100 Days of War in Gaza - Who is Really Suffering?

This statement was released from the Biden White House on January 14, 2024:

 

Joe Biden (or whoever it is that is speaking on his behalf) conveniently seems to have forgotten these aspects of life in Gaza:

 

1.) 

 

2.) 

3.) 

4.) 

and, most importantly:

5.) 

 

While I am loathe to trust any medical journal after the COVID-19 pandemic, here's what the Lancet has to say about the possibility of inflated mortality reporting from the Gaza Ministry of Health, something that the Israelis have accused Hamas of doing (with my bold):

"Using publicly available information, we compared the Gaza MoH's mortality reports with a separate source of mortality reporting and found no evidence of inflated rates. We conducted a temporal analysis of cumulative-reported mortality within Gaza for deaths of Gazans as reported by the MoH and reported staff member deaths from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), from Oct 7 to Nov 10, 2023. These two data sources used independent methods of mortality verification, enabling assessment of reporting consistency.  We observed similar daily trends, indicating temporal consistency in response to bombing events

Mortality reporting is difficult to conduct in ongoing conflicts. Initial news reports might be imprecise, and subsequent verified reports might undercount deaths that are not recorded by hospitals or morgues, such as persons buried under rubble. However, difficulties obtaining accurate mortality figures should not be interpreted as intentionally misreported data.

Although valid mortality counts are important, the situation in Gaza is severe, with high levels of civilian harm and extremely restricted access to aid. Efforts to dispute mortality reporting should not distract from the humanitarian imperative to save civilian lives by ensuring appropriate medical supplies, food, water, and fuel are provided immediately."

But, then again, residents of Gaza haven't the capacity that their pro-Israel counterparts possess as shown here:

...and here:

Washington is for sale and Israel is in a buying mood which just might be part of the reason why the Biden Administration has not pressured the Netanyahu war cabinet into shutting down its brutal operation in Gaza.

The Consequences of a Long War Between Russia and Ukraine - The Impact on Washington's Agenda

While the Western media and politicians would have us believe that Russia is losing the conflict in Ukraine and that Russia is suffering under the sanctions regime that has been imposed on them, an interesting recent perspective by RAND would suggest that perhaps that is not the entire truth.

 

RAND Corporation is a highly influential United States Department of Defense and government-linked think tank and, as such, its opinions carry a lot of weight in the hallowed halls of Washington.  In its recent  "Avoiding a Long War - U.S. Policy and the Trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict" perspective, the authors, Samuel Charap and Miranda Priebe ask the question "How does this end?", noting that the conflict is the most significant interstate conflict in decades and that its evolution will have profound consequences on the United States, its foreign policies and its global interests.  They also note that, while it is possible that a defeated and chastened Russia could be chased from the battlefield, studies of previous conflicts would suggest that this scenario is improbable.  

  

The perspective goes on to outline the dimensions that could affect the possible trajectories that the conflict could take.  These include:

 

1.) possible use of nuclear weapons by Russia - Western leaders were convinced that Russia would use nonstrategic nuclear weapons as its forces lost ground in what Russia believes is an existential war.  There are reasons why Russia would not choose the nuclear option - there is a lack of high-value military targets, the risk that these weapons could harm Russia troops and the domestic and international political backlash for the use of the nuclear option.

 

2.) possible escalation to a conflict between NATO and Russia - currently, NATO's main involvement in the conflict has been the supplying of tens of billions of dollars worth of aid (military and other), tactical and intelligence support and the imposition of anti-Russian sanctions.  Russia could preemptively attack NATO member states if it felt that direct NATO intervention in Ukraine was imminent.  

 

3.) control of territory - while Russia occupies only roughly 20 percent of Ukraine, these areas contain important economic assets including the Zaparoizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. The extent of Ukraine control over these regions could have an impact on the long-term viability of the nation.  Greater Ukrainian control over its territory is important to the United States for humanitarian reasons, to reinforce international norms and to promote future Ukrainian economic growth.

