Seeking Endorsers for a Call to Peace


Michael Meeropol
 

IGNORING FOR A MOMENT WHO SIGNED THIS --- what do folks think of the specifics of the TEXT;'s "appeal" --- On some level it appears to be a positive document as it asks the US to "give up" a desire for world dominance --- but it's unclear if it REALLY wants Russia to withdraw from ALL of Ukrainian territory and for China to renounce (forever) the use of force to re-incorporate Taiwan ....

So I kinda wonder if this is just being in favor of "good stuff" without much substance .....

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Richard A. Falk <rfalk@...>
Date: Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 3:18 PM
Subject: Seeking Endorsers for a Call to Peace



A CALL FOR PEACE 

 

It is with a deep sense of responsibility that we address this call entitled “To all who care for humanity’s and the planet’s future.” 

This call prepared by the undersigned has been endorsed by 38 individuals from a wide array of nationalities right across the globe. They are mainly public intellectuals and activists who have been involved in a variety of causes over the years. 

This initial list of endorsers should be augmented and enhanced by other names. This is why we are now inviting the general public to support the call. Support from citizens in different parts of the world will give more meaning to our endeavour.  

The call reflects the profound concern of human beings everywhere about the perilous situation that confronts humanity today arising from the war in Ukraine and the tensions over Taiwan. It emphasises the underlying causes of these crises that are related to geopolitical rivalries and the pursuit of power and dominance. The call offers specific solutions to the crises. More importantly, it articulates general principles that hopefully will lead to peace and understanding among nations and peoples.     

We have shared our call with the U.N Secretary General, as well as with other leaders involved directly in the Ukraine and Taiwan Crises, and with those who have tried to mediate. 

We would like now to invite all individuals and organizations to endorse the call and become part of campaign. 

Thank you so much for reading our text.  

There will be more to come. 

 

By working together we will be able to make a difference. 

 

Richard Falk falk@... 

Emeritus Professor of International Law, Princeton University, Chair of Global Law, Queen Mary University London, Research Associate UCSB 

Joseph Camilleri j.camilleri@... 

Professor Emeritus, La Trobe University, Melbourne; President of Conversation at the Crossroads 

Chandra Muzaffar muzachandra@... 

Former Professor of Global Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang; President of the International Movement for a Just World 

 

 

   

  

 

 

 

 

  

 



Charles Rachlis
 

Comrades ask what do Marxists think of this appeal on behalf of humanity's future.   Marxism starts from an analysis of the  the existing class forces and how they face off.  The authors, typical of bourgeois pacifism, cannot bring themselves to identify the unfolding crisis between great powers  as one of inter-imperialist competition for control of dependent nations and the exploitation of the labor and natural wealth of the semi-colonies. They cannot find a way to state clearly that western hegemony is being challenged by a new upstart imperialist bloc and that without international proletarian revolution these blocs are driven by their structural necessities toward inter-imperialist wars. 

Without providing the class analysis of the competing governments and without identifying an independent role for the only objectively revolutionary  class in society-the working class- these well wishers for humanity's future have nothing to offer.  

Their wishes for a change of bourgeois opinion and  for the imperialist overlords to  resist the very real pressure they serve under.   The authors seek to influence the existing capitalist regimes to act in humanities interests, but Marxism has shown, though crisis theory, that the bourgeoisie has no way out and that they have currently exhausted the options to to counteract the tendency of the rate of profit to fall-short of fascism crushing the working class or war destroying fixed capital.    

Their 'appeal to reason' only serves to confuse the masses, the workers movement  and even the 'vanguard elements' who find their way to this list-serve, that there is a solution, pacifist solution that has nothing to do with arming the working class to take power by building the revolutionary vanguard into a new international that fights for proletarian independence and a transitional program. 

Charles Rachlis

The appeal


"To All Who Care about Humanity’s and the Planet’s Future

Humanity has reached a tipping point. It is time for governments, international institutions and people everywhere to take stock and act with renewed urgency.

The Ukraine conflict is inflicting death, injury, displacement and destruction, exacerbating a global food crisis, driving Europe into recession, and creating shock waves across the world economy.

The Taiwan conflict is threatening to escalate into outright war that would devastate Taiwan and turn East Asia into a powder keg.

More troubling still is the toxic relationship between the United States on the one hand and China and Russia on the other. Here lies the key to both conflicts.

What we are seeing is the culmination of decades of gross mismanagement of global security. The United States has been unwilling to accept, let alone adapt to, the rise of China and the re-emergence of Russia. It remains unwilling to break with outdated notions of global dominance – a legacy of the Cold War and the triumphalism that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union.

A global power shift is taking place. The West-centric world, in which first Europe and then the United States held sway, is giving way to a multi-centric, multi-civilisational world in which other centres of power and influence are demanding to be heard. 

Failure to accept this new reality spells immense danger. A new Cold War is now in full swing, which can at any moment mutate into a hot war. In the words of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, “humanity is one misunderstanding, one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation”.

Even if nuclear apocalypse is averted, discord between nuclear armed states inhibits cooperative problem-solving, the provision of global public goods and an effective and independent UN system.

To rise to the challenge we need a coherent, sustained and multifaceted response by governments and international institutions, inspired and driven by an ever watchful and engaged civil society. Several steps suggest themselves, some immediate, others longer term.

The first steps must aim to end the conflict in Ukraine and defuse the tensions over Taiwan. More substantial efforts are needed to foster a framework of cooperative coexistence between the United States, Russia and China – an essential building block for peace across both Europe and Asia.

To this end, we believe the UN Secretary-General or a group of middle powers acting – ideally the two acting in concert – could set in train a multi-pronged initiative aimed at securing an effective and durable ceasefire in Ukraine and the relaxation of tensions over Taiwan.

In the case of Ukraine, the aim must be to secure the cessation of all combat by Russian and Ukrainian forces and separatist groups based in the Donbas region. This would be a ceasefire monitored by a United Nations team reporting regularly and directly to the UN Secretary-General.

