Calling Russia’s Attack ‘Unprovoked’ Lets USA Off the Hook

FAIR, BRYCE GREENE, MARCH 4, 2022, Many governments and media figures are rightly condemning Russian President Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine as an act of aggression and a violation of international law. But in his first speech about the invasion, on February 24, US President Joe Biden also called the invasion “unprovoked.”

It’s a word that has been echoed repeatedly across the media ecosystem. “Putin’s forces entered Ukraine’s second-largest city on the fourth day of the unprovoked invasion,” Axios (2/27/22) reported; “Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine entered its second week Friday,” said CNBC (3/4/22). Vox (3/1/22) wrote of “Putin’s decision to launch an unprovoked and unnecessary war with the second-largest country in Europe.”

The “unprovoked” descriptor obscures a long history of provocative behavior from the United States in regards to Ukraine. This history is important to understanding how we got here, and what degree of responsibility the US bears for the current attack on Ukraine.

Ignoring expert advice

The story starts at the end of the Cold War, when the US was the only global hegemon. As part of the deal that finalized the reunification of Germany, the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Despite this, it wasn’t long before talk of expansion began to circulate among policy makers…………

Despite these warnings, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were added to NATO in 1999, with Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia following in 2004.

US planners were warned again in 2008 by US Ambassador to Moscow William Burns (now director of the CIA under Joe Biden). WikiLeaks leaked a cable from Burns titled “Nyet Means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines” that included another prophetic warning worth quoting in full (emphasis added):

Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests.

Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.

A de facto NATO ally

But the US has pushed Russia to make such a decision. Though European countries are divided about whether or not Ukraine should join, many in the NATO camp have been adamant about maintaining the alliance’s “open door policy.”

Even without officially being in NATO, Ukraine has become a de facto NATO ally—and Russia has paid close attention to these developments. In a December 2021 speech to his top military officials, Putin expressed his concerns:…………………………

The Maidan Coup of 2014

A major turning point in the US/Ukraine/Russia relationship was the 2014 violent and unconstitutional ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych, elected in 2010 in a vote heavily split between eastern and western Ukraine. His ouster came after months of protests led in part by far-right extremists (FAIR.org, 3/7/14). Weeks before his ouster, an unknown party leaked a phone call between US officials discussing who should and shouldn’t be part of the new government, and finding ways to “seal the deal.” After the ouster, a politician the officials designated as “the guy” even became prime minister.

The US involvement was part of a campaign aimed at exploiting the divisions in Ukrainian society to push the country into the US sphere of influence, pulling it out of the Russian sphere (FAIR.org, 1/28/22). In the aftermath of the overthrow, Russia illegally annexed Crimea from Ukraine, in part to secure a major naval base from the new Ukrainian government.

The New York Times (2/24/22) and Washington Post (2/28/22) both omitted the role the US played in these events. In US media, this critical moment in history is completely cleansed of US influence, erasing a critical step on the road to the current war.

Keeping civil war alive

In another response to the overthrow, an uprising in Ukraine’s Donbas region grew into a rebel movement that declared independence from Ukraine and announced the formation of their own republics. The resulting civil war claimed thousands of lives, but was largely paused in 2015 with a ceasefire agreement known as the Minsk II accords.

The deal, agreed to by Ukraine, Russia and other European countries, was designed to grant some form of autonomy to the breakaway regions in exchange for reintegrating them into the Ukrainian state. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian government refused to implement the autonomy provision of the accords

Anatol Lieven, a researcher with the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote in The Nation (11/15/21):

The main reason for this refusal, apart from a general commitment to retain centralized power in Kiev, has been the belief that permanent autonomy for the Donbas would prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and the European Union, as the region could use its constitutional position within Ukraine to block membership.
Refusal to de-escalate…………

By December 2021, US intelligence agencies were sounding the alarm that Russia was amassing troops at the Ukrainian border and planning to attack. Yet Putin was very clear about a path to deescalation: He called on the West to halt NATO expansion, negotiate Ukrainian neutrality in the East/West rivalry, remove US nuclear weapons from non proliferating countries, and remove missiles, troops and bases near Russia. These are demands the US would surely have made were it in Russia’s position.

Unfortunately, the US refused to negotiate on Russia’s core concerns…………..

Instead of addressing Russian concerns about Ukraine’s NATO relationship, the US instead chose to pour hundreds of millions of dollars of weapons into Ukraine, exacerbating Putin’s expressed concerns. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy didn’t help matters by suggesting that Ukraine might begin a nuclear weapons program at the height of the tensions.