 

4.) duration - while a longer war may enable Ukraine's military to retake more territory, it may also benefit the United States as it will preoccupy Russian forces, not allowing them to "have the bandwidth to menace others".  As well, it will further degrade Russia's military and weaken its economy.  A long war will also force the Europeans to reduce their dependence on Russian energy and spend more on their own defense.  On the downside, a protracted war will increase the economic costs to the United States and open the possibility that Russia could further expand its battlefield gains.

 

5.) some form of war termination - either absolute victory or a negotiated settlement between Russia and Ukraine (and its NATO partners) which include an armistice agreement (i.e. freeze the front lines) or a political settlement (i.e. peace treaty).

 

The authors' analysis suggests that "duration" is the most important of the dimensions for the United States.  Let's look at the potential costs of a long war:

 

1.) There would be a prolonged elevated risk of Russian nuclear use and the outbreaking of a hot NATO-Russia war.

 

2.) Ukraine would have a greater need for external economic and military support during and after the war since more damage to their infrastructure would be likely.

 

3.) More Ukrainian civilians would die, be displaced, or endure hardships stemming from the war.

 

4.) There would be continued upward pressure on energy and food prices, causing loss of life (an estimated 150,000 excess deaths) and suffering globally which would primarily affect Europe.

 

5.) Global economic growth would slow, particularly in Europe.

 

6.) The United States would be less able to focus on other global priorities particularly China and the prospects for negotiating a follow-on to the New START arms control treaty

 

7.) An ongoing freeze in U.S.-Russia relations would pose challenges to other U.S. priorities.

 

8.) There is a possibility of increased Russian territorial gains in Ukraine.

 

9.) The relationship between Russia and China could deepen.

 

Now, let's look at some of the key observations contained in the report:

  

1.) A long war could entail major costs for the United States (page 8).

 

2.) The consequences of a long war far outweigh the possible benefits related to elevated escalation risks and economic damage. (page 11)

  

3.) America's ability to focus on other global geopolitical priorities, particularly its competition with China, will be constrained while the war is consuming policymakers' time and United States military resources. (page 11)

 

4.) When the war ends it is likely that Russia will be more dependent on China (although it is my belief that they are mutually dependent on each other), Washington wants to ensure that Russia does not become completely subordinated to China.  The prospect of a longer war could provide Beijing with advantages in its competition with Washington. (page 11)

  

So, in closing, to avoid this nightmarish scenario, what do the authors recommend?  Here is a quote:

 

"A dramatic, overnight shift in U.S. policy is politically impossible—both domestically and with allies—and would be unwise in any case. But developing these instruments now and socializing them with Ukraine and with U.S. allies might help catalyze the eventual start of a process that could bring this war to a negotiated end in a time frame that would serve U.S. interests. The alternative is a long war that poses major challenges for the United States, Ukraine, and the rest of the world."

  

Of course, the war has always been about protecting America's global hegemony.  What a surprise.

Two Decades of Aggravating Russia - A Washington Pastime

A recent viewpoint by Branko Marcetic on the American Committee for US-Russia Accord entitled "Diplomatic Cables Show Russia Saw NATO Expansion as a Red Line" provides us with some important background on the current conflict in Ukraine that is rarely (if ever) discussed in the Western mainstream media.  Thanks to this article, we also gain an understanding regarding the importance of organizations like WikiLeaks whose mandate (in part) it was to shed light on the seedy and secretive underbelly of American politics.