A ceasefire, however, is unlikely to hold for long without a durable settlement of the Ukraine-Russian conflict. This will in turn depend on bringing to an end the cynical use of the Ukraine war by great powers intent on pursing their geopolitical ambitions. Only then will it be possible to achieve:

·     the phased withdrawal of Russian military forces;

·     an end to the delivery of lethal military aid to Ukraine;

·     a constitutionally enshrined policy of neutrality for Ukraine;

·     the resolution of jurisdictional issues, notably Crimea and the Donbas region, coupled with a process aimed at healing regional, ethnic and religious animosities within Ukraine.

·     All prisoners of war, refugees, and civilians in captivity to be returned to their respective countries and all their rights respected as provided by the Geneva Conventions.

These arrangements will need to be complemented by a wider agreement involving other interested parties, with a view to securing: an adequately funded international program to address the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine; international guarantees to safeguard Ukraine’s independence, neutrality and territorial integrity; and the removal of all sanctions placed against Russia and the restoration of normal trade relations.

In the case of the Taiwan conflict, the first step must be to defuse the current level of tension. To this end, the international community should reaffirm the principles set out in the Shanghai communiqué of 1972, notably the ‘one China’ principle which now commands widespread international support. In line with this principle, the international community must use all means at its disposal to dissuade Taiwan from making any unilateral declaration of independence. The UN Secretary-General in tandem with ASEAN is well placed to spearhead such a course of action.

These relatively short-term initiatives must pave the way for a series of interlinked consultations, culminating in an international conference, whose primary purpose would be to frame a new global security architecture, sustained by appropriate reforms in global governance and designed to:  

1.    Stop the march to nuclear oblivion, and set in motion an ambitious program for nuclear disarmament, beginning with a series of arms control and disarmament agreements and leading within a specified timeframe to universal membership of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons;

2.    Reflect the reality of a multi-centric, multi-civilisational world which respects the independence and legitimate rights of all sovereign nations, and in which no actor seeks to exercise imperial or hegemonic ambitions.

3.    Enshrine the principles of common, cooperative and comprehensive security, and translate these into effective regional arrangements, especially in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region;

4.    Initiate a series of measures that can reverse the militarisation of the international system, including limitations on the reach and scope of military alliances and overseas deployments of military forces, as well as a progressive reduction of national military budgets, thereby redirecting resources to areas of pressing social, economic and environmental need;

5.     Set in motion the far-reaching reform of international institutions, especially the UN system, so that they can more effectively mount the necessarily cooperative response to existential threats, notably climate change, biodiversity loss, and present and future pandemics.

None of this will happen without a massive global awakening of human wisdom and energy. Important as governments and international institutions are, the initiative for a coherent response to the challenges we face lies largely with the people, with civil society.

Leadership of various kinds is needed. Which is why this message is also addressed to intellectuals, artists, scientists, journalists, religious leaders, advocates and other engaged citizens.

Equally, we have in mind groups working on the rights of indigenous peoples, aid and development, conflict resolution, civil liberties and human rights, violence against women, refugees and asylum seekers, climate change and other threats to our environment, public health (not least Covid), justice for the poor and marginalised, and ethnic, religious and cultural diversity.  ALL are adversely affected by great power confrontation, oppressive security laws, rising military budgets and destructive military activities, not to mention the prospect of nuclear catastrophe. ALL have a crucial part to play.

Trade unions, professional networks (in education, law, medicine, nursing, media, communications), farmer organisations, religious bodies, human-centred think tanks and research centres have also much to contribute to the conversation for a habitable future.

It is time for people everywhere to take the initiative personally and collectively – to set in motion conversations, small and large, formal and informal, online and in person, using the written and spoken word, as well as the visual and performing arts. This is a moment for collective reflection on where we’re at, where we should be heading and the steps needed to get us there.

The stakes are high. We need bold thinking that connects people and issues within and between countries. We must revive and reframe the global security conversation. There is not a moment to lose."


"The working class and the employing class have nothing in common." IWW founding congress opening statement


On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 12:59:49 PM PDT, Michael Meeropol <mameerop@...> wrote:


IGNORING FOR A MOMENT WHO SIGNED THIS --- what do folks think of the specifics of the TEXT;'s "appeal" --- On some level it appears to be a positive document as it asks the US to "give up" a desire for world dominance --- but it's unclear if it REALLY wants Russia to withdraw from ALL of Ukrainian territory and for China to renounce (forever) the use of force to re-incorporate Taiwan ....

So I kinda wonder if this is just being in favor of "good stuff" without much substance .....

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Richard A. Falk <rfalk@...>
Date: Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 3:18 PM
Subject: Seeking Endorsers for a Call to Peace



A CALL FOR PEACE 

 

It is with a deep sense of responsibility that we address this call entitled “To all who care for humanity’s and the planet’s future.” 

This call prepared by the undersigned has been endorsed by 38 individuals from a wide array of nationalities right across the globe. They are mainly public intellectuals and activists who have been involved in a variety of causes over the years. 

This initial list of endorsers should be augmented and enhanced by other names. This is why we are now inviting the general public to support the call. Support from citizens in different parts of the world will give more meaning to our endeavour.  

The call reflects the profound concern of human beings everywhere about the perilous situation that confronts humanity today arising from the war in Ukraine and the tensions over Taiwan. It emphasises the underlying causes of these crises that are related to geopolitical rivalries and the pursuit of power and dominance. The call offers specific solutions to the crises. More importantly, it articulates general principles that hopefully will lead to peace and understanding among nations and peoples.     

We have shared our call with the U.N Secretary General, as well as with other leaders involved directly in the Ukraine and Taiwan Crises, and with those who have tried to mediate. 

We would like now to invite all individuals and organizations to endorse the call and become part of campaign. 

Thank you so much for reading our text.  

There will be more to come. 

 

By working together we will be able to make a difference. 

 

Richard Falk falk@... 

Emeritus Professor of International Law, Princeton University, Chair of Global Law, Queen Mary University London, Research Associate UCSB 

Joseph Camilleri j.camilleri@... 

Professor Emeritus, La Trobe University, Melbourne; President of Conversation at the Crossroads 

Chandra Muzaffar muzachandra@... 