After Putin announced his recognition of the breakaway republics, Secretary of State Antony Blinken canceled talks with Putin, and began the process of implementing sanctions on Russia—all before Russian soldiers had set foot into Ukraine.

Had the US been genuinely interested in avoiding war, it would have taken every opportunity to de-escalate the situation. Instead, it did the opposite nearly every step of the way……………

None of this is to say that Putin’s invasion is justified—FAIR resolutely condemns the invasion as illegal and ruinous—but calling it “unprovoked” distracts attention from the US’s own contribution to this disastrous outcome. The US ignored warnings from both Russian and US officials that a major conflagration could erupt if the US continued its path, and it shouldn’t be surprising that one eventually did.

Now, as the world once again inches toward the brink of nuclear omnicide, it is more important than ever for Western audiences to understand and challenge their own government’s role in dragging us all to this point.

https://fair.org/home/calling-russias-attack-unprovoked-lets-us-off-the-hook/—

March 5, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning: “It is Impossible to Foresee the End Date” says the Nuclear Regulation Commission — Fukushima 311 Watchdogs

March 2, 2022 　Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Toyoshi Sarada said he believes it is impossible to predict when the decommissioning of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant will be completed. 　Nuclear Regulation Authority Chairman Toyoshi Sarada: “I think it is technically impossible to determine a realistic number of years that we can promise to various […]
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning: “It is Impossible to Foresee the End Date” says the Nuclear Regulation Commission — Fukushima 311 Watchdogs

March 5, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Radioactive waste stuck at 830 sites with nowhere to go — Fukushima 311 Watchdogs

A temporary storage site for contaminated soil resulting from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. The bags of radioactive waste are due to be shipped to an interim storage facility. The photo was taken in February. March 3, 2022 Vast quantities of topsoil collected during decontamination work after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster are stuck in limbo […]
Radioactive waste stuck at 830 sites with nowhere to go — Fukushima 311 Watchdogs

March 5, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

March 4 Energy News — geoharvey

Opinion: ¶ “Big Auto Had The Ultimate Barriers To Entry – Then Tesla Broke Through” • Conventional wisdom once held that it would be practically impossible for a startup company to challenge the Big Auto behemoths. When economics professors explained the concept of barriers to entry, the auto industry was usually example #1. Then Tesla […]
March 4 Energy News — geoharvey

March 5, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Kevin Rudd on the ‘decisive decade’ between USA and China

Are we in the middle of Cold War 2.0? | The Bottom Line, 24 Feb 2022 Within years, China will overtake the United States as the world’s number one economy, and China’s influence is spreading worldwide – mostly at the expense of US global leadership. Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd tells host Steve Clemons that this is the “decisive decade” in relations between the two powers. Either they find a way to share wealth and power, or they head down a collision course.

But with today’s political climates in the West and East – where politicians are rewarded for nationalistic tough-talk and zero compromise – is there hope for better relations between Beijing and Washington?

March 3, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Australia’s Defence Department silent about its slippery dealings using tax-payers’ money, involving Russian contractors

With very little disclosure, the contract was awarded to Vertical Australia, a company newly minted as the local agent for a Russian company, Air Company Vertical-T. The services would include the use of a Russian Mil Mi-26, the largest and most powerful helicopter ever produced.

And now the Australian partners, Michael West Media and CrikeyINQ have found a disturbing story about the Australian Defence Force and a web of intrigue involving contracts that include Russian contractors and what appears to be money laundering using Australian taxpayers money…………………

Operation Slippery: Russian aviation magnate diverts Australian Defence profits to tax havens, Michael West Media By Michael West|, December 4, 2019 Australia’s Department of Defence is keeping silent. Yet it has serious questions to answer over its dealings with an elusive Russian aviation tycoon, an American mercenary outfit and a money trail which winds from Canberra to the Seychelles via Cyprus. Thanks to the #29Leaks data leak unveiled today in a global collaboration of investigative journalists by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, Michael West Media and Crikey INQ raise serious questions about how the Government is spending our taxes. Kim Prince, Suzanne Smith and Michael West report.

In late 2010, a Department of Defence tender was issued for cargo helicopters to support Australia’s war effort in Afghanistan. At the time, Operation Slipper was in full swing, an operation notable for the first deaths of Australian soldiers in battle since the Vietnam War: 41 soldiers died and 261 were wounded fighting jihadist groups during the operation which began in October 2001 and ended in 2014.