  

Let's look at a selection of classified diplomatic cables from the United States Department of State that were released by WikiLeaks as part of its Cablegate program which began on November 28, 2011:

 

1.) In this April 2002 cable, U.S. Ambassador to Italy Melvin Sembler is relaying information from a meeting held with then Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi following the Prime Minister's meetings with Vladimir Putin in Moscow and Sochi.  In this cable, Sembler outlines Putin's belief in the importance of Russia being seen as part of the NATO family and that a new NATO-Russia agreement could be negotiated and signed in May 2002:

 

3.) This September 2005 cable from the U.S. Embassy in France outlines a meeting between U.S. officials and French officials in which they discussed NATO, Russia and Ukraine among other issues.  France's Presidential Diplomatic Advisor Maurice Gourdault-Montagne noted that France had developed a good working relationship with Russia which made it possible to discuss difficult subjects at a high level.  It notes that Moscow is sensitive to "an eventual Ukraine accession to NATO".  Interestingly, in a discussion about NATO, France's Director for Strategic Affairs Philippe Carre noted that "the U.S. has a tendency to seek military solutions to security problems, which could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.".  He also commented that France did not want to risk fallout in Ukraine by offering NATO membership:

 

Here is one additional interesting section in the cable which clearly shows Washington's agenda toward Russia:

4.) This February 2007 cable from the U.S. Embassy in France outlines a meeting between U.S. Ambassador to France Craig Roberts Stapleton and France's Political Director Gerard Araud.  In this meeting, the issue of Russia's reaction to Washington's missile defense initiative with Poland and Russia was discussed.

 

In order to keep this posting to a reasonable length, let's look at one final cable:

4.) This September 2007 cable from the U.S. embassy in Moscow, Ambassador William Burns outlines Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's comments on the course of Russian foreign policy and how U.S.-led positions on key issues remain at odds with Russia, most importantly noting that the eastward expansion of NATO should be minimized.  It also notes that the Bush II Adminstration's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and the delay of Russia gaining entry into the WTO "dashed Putin's hope" for rapprochement with Washington.  It also notes that "resurgent Russia is...seeking international recognition, particularly from the U.S., for its recovery from political, economic and social disrepair" and that Putin had hoped that relations between the two nations would improve after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  Lavrov also noted that all parties, even those that are considered to be "undesirable" should have a seat at negotiating tables.

In order to keep this posting to a reasonable length, let's look at one final cable:

 

4.) This February 2007 cable from the U.S. Embassy in France outlines a meeting between U.S. Ambassador to France Craig Roberts Stapleton and France's Political Director Gerard Araud.  In this meeting, the issue of Russia's reaction to Washington's missile defense initiative with Poland and Russia was discussed which is important as it relates to NATO's expansion to the east.

 

There are other Department of State cables that clearly outline Russia's concerns about NATO expansionism that are available on WikiLeaks website which prove that Washington was well aware that Russia was concerned about its western flank, the same flank that proved to be extremely vulnerable during the Second World War as Nazi Germany expanded eastward in its move to destroy Russia's untermenschen.  So what has Washington done?  Here is a map showing NATO's expansion over the decades, particularly in the 1990s as former Soviet states acceded to NATO membership:

 

Other that Belarus and Ukraine, NATO member states now directly share common borders with Russia, making the nation feel vulnerable to an attack from the west.  Given this table which shows the estimated number of military and civilian fatalities due to the Second World War between the years of 1939 and 1945, Russia has valid historical reasons for being concerned about its security along its western frontier, an issue that only China can truly understand given its losses to Japan during the Second World War:

 

The United States and Saudi Arabia - Human Rights and Arms Sales

Washington loves to use human rights violations as an excuse to either sanction or take military action against nations that it deems have unacceptable behaviour toward its citizens, and, in a unipolar world, their actions went unchecked.  There is, however, one nation that gets an exemption; Saudi Arabia, Washington's second-best friend in the Middle East and ground zero for a war with Iran.  In this posting, we'll look at what the Department of State has to say about human rights in Saudi Arabia followed by some recent news.

  

On an annual basis, the U.S. Department of State releases Country Reports on many nations around the world.  The latest report on Saudi Arabia opens with this stage-setting information:

 

"The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, who is both head of state and head of government. The 1992 Basic Law sets out the system of governance, rights of citizens, and powers and duties of the government, and it provides that the Quran and Sunna (the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad) serve as the country’s constitution. It specifies that the rulers of the country shall be male descendants of the founder, King Abdulaziz (Ibn Saud).

