” and that his obsession with ceremony and order was unnecessary. He often argued with others in council meetings and had a reputation for vindictiveness, as evidenced by the treatment of puritan pamphleteers like Burton, Bastwick, and Prynne, and the reliance on prerogative courts and church courts to enforce uniformity and punish dissent. This was summed up be Burton himself saying he’d been strangled by lawn sleeves and prynnes claim that the brand of SL was not “seditious libeller” but “stigmata laudis.”

Laud was out of place at the female dominated court of Charles I as he was deeply uncomfortable with women, and despite later claims, him and Henrietta could not stand each other. There is an old story that he was offered a Cardinal’s hat by pope Urban VIII but I’ve never seen any evidence for this and Laud also made a point of ostentatiously avoiding the Queen’s papal envoys and priests despite their best efforts to engage him.

He’s often believed to have aspired to in effect be a second Wolsey or an English Richelieu, there’s simply not enough evidence for these claims; besides lacking meaningful interest in foreign policy or military affairs, Laud did not have the self confidence, emotional discipline, or strategic vision for that kind of role, nor the appetite for it.

You would not guess that he had erotic dreams about George from this portrait (Laud was almost certainly gay - his own diary is the source of the dreams as well as sexual encounters with other men) and that he was a proud cat dad in an age of dog people (Richelieu was a cat dad too).

He also left the most withering judgement on Charles, before his execution in 1645, namely that he was “a mild and gracious Prince, that knows not how to be or be made great.” Ouch.

[fuckyeahmarxismleninism]

Baltimore: Protest Against U.S. War on Russia & China

Saturday, January 21 - 2:00 p.m.

Corner of MLK Blvd. & Howard Street, Baltimore - Followed by march to indoor event

Baltimore joins the national week of antiwar protest called by UNAC. We will gather at Howard St & MLK Blvd., Saturday, January 21 @ 2 pm. Please don't be late as we will march to indoor venue.

As Martin Luther King, Jr. so correctly reminded us, the U.S. is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. Since WWII, the US has initiated more than 60 military interventions in foreign countries. The US/NATO proxy war in Ukraine brings the US in direct confrontation with a major nuclear power as does the U.S. provocation against China over Taiwan.

It is extremely important that we build a strong, unified antiwar movement that can break through the media propaganda and censorship and end the US military aggression around the world.

Each of our actions are based on building local connections among various solidarity organizations. A variety of actions are encouraged from demonstrations, teach-Ins, banner drops, chalk-ins to street meetings.

Actions linking ALL the continuing US wars and sanctions is a unifying focus and helps break through the propaganda that saturates each war.

Stop US/NATO Wars and Sanctions

Today working people face escalating costs of food and energy, recession, growing insecurity and attacks on efforts to unionize. The continuing wars and military provocations have brought us to the brink of nuclear war.

[markvogler]

Last weekend I went to see an special exhibit of LGBT history in Germany that was at the National Documentation Center for the History of National Socialism - aka - The NAZI Museum. While the #LGBT history was interesting, what was most surprising and troubling i found in the permanent exhibit there is that the Nazi movement and rise to power is an absolute roadmap for what is occurring in the United States today. Here are some excerpts from the permanent exhibit that certainly opened my eyes, and I hope will open others as well: "The Party could call on the support of influential backers within the city’s ethnic chauvinistic and antisemitic networks. Incendiary dogma and violent rhetoric shaped the party’s public image and the fire brand Hitler drew masses of listeners. Incendary dogma went hand in hand with the rhetorical kind. A troop of young men, a para-military storm battalion (SA), ostensibly founded to ‘provide security at public events’, flexed their muscles and tried to attract attention by brawling in auditoriums, staging marches and engaging in militant acts of provocation. ...One key to Hitler success was the support from well educated and wealthy bourgeois circles. Respected families arranged contacts and made money available. With the help of donations and financial guarantees the NAZI party acquired the “Peoples Observer”, which gave the Hitler movement its own newspaper. ...Despite being inspired by militant masculine ideology and dominated by men, the Nazi movement could also draw on the support of women from the ethnic chauvinistic milieu. This image, taken at a 1923 meeting, with the number of respectable middle and upper class people in the audience, suggests the Nazi party was broadly accepted. ...The Nazi party’s path to power was not inevitable, triumphant march. The defensive measures of the state and civilian resistance never came together to form an effective counter-force. The Weimar Republic failed because people didn't oppose extremism vigorously enough." (at NS-Dokumentationszentrum München) https://www.instagram.com/p/Cry1N3XOnFG/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[world-cinema-research]