With very little disclosure, the contract was awarded to Vertical Australia, a company newly minted as the local agent for a Russian company, Air Company Vertical-T. The services would include the use of a Russian Mil Mi-26, the largest and most powerful helicopter ever produced.

The businessman behind Vertical Australia was a Russian aviation entrepreneur, Vladimir Skurikhin, who is connected to a slew of companies and partnerships around the world, from Cyprus to the Seychelles to the City of London. His deal with Australia’s Defence Department appears to involve leasing high-tech helicopters replete with pilots and crew.

On the face of it, the defence contract proceeded unremarkably; with the exception of a minor dispute that found its way to the NSW Supreme Court. The dispute was not between the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and its supplier Vertical Australia, but within the supplier’s own payment chain, which included a mysterious entity in Cyprus, a banking haven for Russian oligarchs.

Vladimir Skurikhin, the General Director of Vertical-T, would later attest that the complex chain was in place due to a mistaken belief that Australian companies were forbidden from making payments directly to Russia.

The upshot of the dispute was twofold. Firstly, Vertical Australia paid more than $2.3 million into the Supreme Court of NSW, leaving the court to decide to whom it should be remitted. Should it be paid directly to the Russian supplier Vertical-T, or to its erstwhile intermediary, Wellman Limited of Cyprus? On this score, the court would ultimately rule in favour of Vladimir Skurikhin’s military contracting company Vertical-T.

The second effect was that DynCorp Australia was appointed as Vertical-T’s new agent, and Vertical Australia folded. DynCorp, part of the controversial US defence contractor DynCorp International, had been trying to get a foothold in Australia for eight years. Its parent, DynCorp International, which is owned by a New York private equity firm Cerberus Capital, has been embroiled in a suite of scandals including corruption allegations over US military contracts in Iraq and sex-trafficking in Bosnia. It has been labelled a “mini-Blackwater”, a reference to its history of providing mercenary services.

All of this was water under the bridge until October this year, when Michael West Media and Crikey INQ were invited to participate in a cross-border investigation. The Sarajevo-based Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) had received a massive leak of data from UK-based Formations House. It would require an international team of investigative journalists to extract maximum advantage from it.

Formations House

Formations House is a company formation agent, sometimes referred to as a shell company factory. They offer a range of services for creating and operating corporate entities in a number of countries including offshore secrecy jurisdictions, aka tax havens, such as the British Virgin Isles and the Seychelles.

Although legitimate companies use the services of Formations House too, many others enlist it to hide their murky deals, to avoid tax and inspection from financial regulators. Part of the lure for business people keen to hide things is the prestigious address, — number 29 Harley Street in London. Besides the offer of an upmarket address, Formations House provides a local phone number, a bank account, and preparation of annual accounts and company filings. For those seeking a business façade and a degree of anonymity, this is a one-stop-shop.

Although legitimate companies use the services of Formations House too, many others enlist it to hide their murky deals, to avoid tax and inspection from financial regulators. Part of the lure for business people keen to hide things is the prestigious address, — number 29 Harley Street in London. Besides the offer of an upmarket address, Formations House provides a local phone number, a bank account, and preparation of annual accounts and company filings. For those seeking a business façade and a degree of anonymity, this is a one-stop-shop……………..

And now the Australian partners, Michael West Media and CrikeyINQ have found a disturbing story about the Australian Defence Force and a web of intrigue involving contracts that include Russian contractors and what appears to be money laundering using Australian taxpayers money…………………

STS Corporation and the MH17 disaster

Deep in the Formations House leak is a UK-based company, STS Corporation. Its bank statements show tranches of cash arriving from various countries including Afghanistan, Russia and Australia. There are also frequent outbound transfers from STS to entities in tax havens where, in many cases, the real beneficiaries of the money are simply unknowable……………

Defence Department refuses to respond

Questions were put to the Department of Defence about its knowledge of the beneficiaries of the Vertical Australia contract payments and the money trail through tax havens. No answer has been forthcoming, including answers to questions about money-laundering and the flow of Australian taxpayer dollars to Russian interests in tax havens. …………………….

Contacted for this story, Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick said the intrigue surrounding the Skurikhin transactions reflected the urgent need for greater transparency in Defence and in the way the Federal Government went about its procurement…………….

“I will be making further inquiries in the Parliament in relation to this procurement. Part of the solution to this is my ‘Tax Transparency in Procurement and Grants” bill which requires companies to disclose their structure, particularly in respect of related entities domiciled in tax havens, as they tender for work.”

The Seychelles Connection……………..