 

The State Security Presidency, National Guard, and Ministries of Defense and Interior, all of which report to the king, are responsible for law enforcement and maintenance of order. The State Security Presidency includes the General Directorate of Investigation (mabahith), Special Security Forces, and Special Emergency Forces; police are under the Ministry of Interior. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control over the security forces. There were credible reports that members of the security forces committed some abuses."

 

The report is divided into several sections, however, to keep this posting to a reasonable length, I will deal with two sections along with examples for each section.  It is important to keep in mind that the nation is under sharia law.

 

1.) Respect for the Integrity of the Person

 

a.) Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings:

 

Capital punishment can be imposed for violations including apostasy, sorcery and adultery.  Recently, the Saudi Government announced a moratorium on the deal penalty for drug-related offences by the changes to the law have not been published.  Minors' prison sentences are capped at 10 years (with adults being defined as those aged 18 and older) with the exception of a category of crimes that includes various types of murder and those crimes that carry specific penalties under the nation's interpretation of sharia law.  Lengthy prison sentences or death are prescribed for individuals who are convicted of terrorism or political protests.

 

b.) Disappearances:

 

There are outstanding reports of disappearances carried out by or on behalf of government authorities including several members of the royal family that were detained in March 2020 who stand accused of contact with foreign powers to carry out a coup d'état.  Here is another example:

 

"On April 5, the Specialized Criminal Court sentenced Abdulrahman al-Sadhan to 20 years’ imprisonment, followed by a 20-year travel ban, on terrorism financing and facilitation charges. After his arrest in 2018, al-Sadhan was detained incommunicado for two years before being allowed to speak with his family. Legal proceedings against him began on March 3 in a process that Amnesty International said was marred by rights violations. Al-Sadhan reportedly tweeted comments critical of the government and sympathetic to ISIS, which family members claimed were satirical in nature. Family members alleged that al-Sadhan was physically abused during his detention and that he was unable to present a proper legal defense during his trial."

  

c.) Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:

 

While the law prohibits torture, there were reports by human rights organizations and the United Nations that such actions had taken place when officials try to extract "confessions" through the use of torture.  Here is an example:

 

"In July Human Rights Watch reported anonymous accounts from prison guards alleging torture of political detainees, including of prominent activists Loujain al-Hathloul and Mohammed al-Rabea. They alleged women’s rights activists and others were subjected to electric shocks, beatings, whippings, and sexual abuse. In February, following her sentencing and conditional release, al-Hathloul’s family reported that an appeals court rejected a lawsuit regarding her claims of torture. In December 2020 the Riyadh Criminal Court had previously dismissed her claim, citing a lack of evidence."

  

Courts also continue to sentence individuals to corporal punishment (i.e. flogging) for offenses including drunkeness, sexual conduct between unmarried persons and false accusations of adultery.  One individual who was found guilty of drug trafficking was sentenced to 5,000 lashes, however, his sentence was changed to five years in prison, a five year travel ban and a large fine.  Saudi activist Raif Badawi was originally sentenced to 1,000 lashes, 10 years in prison and a ten-year travel ban with his sentence including 50 lashes every week for 19 weeks after his initial flogging.  Physicians who examined him stated that his health would not permit further floggings because his initial wounds had not healed properly.  In 2020, Saudi Arabia's Supreme Court announced the abolition of flogging which would be replaced by fines and imprisonment as shown here:

e.) Denial of Fair Public Trial:

 

While the nation's law states that authorities may not detain a persons for more than 24 hours, certain government departments including the State Security Presidency have the authority to arrest and detail persons indefinitely without judicial oversight, notification of charges or effective access to legal counsel or family members even though the law requires that authorities file charges within 72 hours of arrest and hold a trial within six months.  There are reports that authorities have held suspects up to 12 months in investigative detention without access to legal council with authorities complete a full investigation of the case.  Here is an example:

 

"On May 6, Prisoners of Conscience reported that dozens of journalists and bloggers remained under arbitrary arrest. In November Prisoners of Conscience reported that authorities had detained blogger Zainab al-Hashemi and university student Asmaa al-Subaie since May without charge. The two were reportedly arrested with other online activists. As of year’s end, their whereabouts were unknown."