Former Professor of Global Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang; President of the International Movement for a Just World 

 

 

   

  

 

 

 

 

  

 



Michael Pugliese
 

One of the authors of
https://johnmenadue.com/to-all-who-care-about-humanitys-and-the-planets-future/
,Joseph Camilleri , has written for marxist journals,
"The Advanced Capitalist State and the Contemporary World Crisis," in
Science and Society,
https://josephcamilleri.org/content/advanced-capitalist-state-and-contemporary-world-crisis-0
, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40402311?searchText=The%20Advanced%20Capitalist%20State%20and%20the%20Contemporary%20World%20Crisis&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DThe%2BAdvanced%2BCapitalist%2BState%2Band%2Bthe%2BContemporary%2BWorld%2BCrisis&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A46d5fe95e3376b3bb7477f4ccd95141d
. And is critical of social democracy ,
https://www.josephcamilleri.org/content/after-social-democracy

Falk, those older than I (which is everyone else here, I assume!) ,
while no marxist , distinguished himself during the Vietnam War , as a
left scholar activist , alongside others such as Gabriel Kolko and
Chomsky. An edited collection by him , Crimes of War : Crimes of War
A Legal, Political-documentary, and Psychological Inquiry Into the
Responsibility of Leaders, Citizens, and Soldiers for Criminal Acts in
Wars ,"
https://www.amazon.com/Crimes-War-Ed-Richard-Falk/dp/0394708857 ,
which he co-edited with Kolko and Robert Jay Lifton, was among the
texts I read in high school , which furthered my move
leftwards.https://archive.org/details/crimesofwarlegal0000falk .


Joseph Green
 

On 1 Oct 2022 at 15:59, Michael Meeropol wrote:


IGNORING FOR A MOMENT WHO SIGNED THIS --- what do folks think of the
specifics of the TEXT;'s "appeal" --- On some level it appears to be
a positive document
as it asks the US to "give up" a desire for world dominance --- but
it's unclear if it
REALLY wants Russia to withdraw from ALL of Ukrainian territory and
for China to
renounce (forever) the use of force to re-incorporate Taiwan ....

So I kinda wonder if this is just being in favor of "good stuff"
without much substance .....

A CALL FOR PEACE 
 
It is with a deep sense of responsibility that we address this call


I agree with you, Michael, that it is unclear whether those who wrote this
statement really want Russia to withraw from all of Ukrainian territory and for
China to renounce he use of force against Taiwan. It is the type of statement that
hides what it really wants under "good stuff", as you call it, that consists of empty
promises and vague phrases that no one with any experience can expect to be
limplemented..In more detail: Thank you for posting it, since it is important to keep
track of what type of appeals are being made.

Preliminary thoughts on the declaration that Russian imperialism should not be
condemned for invading Ukraine

The declaration is entitled "To All Who Care about Humanity´s and the Planet´s
Future " but actually should be called "To all who think humanity 's future can be
settled by agreements among the big powers". The existence of this statement
shows how the continuing resistance of the Ukrainian people to invasion has
created a crisis in political circles. ome points about it:

* There is no mention of "the right to self-determination" of Ukraine or Taiwan,
everything is supposed to be arranged to satisfy the biggest imperialist powers,
and "ideally" the middle powers as well. There are some empty promises about
"international guarantees" forf Ukrainian "independence and territorial integrity",
but this occurs after a series of demands that deny Ukraine's independence and
territorial integrity.

* It has no condemnation of the Russian imperialist invasion of Ukraine, instead
explaining it as the result of "decades of gross mismanagement of global
security". Nothing is said that could be taken as condemnation of the invasion,
only that the fighting in Ukraine is a problem for the world.

* There is no appeal for China to not invade Taiwan. It doesn't even hint that the
signers would condemn such an invasion. There is no concern for what the
Taiwanese people think. Instead it appeals that the world should follow a 1972
Communique between the Chinese and Anerican governments, between Richard
Nixon and Zhou Enlai, despite the imperialist nature of that communique.

* It endorses the sham excuses of Russian imperialism for the invasion of
Ukraine.

* It says it would " set in motion an ambitious program for nuclear disarmament,"
but doesn't even condemn the repeated threats of Russian imperialism to use
nuclear weapons as part of its war on Ukraine.

* In these respects, it is notable that it has already been signed by some
apologists of Russian aggression in Ukraine.

* In its extensive list of empty promises, it doesn't even include amnesty for
Russians and Belarusians who oppose the war.

* It doesn't include reparations for Ukraine either, possibly because its writers
understood that Ukraine would eventually be annexed if the statement's plan was
adopted. It does talk about "international aid" for the "humanitarian crisis in
Ukraine", but doesn't mention that such aid already exists to some extent and
keeps being bombed by Russian troops.

* In practice, it would have no serious enforcement mechanism, except to prevent
Ukraine from getting weapons.

* It is full of empy (and contradictory) promises , that would never be
implemented. It seems to me that this is in order to fool people who don't really
understand what imperialism is. In this way, the idea is to unite apologists for
Russian imperialism, pacifists, and well-intentioned but inexperienced or naive
people. The statement is wrottem in the same type of "blah, blah, blah" that Greta
Thunberg condemns with regard to environmental declarations by governments
and international orgalnizations.

* It is not anti-imperialist in any sense and has tremendous faith in various
imperialist agreements and organizations. There is no mention that divisions and
redivisions of Europe or Asia or the world among imperialist powers will always
breakdown. Indeed, it pays no attention whatsoever to the fate of previous plans
of this type with regard to either war or the issue of environmental collapse. <>


David Walters
 

My thought on this is: why does Michael think this a "positive statement"???

David


Dayne Goodwin
 

On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 2:07 PM David Walters <dwaltersmia@...> wrote:
My thought on this is: why does Michael think this a "positive statement"???

Good work! Joseph Green
dayne


Mark Baugher
 

On Oct 2, 2022, at 1:07 PM, David Walters <dwaltersmia@...> wrote:

My thought on this is: why does Michael think this a "positive statement"???
He explained that in his message "as it asks the US to 'give up' world dominance."