The rise of DynCorp

On the Australian front, the Formations House leak includes an agreement, signed by a former director of DynCorp Australia, in which STS is to act as agent for DynCorp Australia, representing the company in business dealings in Europe and the Middle East.

On its website, DynCorp says it “…sustains and improves the ADF’s operational capabilities through logistic support, facilities maintenance, and project management services”. So what products or services would this defence contractor, who is presumably entirely dependent on the public purse, have to export via its agent? We attempted to contact the Dyncorp director, and later put this question to an associate, but at the time of publication there had been no response. …………………….

Spectre of money-laundering through Australian courts

So, what are two companies controlled by a Russian tycoon doing soaking up the resources of Australia’s court system in a dispute and why would the payments be described as refunds on legal fees?

Around the time in question, sham litigation had become a popular tool for money launderers. ………………………https://www.michaelwest.com.au/operation-slippery-russian-aviation-magnate-diverts-australian-defence-profits-to-tax-havens/

March 3, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets and lies, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Perth could be the first city in the world to be nuclear bombed, in the (unlikely)event of Putin deciding on a show of nuclear strebgth

Frightening graphic reveals the horrific carnage a nuclear bomb would cause in Australia’s biggest cities – as Vladimir Putin’s nuclear sabre-rattling sparks global fears

President Putin has put his military on ‘nuclear alert’ over war in Ukraine
Such an attack would cause mass devastation and prove a point to the west
However experts say it’s highly unlikely Putin will want to start a nuclear war

By KEVIN AIRS FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA, 3 Msr 22, A devastating Russian nuclear missile nicknamed ‘Satan’ could flatten every major Australian city if it’s unleashed in the very unlikely event of all-out nuclear war, experts have warned…………………………….

Curtin University nuclear expert Victor Abramowicz …..

‘Using battlefield nuclear weapons would be an unmitigated disaster for Ukraine, but you’d need multiple steps for that to lead to missiles flying at Washington and Moscow”. ‘

Bizarrely though, Perth in Western Australia could be the first place in the world to be targeted if Putin tries to prove a point and frighten the west into thinking a bigger city could be on the cards next.

NATO generals have war-gamed various situations to pinpoint where Russia may target if it was ever to lash out in a bid to get the West to buckle to its demands.

And bombing Perth – because of its remoteness from nearby civilisation – emerged as a terrifying possibility.

They feared Russia may nuke Perth as a show of power and determination while still avoiding engaging the US in mutually-assured nuclear Armageddon.

Despite potentially killing up to half a million in the nuclear bombing, future effects would be limited, with the radiation fallout confined to the vast desert outback. …………

If Perth was specifically targeted by one of the Satan missiles, the effects would be devastating

If the Satan warheads explode in a 10MT airburst over Perth, modelling by Nukemap predicts 505,000 fatalities instantly, with another 575,000 injured.

A surface blast would restrict casualties to 327,000 dead and another 420,000 casualties, but it would taint the land for centuries to come with fallout spreading 1000km inland…………….. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10562917/Russia-Ukraine-war-happen-nuclear-bomb-dropped-Australia.html

March 3, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war, Western Australia | Leave a comment

A nuclear bomb on Sydney would mean umimaginable carnage

Frightening graphic reveals the horrific carnage a nuclear bomb would cause in Australia’s biggest cities – as Vladimir Putin’s nuclear sabre-rattling sparks global fears, By KEVIN AIRS FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA, 3 Mar 22, ”……………………But if the attack was to target Sydney or Melbourne, the carnage would be almost unimaginable.

Almost a million would die instantly in a 5km fireball which would engulf Sydney city centre, turning the inner-west, CBD and Eastern Suburbs to ash.

Buildings would be crushed to dust from Homebush to Collaroy to Cronulla.

If the airburst happened over Parramatta, the devastation would be even greater. The entire greater Sydney area from Penrith to Richmond to Palm Beach to Camden and the Royal National Park would be ablaze.

Anyone in the city left alive after the nuclear fireball and initial blast would be suffering third degree radiation burns all over their body, with many losing limbs.

The only saving grace might be that all their nerve-endings would probably be burnt away and they’d feel little to no pain.

Further out and windows in the Illawarra and Central Coast would be blown out by the blast, inflicting maiming injuries on locals, many of whom would be standing by a window to watch the distant explosion.

A surface blast could cause a fifth or so fewer deaths and injuries, but create a radiation cloud that would stretch up the coast to Newcastle and beyond, blowing out to sea as far up as the Gold Coast.