 

While the law states that court hearings must be public, courts can be closed at the discretion of a judge.  Authorities are allowed to close a trial depending on the sensitivity of a case to national security, the reputation of the defendant or the safety of witnesses.   Authorities must offer defendants a lawyer at government expense, however, activists state that many political prisoners were not able to or allowed to retain or consult with an attorney during critical pareses of an investigation or trail.   In certain circumstances, the testimony of a women in court equals one-half that of a man and judges have the discretion to discredit the testimony of non-practicing Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims and persons of other religions.

 

2.) Respect for Civil Liberties

 

a.) Freedom of Expression Including for Members of the Press and Other Media:

 

The law does not provide for or protect freedom of expression inducing for members of the press and other media as quoted here:

 

"Media are prohibited from committing acts that lead to disorder and division, affect the security of the state or its public relations, or undermine human dignity and rights.” Authorities are responsible for regulating and determining what speech or expression undermines internal security. The government can ban or suspend media outlets if it concludes they violated the press and publications law, and it monitored and blocked hundreds of thousands of internet sites. There were frequent reports of restrictions on free speech."

 

Counterterrorism laws are defined as:

 

"...any conduct...intended to disturb public order...or destabilize the state or endanger its national unity.” The law also penalizes “anyone who challenges, either directly or indirectly, the religion or justice of the king or crown prince...or anyone who establishes or uses a website or computer program...to commit any of the offenses set out in the law.”

 

Here are more details on freedom of expression for members of the press including online media:

  

"The law governs printed materials; printing presses; bookstores; the import, rental, and sale of films; television and radio; foreign media offices and their correspondents; and online newspapers and journals. Media fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Media. The ministry may permanently close “whenever necessary” any means of communication – defined as any means of expressing a viewpoint that is meant for circulation – that it deems is engaged in a prohibited activity, as set forth in the law.

 

Government policy guidance instructs journalists in the country to uphold Islam, oppose atheism, promote Arab interests, and preserve cultural heritage. The press law requires all online newspapers and bloggers to obtain a license from the ministry. The law bans publishing anything “contradicting sharia, inciting disruption, serving foreign interests that contradict national interests, and damaging the reputation of the grand mufti, members of the Council of Senior Religious Scholars, or senior government officials.”

 

I think that information the information that I have provided in this posting gives you a sense of "freedom", Saudi Arabian-style.  If you wish to read additional information, please click here for the entire Department of State Report.

  

Now, let's look at recent news as announced by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency which can only have made Raytheon's corner office dwellers happy:

 

 

I find it interesting that the sale of these PATRIOT Missiles will accomplish two purposes:

 

1.) allow Saudi Arabia to protect its borders from Houthi cross-border unmanned aerial and ballistic missile attacks on civilian sites and critical infrastructure in Saudi Arabia not to mention protecting the 70,000 United States citizens who live in Saudi Arabia.  This, despite the fact that the war has resulted in  nearly 15,000 Yemeni civilian casualties, most of them in air strikes by the Saudi-led and American-armed coalition forces as shown here:

 

...and here:

 

2.) Here's a quote from the press release:

"This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a partner country that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Gulf region."

 

In other words, the sale will support Washington's moves toward a war with Iran.

 

This sentence in the press release is for irony-impaired politicians:

 

"The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region."

 

At least not until the Russians or Chinese sell the Iranians additional materiel to counter Washington's sale of $3 billion worth of Patriot missiles and other products from America's defense contractors.

 

While it is not terribly surprising, Washington can clearly speak out of "both sides of its mouth" when it comes to manipulating the narrative to suit its own purposes.  The fact that politicians of both stripes can totally ignore Saudi Arabia's egregious behaviour when it comes to human rights and, at the same time, justify selling the Saudi royal family billions of dollars worth of arms is nothing short of appalling. 