Mark


Dave Lindorff
 

Precisely. Martin Luther King had it right in his Riverside Church Speech -- the one that led to his assassination a year later because it was so dangerously accurate -- when he said that the US was the number one purveyor of violence in the world. It has only become more so since then launching imperial wars like Vietnam, Iraq (twice!) wars, Afghanistan, etc., illegal incursions, bombings and special forces actions at will, and attacking other nations economically.  Sure Putin committed a war crime by invading Ukraine, but does anyone seriously think he would have done that had the US not advanced NATO under Clinton, Obama, Bush and now maybe Biden right up to Russia's western border with Europe? Of course not! And how many war crimes including the biggest: the Crime Against Peace, has the US committed just since WWII?  Russia wanted a sphere of influence around its borders like the US has in the Americas with Canada and Central and South America. America was pushing for a NATO Ukraine when it supported the 2014 coup.  

It won't do to have US policy be:  "There's no alternative now except getting rid of Putin."  Down that road is atomic warfare, and having pushed things to this point by fomenting a coup and then enouraging Ukraine's government to fight an endless war to "bleed" Russia in the interest of the US's global dominance strategy, the US has to step in and stop the madness by pushing for piece, ending the provision of ever more deadly and long-range offensive weapons for Ukraine, and demand a cease fire and talks by both sides. 

Where do I sign?
Dave Lindorff
producer of "A Compassionate Spy", a Steve James directed Participant Film about Ted Hall, youngest physicist at Los Alamos and youngest Soviet atomic spy, who at 19 gave the Soviet Union detailed schematics and other information about the implosion system for the Plutonium bomb, to prevent a US monopoly on the bomb after the war. Here's a trailer for the film from its world premiers Sept. 2 at the Venice Film Festival: 
Here FYI is a video of the only trailer of the film, which was used at the Venice Festival:




Michael Meeropol
 

Dear David --- I said the following:

On some level it appears to be
> a positive document
> as it asks the US to "give up" a desire for world dominance -

It APPEARS TO BE "A POSITIVE DOCUMENT" and I explained why.  I kinda suspected it was vacuous and appreciated Joseph's detailed analysis ....

On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 4:07 PM David Walters <dwaltersmia@...> wrote:
My thought on this is: why does Michael think this a "positive statement"???

David
_._,_._,_


Joseph Green
 

On 2 Oct 2022 at 20:26, Dave Lindorff wrote:
> Sure Putin committed a war crime by invading Ukraine, but does
> anyone seriously think he would have done that had the US not
> advanced NATO under Clinton, Obama, Bush and now maybe Biden right
> up to Russia's western border with Europe?
Yes, I and others have seriously and extensively documented that Russian imperialism invaded Ukraine for its own imperialist motives, not from any fear of NATO. Russian imperialism has been seeking to reestablish Russian empire. Indeed; from the dissolution of the USSR at the end of 1991 to the present, the Russian bourgeoisie hasn't accepted the right to self-determination of the resulting republics. See for example the "TIMELINE ON 30 YEARS OF RUSSIAN INTERVENTION AGAINST THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE OTHER FORMER SOVIET REPUBLICS" (http://www.communistvoice.org/DSWV-220405.html).This is the context in which Putin finally declared that Ukraine wasn't even a legitimate state.
Apparently you haven't accepted the right to self-determination of the former Soviet republics either, because you wring your hands over what Russia faces on its borders with former Soviet republics  but not over what former Soviet republics faced on their borders with Russia. In fact, it is Russian government hostility that has sabotaged what would have been very calm relations with Russia. Economic, cultural, social, and even family relations would have ensured continued relations between countries that were now independent, but the repeated brutality by Russian imperialism has poisoned those relations.
Of course all imperialist powers justify their crimes by pointing to actions of other imperialist powers,  but Lenin pointed out that the real issue behind imperialist crimes was modern monopoly capitalism. Moreover, Russian imperialism has always been the enemy of Russian working people. Back in June 2000, I wrote the article "Putin's two wars:; on Chechnya and Russian workers" (http://www.communistvoice.org/24cPutinChechnya.html). It is in the interest of Russian as well as Ukrainian workers for Russian aggression to be defeated and for Ukraine to maintain the right to self-determination. Marx and Lenin placed a high value on the right to self-determination, but those who pooh-poohed the Russian war crimes are blind to the importance of Ukrainian self-determination.
Nor should it be forgotten apologists of Russian interference harangued for years against democratic movements in the former Soviet republics, and presented "color revolutions" in its neighbors as the big existential threat to the Russian government. It feared that movements in neighboring countries might spread to the Russian people. And it has backed repression of democratic movements elsewhere as well, such as its participation in the slaughter of the Syrian democrats.


anthonyboynton@...
 

I don’t think there are very many “good things” in this document for the authors' not so good intentions to hide behind.  IMHO, this document is another effort to engage liberal public opinion, and international institutions even, in the effort to get Ukraine to give up territory to Russia. It does not call for immediate withdrawal of Russian military forces. It calls for " phased withdrawal of Russian military forces." It does not say anything about Russian disarmament, even though Putin is threatening to use nuclear weapons, but it does call for disarmament of Ukraine when it includes a point that says, "an end to the delivery of lethal military aid to Ukraine". It gives credence to Russia's discredited claims and annexations, claims and annexations which are illegal under international law, when it includes the point, " the resolution of jurisdictional issues, notably Crimea and the Donbas region", and it denies Ukraine's rights as a nation, while implicitly allowing them to Russia, when it adds the point " a constitutionally enshrined policy of neutrality for Ukraine."

Although Ukraine already voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons, a document calling for Russia and Ukraine to disarm themselves, including nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, and advanced artillery, would be ignored by the two combatants, even though it would be a great idea. In fact, that kind of disarmament would be good for the whole planet, but as long as predatory imperialist states like Russia, the United States, and China still exist, small nations like Ukraine have the right to defend themselves against imperialist aggression.

Anthony



Dave Lindorff
 

A call for disarmament would be a great idea, but is impossible while the US, since the obama administration's launch of the program, has been engaged in a 10-year, $1.5 trillion (with a T) "modernization" of the US nuclear arsenal. That program is creating new bombsv-- so-called "useable" bombs that have adjustable explosive power, some that can be set anywhere from 0,5 kilotons to 50 kilotons or even 300 kilotons. (50 kilotons would be twice the size of the bomb on Nagasaki.