World Cinema Blog Week 2 - By Natalyn Wakeling

Room at the Top 1959

The film I chose to watch this week was Room at the Top, directed by Jack Clayton. It was released in 1959. To me this film is remarkable because it is quite provocative for its time. The plot of the movie is Joe Lampton wanting to marry rich to Susan Brown, but truly falling for the married Alice Aisgill. Alice Aisgill is referred to as an "old whore" on multiple occasions throughout the movie, but Joe did not see her as such. Susan Brown seems the type he really should be falling for. She is young, wealthy, and beautiful, but he can not find passion with her. Critics describe this movie as "the first in the British New Wave movement, which centered on stories about the struggles and miseries of the working class". (4Columns.org) This movie made way for many movies to come after it, by showing these class struggles through Joe and his interactions throughout the film. An example of Joe's struggle with his class is on multiple occasions when Joe expresses his interest in Susan, he is told by both wealthy and working class folk to "stay in his class". This film is made after the John Braine Novel Room at the Top 1957.

Here is a look into how there film performed objectively. The British film costed $280,000, and did 2,400,000 in the Box Office. This shows that the movie performed quite well. I think this film was able to gross this amount of money because it was very relatable for the times. A movie made on the struggling British working class, along with a very intriguing romance plot is bound to do great things when it is released. The film was marketed under the genre of "romantic drama", which is also a genre of film that does great when it comes to gaining an audience.

Room at the Top is greatly acclaimed among critics for setting the path of representation of the working class in British cinema. The guardian describes it as "a film that genuinely changed British cinema for ever." (Review by the Guardian) The Guardian describes the film as being mainly marketed as a story of "lust and ambition", and drew viewers in to experience one of the most emotionally devastating and groundbreaking films ever done in British cinema. The guardian explains that at the time of release, British critics were not particularly happy with some parts of the production and release of the film. They did not appreciate that is was not directed by one of the famous Oxford directors. Jack Clayton was only a military man with very little Cinema experience. They also didn't appreciate that the finances of the movie were focusing more on making it a commercial hit rather than catering to the works of the Royal Court Theatre. Based on the standard audience reviews, the movie seems to have struck very well with viewers. "A masterful film in all aspects, full of strength", is a very well rounded comment for the general consensus of the viewers of this film (rottentomatoes.com)

Historically, this film really resonated with many because it was relatable. The British class system was as definite as ever from the 1950s-1960s, and this movie does a very good job of depicting that. The British were decolonizing during this time period, leaving them with less money and resources, setting the tone for the class system. (study smarter.us) This film does a great job of representing classism in multiple ways through Joe Lampton. When Joe is working class, he is told off by many people to look for marriage in his own class. Then, in the end when he is about to marry into the Brown family and is seen in the bar conversing with a lower class woman, he is once again told to stay with his class, this time meaning his upper class. This just shows how great a role class played during this time socially, and how difficult it really was to change your class status. This film overall paved way for more films like this to come on the class system in British Cinema.

The way the movie is done clearly displays the British class system during this time period. A remarkable moment in the film is when Joe goes to visit his childhood home that was hit by a bomb. It was in wreckage, however, there were people so poor that they were still living in this wreckage of a home. This really plays into demonstrating how the lower class was living at this time. Joe was a great depiction of working class. He was working a job and barely making ends meet, but he still had enough to live decently and make connections. The upper class is well depicted by Susan Brown and her family. Joe Lampton describes her home as a castle, and their family uses their money as a power play to intimidate those under them.

This particular image really encompasses the meaning of the film to me. Joe thought all he ever wanted was a young, good-looking, and rich woman. In this moment after he is married, he realizes these things will never equate to the passion he felt with Alice. As poor and old as she was, these were the true riches of life that Joe lost. The look of emptiness in this shot is his own guilt for feeling as though he had murdered Alice after her death, because she had nothing to live for but their love. During its time I think this film was very striking because it was marketed as "lustful and ambitious". While this movie is both of these things, it has a much bigger theme that definitely resonated with the audience and stood out from other films during this time period. For a film to be ground breaking and path paving, it needs to do something different from other films. I think this film was ground breaking because it addressed the class system, while also giving one of the most emotionally devastating romance stories along with it.

I believe this film to be quite easily defined as conventional. While it is testing and provocative, it was done after a novel which already makes way for the movie to do very well. The finances of the film were criticized for striving to commercialize this film by marketing the provocative love story far more than they marketed it as a movie displaying British class systems. The film had very famous actor of the time Simone Signoret, who plays Alice, which is also bound to commercialize the film. The basis of the film is quite easy to understand, and appeals to a wide range of audiences, making it easy to sell. The film was marketed in a way that makes it conventional although it has some unconventional factors. One being the unique idea of bringing class into a film. This was not done before in British cinema, which could be potentially controversial, however, it made it big and set way for many movies after it.

All in all, this film was not only a commercialized, intriguing romance, it was a ground breaking film that introduced the issue of the British class systems. It paved the way in British cinema, and forever changed the way films were made after its release. It was something that had never been done before in its time, and even has some uniqueness to anything I have ever watched to this day.