 

Boeing and Its Connections to Washington

Updated December 2019

With Boeing finding itself on the receiving end of bad news thanks to issues related to its 737 Max 8 model and with Washington's seeming reluctance to be among the first nations to banish these airplanes from the sky, especially considering the large number of 737 Max 8s that are flying in American airspace, I thought it would be prudent to look at a key aspect of Boeing's business model.

According to Defense News, in 2018, Boeing was the fifth largest defense contractor in the world when measured in terms of defense revenue (2017 data) as shown here:

According to Boeing's financial results for the fourth quarter of 2018, the company had record fourth quarter revenue of $28.3 billion ($101.1 billion on a full year basis) thanks to record commercial delivers and higher defense volumes.  Here is a table showing the company's revenues and earnings from its Defense, Space and Security operations:

Higher revenue in the fourth quarter of 2018 was driven by increased volumes across F/A-18, satellites and weapons.  During the quarter, Boeing was awarded a contract for a joint ground system to provide tactical satellite communications for the United States Air Force, completed a successful test for the United States Air Force's Minuteman III and unveiled the SB>1 DEFIANT helicopter to the United States Army.  In January 2019, Boeing also delivered the first two KC-46 Tankers to the United States Air Force.  It is key to note that Boeing's order backlog at Defense, Space and Security was $57.166 billion of which 70 percent or $39.9 billion represents customers inside the United States (i.e. U.S. taxpayers).  Boeing projects that revenues for its Defense, Space and Security segment will be between $26.5 and $27.5 billion for fiscal 2019.

Now, given that Boeing is a very important part of America's military-industrial-intelligence network, let's look at a key aspect of Boeing's business which receives relatively little attention.  According to Open Secrets, here is a historical look at Boeing's contributions to political candidates by political party going back to 1990:

Boeing's total political contributions of $4.551 million in 2018 put it in 82nd place out of 19,087 organizations.

Here is a table providing a detailed breakdown of the same data:

Here is a table showing how the political contributions were divided between the House and Senate:

Here are the top recipients of Boeing's generosity:

Here is a list of members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services:

Here is a list of key members of the House Committee on Armed Services:

It is interesting (but not terribly shocking) to note that there is some overlap between the House and Senate recipients of Boeing's generosity and the list of members of the Committee on Armed Services.

Lastly for this section, let's look at which members of the House and Senate own Boeing stock:

Let's look at Washington's other favourite pastime, lobbying.  Here is a graphic showing how much Boeing has spent on lobbying over the past two decades:

Boeing's lobbying expenditures of $15.12 million put it in 10th place out of 4,163 lobbying entities in 2018.

As you can see here, Boeing stands in first place among its Defense/Aerospace peers when it comes to spending on lobbying:

In 2018, Boeing had 98 lobbyists, 71 (or 72.4 percent) of which are revolvers (i.e. had government connections).  Here is a partial listing of the lobbyists that worked on Boeing's behalf in 2018:

Here are the government agencies and government bodies that Boeing lobbied in 2018:

Here is a partial listing of issues that concerned Boeing in 2018:

Boeing was among the top ten lobbyists when it came to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1), the bill that saw the corporate income tax rate drop to 21 percent, an obvious benefit to Boeing.  That said, it is interesting to note that Boeing's effective federal and state tax rates looked like this over the decade between 2008 and 2017:

Apparently, an effective tax rate of 8.4 percent is seen as way too high for a company that made total pretax profits of $54.865 billion over the decade.  But, thanks to the tax cuts, here is what Boeing has proposed:

As you can see from this data, Boeing is one of the big players when it comes to spending money to gain influence in Washington.  Apparently, Boeing's management is well aware that Washington is for sale and that there is an excellent chance that spending money on political candidates and lobbying will be returned many-fold to Boeing's bottom line.