What he above critic, Joseph Green, ignores about Russian behavior since the breakup of the Soviet Union is that the person running the country was not Putin but the very pro US Boris Yeltsin. Saying Yeltsin was trying to build an empire at the time that he was allowing the US and its corporate interests pilfer all they could from the wreckage of the Soviet economy and the collapse of the Soviet military, education system, health system, living standards, is simply ludicrous, and yet it was at that time that the US was working to expand NATO, instead of discolving that Cold War relic. There was a unique opportunity at that time to reach out by the US to bring Russia into Europe as the US was at the time trying to do with China. I was living and working in China in 1991-2 as a Fulbright Professor, and the line from the US then was that promoting capitalist investment in and trade with China would bring along with it democracy, freedom and friendlier relations. The same was being mouthed with regard to China, but what was actaully happening -- a continued expansion of NATO, beginning with the old DDR, which in earlier talks with Gorbachev, Reagan had promised not to put US NATO forces in -- was clearly the opposite. Green's portrayal of Russia (or as he puts it "the Russian bourgoisie) as obsessed with rebuilding its old empire, is facile nonsense. Russia at that point was falling apart in every way, and the US was taking advantage of it. It might be more appropriate to say that the "US bourgoisie" has never accepted the idea of Latin American and Caribbean self-determination.

But my point is that all this stuff about self-determination of countries in Eastern Europe ignores the reality of nuclear weapons in the US and Russia. nuclear strategy is about trying to achieve a first-strike capability to overcome the stalemate of Mutual Assured Destruction. Absent the ability to create Reagan's "star wars"  dream of an impenetrable anti-missile shield over the US, which would allow such a wipe out of Russia and/or China with little risk of retaliation, the only way to achieve that is ever more and icreasingly accurate accurate sub-launched missiles and ground launched or plane launched nuclear weapons on NATO countries near Russia's borders able to hit Russian targets in minutes instead of 20 minutes or half an hour or more, and that is what NATO expansion is all about. It's what the basing of hundreds of F-35 stealth fighter bombers, each capable of carrying two 50-kiloton smart bombs, in front-line nato countries like Poland and other old Warsaw Bloc nations is about for example -- something that well preddated the military threat to Ukraine. 

My point is you cannot talk seriously or realistically about defeating Russia without also recognizing that what you are talking about is pushing a clearly wounded Russia, whether led by PUtin or some other leader, to the point of using their one truly threatening weapon system -- their nukes. And you haven't addressed that at all. 

Yes, let's call for talks, and disarmament, but the US, as the world's most powerful country, has to be the one to make the first steps towards that, by  ending its first-strike option, and by proposing enormous cutbacks in its nuclear weapons, a pull back of its Trident subs from Russian and Chinese borders, and an end to talk about putting nuclear weapons or delivery systems near Russian and Chinese borders. Then we can talk about disarmament. 

Dave






On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 6:05 AM <anthonyboynton@...> wrote:

I don’t think there are very many “good things” in this document for the authors' not so good intentions to hide behind.  IMHO, this document is another effort to engage liberal public opinion, and international institutions even, in the effort to get Ukraine to give up territory to Russia. It does not call for immediate withdrawal of Russian military forces. It calls for " phased withdrawal of Russian military forces." It does not say anything about Russian disarmament, even though Putin is threatening to use nuclear weapons, but it does call for disarmament of Ukraine when it includes a point that says, "an end to the delivery of lethal military aid to Ukraine". It gives credence to Russia's discredited claims and annexations, claims and annexations which are illegal under international law, when it includes the point, " the resolution of jurisdictional issues, notably Crimea and the Donbas region", and it denies Ukraine's rights as a nation, while implicitly allowing them to Russia, when it adds the point " a constitutionally enshrined policy of neutrality for Ukraine."

Although Ukraine already voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons, a document calling for Russia and Ukraine to disarm themselves, including nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, and advanced artillery, would be ignored by the two combatants, even though it would be a great idea. In fact, that kind of disarmament would be good for the whole planet, but as long as predatory imperialist states like Russia, the United States, and China still exist, small nations like Ukraine have the right to defend themselves against imperialist aggression.

Anthony



Mark Baugher
 

On Oct 2, 2022, at 10:38 PM, Joseph Green <jgreen@...> wrote:

On 2 Oct 2022 at 20:26, Dave Lindorff wrote:
Sure Putin committed a war crime by invading Ukraine, but does
anyone seriously think he would have done that had the US not
advanced NATO under Clinton, Obama, Bush and now maybe Biden right
up to Russia's western border with Europe?

Apparently you haven't accepted the right to self-determination of the former Soviet republics either, because you wring your hands over what Russia faces on its borders with former Soviet republics but not over what former Soviet republics faced on their borders with Russia.
Your "Apparently" is not very apparent to me. One can recognize the role of US imperialism and NATO in the Ukrainian invasion while supporting the Ukrainian right to self determination. Doing otherwise makes no sense to me.

Mark


Dave Lindorff
 

You can obviously make that choice. But from my vantage point, considering the enormous risk that Russia will resort to nukes if it is in danger of total defeat in Ukraine because of superior and apparently unlimited US weapons being introduced into that fight, the only sane response is to call for a cease fire and negotiations about disarmament. The US, as the most heavily armed nation in the world and as MLK correctly called it, i remarks that are still true today, as the major purveyor or violence, genocide and terror in the world, with troops in every country, and aircraft carrier battle groups and Trident subs each with enough missiles and nuclear warheads to destroy not just any country, but the world, needs to take the first step towards that disarmament. I don't see that happening without a huge push from the US public to demand action. The US should say that it Russia calls off its aggression in Ukraine and pulls its troops out, the US will cut its nuclear arsenal in half pull its Trident subs back to no longer threaten instant destruction of Russia's missiles, military bases and major cities, and will promise not to admit Ukraine to NATO, as long as Russia gives up its war on that country. 

Given the range of the Trident missiles, and the existence of 400 Minuteman missiles based in US silos, there is no loss of US security -- only an end of the threat of a first strike that could destroy Russia's ability to mount a retaliatory attack (Russia, with no nuclear aircraft carrier no Trident missile force,  and no nuclear weapons based in countries near the us, you'll note has no credible ability to threaten an immediate total pre-emptive attack on the US). 

We're not getting out of this mess by simply condemning Russian aggression and supplying more and more weapons to help Ukranians kill Russians and get killed while killing Russians. Unless you address the issue of nuclear threats and the imbalance between the Russian threat to the US and the US threat to Russia in that area of warfare, any talk of "right to self-determination" is just blowing smoke, as attractive as it sounds in theory. It's also profoundly hypocritical given all the subversion of democracy that the US routinely engages in and has always engaged in when it comes to the Americas. 

It's not a matter of apologizing for Russia, it's a matter of recognizing realities.

Dave Lindorff

On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 8:55 AM Mark Baugher <mark@...> wrote:


> On Oct 2, 2022, at 10:38 PM, Joseph Green <jgreen@...> wrote:
>
> On 2 Oct 2022 at 20:26, Dave Lindorff wrote:
> > Sure Putin committed a war crime by invading Ukraine, but does
> > anyone seriously think he would have done that had the US not
> > advanced NATO under Clinton, Obama, Bush and now maybe Biden right
> > up to Russia's western border with Europe?

>
> Apparently you haven't accepted the right to self-determination of the former Soviet republics either, because you wring your hands over what Russia faces on its borders with former Soviet republics  but not over what former Soviet republics faced on their borders with Russia.

Your "Apparently" is not very apparent to me.  One can recognize the role of US imperialism and NATO in the Ukrainian invasion while supporting the Ukrainian right to self determination.  Doing otherwise makes no sense to me.

Mark







Michael Pugliese
 

Re : "It's what the basing of hundreds of F-35 stealth fighter
bombers, each capable of carrying two 50-kiloton smart bombs, in
front-line nato countries like Poland and other old Warsaw Bloc
nations is about for example -- something that well preddated the
military threat to Ukraine."

"On January 31, 2020, Poland signed a Letter of Offer and Acceptance
to purchase 32 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and
Landing (CTOL) Aircraft produced by Lockheed Martin, and 33 Pratt &
Whitney F-135 Engines. The supersonic, multi-role F-35 represents a
quantum leap in air dominance capability with enhanced lethality and
survivability in hostile, anti-access airspace environments" Via
https://pl.usembassy.gov/purchase_f35/ The Lockheed-Martin website ,
https://www.f35.com/f35/global-enterprise/poland.html says 14 nations
have F-35's, of which 10 are in NATO . 840+ (manufactured) as of
September 2022 ,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II , The
linked Wikipedia pages : Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II operators
and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement , via
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Operators
, show NO NATO powers besides Poland , which borders the RF , have
F-35's now , or in the procurement stage. Poland according to that
Wikipedia page , has the 32 F35A's on order, Plans for two more
squadrons consisting of 16 jets each, for a total of 32 additional
F-35s.[360] . So, the Poles will have 64 whenever Lockheed-Martin
production lines are able to manufacture them all. They have none now,
it would appear. "The Czech Air Force has been offered 24 F-35As to
replace their leased 14 JAS 39 Gripens, as their lease expires in 2027
or 2029.[379]"

On November 3, 2021, Janes reported the Czech Republic's requirement
for 40 aircraft, with the F-35 being offered as an option.[380][381]

On July 20, 2022 the Czech government announced that they intend to
begin the process of procuring 24 F-35s.[382]" Via
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procurement#Czech_Republic
.

Operates F-35A, F-35B & F-35C variants ( United States) Operates
F-35A & F-35B variants ( Italy, Japan & South Korea) Operates
F-35A variant only ( Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands,
Norway) Operates F-35B variant only ( United Kingdom) Operates
F-35I variant only ( Israel) Awaiting Delivery ( Switzerland,
Finland, Poland, Singapore) Potential Orders & Procurement
Programs ( Canada, Czech Republic, Greece, Spain, Germany& United
Arab Emirates) Cancelled Orders ( Turkey) ,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procurement#/media/File:Confirmed_orders_to_purchase_the_F-35.svg
.

So, at least from my cursory research on this , I see that there are
NO NATO member states , bordering the fSU / RF that currently have
F35's based on their territory . Make me/us aware of hundreds of F-35
stealth fighter bombers , either currently based in the Baltic states
or the former Soviet satellite states like Poland that were in the
Warsaw Pact that have made procurement requests to buy hundreds of
F35's. Finland ,
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/finland-signs-for-f-35s
, has signed ,"first Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) documents,
which under the US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) structure constitute
the procurement agreement.

“On 11 February Major General Kari Renko, Chief of the Defence Forces
Logistics Command, signed in Tampere the LOA documents on F-35A
aircraft and their maintenance services,” the MoD said, adding that
the LOAs signed covered 64 Block 4 standard F-35As to be delivered
from 2025 to 2030, as well as maintenance equipment and training." A
total of 64 with those delivery dates projected. So, add Poland to
Finland, and it looks like 128 , which yes is in the low hundreds .
The inference I draw from ,"-- something that well preddated the
military threat to Ukraine," by Dave Lindorff , is that these former
Warsaw Pact countries now in the NATO alliance , now have these F35's
, either prior to February 24th , 2022 or even going back to 2014? Is
not the case.

Re : "A call for disarmament would be a great idea, but is impossible
while the US, since the obama administration's launch of the program,
has been engaged in a 10-year, $1.5 trillion (with a T)
"modernization" of the US nuclear arsenal. That program is creating
new bombsv-- so-called "useable" bombs that have adjustable explosive
power, some that can be set anywhere from 0,5 kilotons to 50 kilotons
or even 300 kilotons. (50 kilotons would be twice the size of the bomb
on Nagasaki."

"The second area of debate surrounding U.S. nuclear-arsenal
modernization programs concerns the introduction of low-yield
capabilities and the continued reliance on variable-yield nuclear
weapons capabilities. It is important to note that the U.S. arsenal
has had many variable- and low-yield capabilities in some form since
the 1950s. For example, the now-retired B43, developed in 1956,
included multiple yield options. However, the modern U.S. nuclear
weapons arsenal has trended toward increased yield flexibility. The
Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO) reportedly has a yield range of
5–150 kilotons (kt), similar to reported yields for the W80-1.9 The
B61-12 reportedly has four discrete explosive yields: 0.3 kt, 1.5 kt,
10 kt, and 50 kt.10 Additionally, while the W76 warhead (with a
reported yield of around 100kt) was undergoing a life-extension
program, the DoD approved a low-yield variant of the warhead known as
the W76-2, creating an SLBM capability not previously found in the
U.S. arsenal. NNSA completed the first production of this warhead in
2019, and the DoD confirmed in 2020 that the warhead has now been
fielded.11" Via
https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-nuclear-warhead-modernization-and-new-nuclear-weapons

Complete List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons @
https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html Last
changed 12 June 2020 . These adjustable or variable yield nuclear
weapons are not so new in the US arsenal.

Variable yield, or dial-a-yield, is an option available on most modern
nuclear weapons. It allows the operator to specify a weapon's yield,
or explosive power, allowing a single design to be used in different
situations. For example, the Mod-10 B61 bomb had selectable explosive
yields of 0.3, 5, 10 or 80 kilotons, depending on how the ground crew
set a dial inside the casing when it was loaded onto an aircraft.

Variable yield technology has existed since at least the late 1950s.
Examples of variable yield weapons include the B61 nuclear bomb
family, B83, B43, W80, W85, and WE177A warheads. Via
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_yield

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb "The B61 is of the
variable yield ("dial-a-yield" in informal military jargon) design
with a yield of 0.3 to 340 kilotons in its various mods. It is a Full
Fuzing Option (FUFO) weapon, meaning it is equipped with the full
range of fuzing and delivery options, including air and ground burst
fuzing, and free-fall, retarded free-fall and laydown delivery.[2] It
has a streamlined casing capable of withstanding supersonic flight and
is 11 ft 8 in (3.56 m) long, with a diameter of about 13 inches (33
cm). Basic weight is about 700 pounds (320 kg), although the weights
of individual weapons may vary depending on version and
fuze/retardation configuration. As of 2020, it is undergoing a 12th
modification. According to the Federation of American Scientists in
2012, the roughly 400 B61-12s will cost $28 million apiece.[1]"

The MK/B 61 , "(4 yields), 0.3 - 340 kT;
Mod 3: 0.3 - 170 kT;
Mod 4: 0.3 - 45 kT;
Mod 7/11: 10 - 340 kT;
Mod 10: 0.3 - 80 kT

Manufactured 10/66 - early 90s; early mods retired 70s - 80s; 3150
produced, 1350 in service. Multipurpose tactical/strategic bomb; basic
design adapted to many other weapon systems; 4 yields; 11 mods, 5 in
service; PAL B, D, F; uses IHE in primary; parachute: 1x17 ft or 1x24
ft ribbon; longest production run of any U.S. nuclear weapon, oldest
design in service; part of the U.S. "enduring stockpile"

The W-70 had a yield ranging from Mods 0,1, 2: variable from 1-100 kT.
Model 3 was not a variable yield weapon. Manufactured 6/73 - 7/77
(Mods 0-2), 8/81 - 2/83 (Mod 3);
retired 7/79 - 9/92;
Mods 0-2: 900 produced, Mod 3: 380 built.




Michael Pugliese

On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 5:46 AM Dave Lindorff <dlindorff@...> wrote:

A call for disarmament would be a great idea, but is impossible while the US, since the obama administration's launch of the program, has been engaged in a 10-year, $1.5 trillion (with a T) "modernization" of the US nuclear arsenal. That program is creating new bombsv-- so-called "useable" bombs that have adjustable explosive power, some that can be set anywhere from 0,5 kilotons to 50 kilotons or even 300 kilotons. (50 kilotons would be twice the size of the bomb on Nagasaki.

What he above critic, Joseph Green, ignores about Russian behavior since the breakup of the Soviet Union is that the person running the country was not Putin but the very pro US Boris Yeltsin. Saying Yeltsin was trying to build an empire at the time that he was allowing the US and its corporate interests pilfer all they could from the wreckage of the Soviet economy and the collapse of the Soviet military, education system, health system, living standards, is simply ludicrous, and yet it was at that time that the US was working to expand NATO, instead of discolving that Cold War relic. There was a unique opportunity at that time to reach out by the US to bring Russia into Europe as the US was at the time trying to do with China. I was living and working in China in 1991-2 as a Fulbright Professor, and the line from the US then was that promoting capitalist investment in and trade with China would bring along with it democracy, freedom and friendlier relations. The same was being mouthed with regard to China, but what was actaully happening -- a continued expansion of NATO, beginning with the old DDR, which in earlier talks with Gorbachev, Reagan had promised not to put US NATO forces in -- was clearly the opposite. Green's portrayal of Russia (or as he puts it "the Russian bourgoisie) as obsessed with rebuilding its old empire, is facile nonsense. Russia at that point was falling apart in every way, and the US was taking advantage of it. It might be more appropriate to say that the "US bourgoisie" has never accepted the idea of Latin American and Caribbean self-determination.

But my point is that all this stuff about self-determination of countries in Eastern Europe ignores the reality of nuclear weapons in the US and Russia. nuclear strategy is about trying to achieve a first-strike capability to overcome the stalemate of Mutual Assured Destruction. Absent the ability to create Reagan's "star wars" dream of an impenetrable anti-missile shield over the US, which would allow such a wipe out of Russia and/or China with little risk of retaliation, the only way to achieve that is ever more and icreasingly accurate accurate sub-launched missiles and ground launched or plane launched nuclear weapons on NATO countries near Russia's borders able to hit Russian targets in minutes instead of 20 minutes or half an hour or more, and that is what NATO expansion is all about. It's what the basing of hundreds of F-35 stealth fighter bombers, each capable of carrying two 50-kiloton smart bombs, in front-line nato countries like Poland and other old Warsaw Bloc nations is about for example -- something that well preddated the military threat to Ukraine.

My point is you cannot talk seriously or realistically about defeating Russia without also recognizing that what you are talking about is pushing a clearly wounded Russia, whether led by PUtin or some other leader, to the point of using their one truly threatening weapon system -- their nukes. And you haven't addressed that at all.

Yes, let's call for talks, and disarmament, but the US, as the world's most powerful country, has to be the one to make the first steps towards that, by ending its first-strike option, and by proposing enormous cutbacks in its nuclear weapons, a pull back of its Trident subs from Russian and Chinese borders, and an end to talk about putting nuclear weapons or delivery systems near Russian and Chinese borders. Then we can talk about disarmament.

Dave






On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 6:05 AM <anthonyboynton@...> wrote:

I don’t think there are very many “good things” in this document for the authors' not so good intentions to hide behind. IMHO, this document is another effort to engage liberal public opinion, and international institutions even, in the effort to get Ukraine to give up territory to Russia. It does not call for immediate withdrawal of Russian military forces. It calls for " phased withdrawal of Russian military forces." It does not say anything about Russian disarmament, even though Putin is threatening to use nuclear weapons, but it does call for disarmament of Ukraine when it includes a point that says, "an end to the delivery of lethal military aid to Ukraine". It gives credence to Russia's discredited claims and annexations, claims and annexations which are illegal under international law, when it includes the point, " the resolution of jurisdictional issues, notably Crimea and the Donbas region", and it denies Ukraine's rights as a nation, while implicitly allowing them to Russia, when it adds the point " a constitutionally enshrined policy of neutrality for Ukraine."

Although Ukraine already voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons, a document calling for Russia and Ukraine to disarm themselves, including nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, and advanced artillery, would be ignored by the two combatants, even though it would be a great idea. In fact, that kind of disarmament would be good for the whole planet, but as long as predatory imperialist states like Russia, the United States, and China still exist, small nations like Ukraine have the right to defend themselves against imperialist aggression.

Anthony


Joseph Green
 

Good points!

On 3 Oct 2022 at 3:05, anthonyboynton@... wrote:

IMHO, this document is another effort to engage liberal public
opinion, and international institutions even, in the effort to get
Ukraine to give up territory to Russia. It does not call for
immediate withdrawal of Russian military forces. It calls for "
phased withdrawal of Russian military forces." It does not say
anything about Russian disarmament, even though Putin is threatening
to use nuclear weapons, but it does call for disarmament of Ukraine
when it includes a point that says, "an end to the delivery of
lethal military aid to Ukraine". It gives credence to Russia's
discredited claims and annexations, claims and annexations which are
illegal under international law, when it includes the point, " the
resolution of jurisdictional issues, notably Crimea and the Donbas
region", and it denies Ukraine's rights as a nation, while
implicitly allowing them to Russia, when it adds the point " a
constitutionally enshrined policy of neutrality for Ukraine."


Michael Pugliese
 

Minor correction to https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/19649 , as
Finland is not yet in NATO.

Romania , which is , at their base in Deveselu , is home to NATO's
Aegis Ashore Ballistic Missile Defense System (AABMDS) site.
https://www.eucom.mil/image/41297/naval-support-facility-deveselu-romania
, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System . " is operational
since 2016, and a site near Redzikowo, Poland will become operational
in 2022."

On the Edge of a Polish Forest, Where Some of Putin’s Darkest Fears
Lurk@ https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/16/world/europe/poland-missile-base-russia-ukraine.html
.


Michael Pugliese
 

Re : "Given the range of the Trident missiles, and the existence of
400 Minuteman missiles based in US silos, " @
https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/19648 . "There is no better place
to witness the Minuteman’s role in the Cold War than at Launch
Facility Delta-09. From 1963 until 1991 Delta-09 contained a fully
operational Minuteman Missile. The Delta-09 silo was one of 150 spread
across western South Dakota. In total there were 1,000 Minuteman
missiles deployed from the 1960's into the early 1990's."

"In September 1991, all 450 of the nation's Minuteman II missiles were
taken off alert. Delta-09 was deactivated in early 1993 and placed on
"caretaker status." Deactivation included the removal of classified
electronic equipment, hazardous materials, environmentally sensitive
materials, and equipment saved for use at other sites from Delta-09."

https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/minuteman-iii/ , "The Minuteman
family of missiles have served as the backbone of the U.S. land-based
nuclear strategic force since 1962. The Minuteman III began
development in 1964 and entered service in 1970 with a force of 550
missiles. The United States usually conducts two or more tests of the
Minuteman III each year to ensure the arsenal is functioning and
reliable. It currently has an estimated 440 missiles in its arsenal.2"

https://www.nps.gov/places/delta-09.htm


Michael Pugliese


Marv Gandall
 

I’m unable to assess whether this statement released today by one of the larger Trotskyist factions exaggerates the possibility of a nuclear holocaust arising out of the present situation, or whether we’re witnessing the tendency of most, when faced with the prospect of the unthinkable, taking refuge in denial, the notion that somehow things will work themselves out short of catastrophe. 

The latter tendency is very much on display in the nuclear brinkmanship exhibited by the Russian and NATO war planners and politicians, backed by the jingoistic support of the media and public in their host countries. It has the smell of August 1914 about it,  including the fracturing of the broad left into a majority of politicians and activists swept up by the war fever and a minority desperately trying to halt the escalating and unintended drift towards a wider conflagration. Then it was Serbia. Today it is Ukraine.

US-NATO and Russia escalate nuclear threats
Stop the war in Ukraine!
Statement of the WSWS Editorial Board

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/10/03/pers-o03.html?pk_campaign=newsletter&pk_kwd=wsws


Michael Pugliese
 

Alarmist, hyperbolic polemics like the one Marv just sent from the
WSWS warning of billions of potential deaths , do not in my view
represent the sort of analysis, leftists s/b making.see these far more
sober viewpoints , via https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/19538 ,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0d280zv/ukraine-putins-nuclear-threat
, https://podtail.com/podcast/ukrainecast/putin-issues-nuclear-threats/
,
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/nuclear-tensions-rise-while-russia-starts-to-mass-troops/id1612424182?i=1000580810665
. Also ,
Is Russia-Ukraine Spinning Out of Control? | Robert Wright & Anatol
Lieven , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eWft8YUfcU , 31:58 The odds
Putin goes nuclear and the likely western response . Could
Russia-Ukraine Go Nuclear? (Robert Wright & Joe Cirincione) ,
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/could-russia-ukraine-go-nuclear-robert-wright-joe-cirincione/id505824847?i=1000556360835