‘There’s no doubt that any large-scale nuclear weapons use would be quite catastrophic,’ Australian National University Professor Stephan Fruehling told the I’ve Got News For You podcast.

If you have a nuclear weapon that’s exploded on the ground, you’re looking at a very significant fallout plume and local contamination, which is essentially dangerous because of the radiotoxicity and contaminating water supplies and food chains.’

In Melbourne, a similar airburst explosion would instantly destroy everywhere around the CBD including Docklands, South and East Melbourne and Carlton in a deadly fireball.

More than 900,000 would die in a blink of an eye with another 1.3 million injured.

Everything from Sunshine West to Box Hill and north to Broadmeadows would be flattened in a 30km-wide blast range.

Everyone from Orangefields to Boronia to Whalan would be burnt to a crisp, with windows blown out and property damaged 85km from the epicentre, stretching from Frankston to Bacchus Marsh to Wallan.

A surface explosion would reduce the death total by a couple of hundred thousand, but the radiation cloud would stretch across Victoria, over Albany and Canberra and reach Sydney and Newcastle…………… https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10562917/Russia-Ukraine-war-happen-nuclear-bomb-dropped-Australia.html

March 3, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | New South Wales, Victoria, weapons and war | Leave a comment

While Scott Morrison froths against Putin, Australia rushes to become a top weapons seller to the world

Australian leaders would sound less hypocritical and less vulnerable to criticism if they displayed a consistent interest in in peace, in social justice, in principles of non-violence and were enthusiastic champions of universal human rights.

To challenge Putin avoid Australian aggression https://johnmenadue.com/to-challenge-putin-avoid-australian-aggression/ By Stuart Rees , Mar 2, 2022 Australia’s determination to become the 10th most successful (up from 20th) manufacturer and exporter of arms adds ammunition to the argument that we have no explicit policy for peace.

Scott Morrison frothing about Putin can be replaced by some acknowledgement of our part in a world order gone wrong.

In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Australian Prime Minister fumes about aggression that will not be allowed and the raft of government sanctions that will be imposed. In defence of democracy, he says, Australia’s sanctions policy is in lock step with other peace living nations, but there’s something bogus with these claims.

If your country has been a consistent and enthusiastic champion of peace, of non violence and of principles of world order nurtured by respect for human rights, then it would be plausible to challenge chronic abusers of international law. But television images of Scott Morrison frothing about the new iron curtain encircling Ukraine, would look more convincing against a backdrop of radical changes in Australia’s domestic and foreign policies.

A start could easily be made by adopting the Uluru statement and giving Indigenous people due recognition in the constitution. A genuine effort to repudiate the past and build a new future.

That initiative needs to be followed immediately by ceasing our unfathomably evil conduct towards asylum seekers and the special sadism reserved to reject refugees’ appeals to be reunited with their families. The trifecta in these cruelty stakes concerns the political bullies’ brave determination to prevent the Sri Lankan family and their little girls from returning to Bilolea.

Continue reading →

March 3, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics international | Leave a comment

Residents facing eighteenth once-in-a-hundred year event since last January

Residents facing eighteenth once-in-a-hundred year event since last January – satire

The Shovel

Politicians and media have labelled the devastating floods in Queensland and NSW a once-in-one-hundred year natural disaster, the eighteenth once-in-one-hundred year natural disaster in the past year.

March 3, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“A misinformation ecosystem:” Scott Morrison’s climate ads given Public Disservice Award — RenewEconomy

The Morrison government’s ‘Making Positive Energy’ ad campaign labelled ‘disinformation’, after receiving ‘Public Disservice Award’. The post “A misinformation ecosystem:” Scott Morrison’s climate ads given Public Disservice Award appeared first on RenewEconomy.
“A misinformation ecosystem:” Scott Morrison’s climate ads given Public Disservice Award — RenewEconomy

March 3, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ukraine war – a great opportunity Each new NATO country was a new customer for the weapons industry

“Lockheed began looking at Poland right after the wall came down,” veteran salesman Dick Pawlowski recalled. “There were contractors flooding through all those countries.” Arms makers became the most aggressive lobbyists for NATO expansion. The security umbrella was not simply a formidable alliance but also a tantalizing market.

New alliance members meant new clients. And NATO would literally require them to buy Western military equipment.

Arms Industry Sees Ukraine Conflict as an Opportunity, Not a Crisis, Jonathan Ng, Truthout , 2 Mar 22,In February, a photograph of Russian President Vladimir Putin sitting hunched over a 13-foot table with French President Emmanuel Macron circulated the globe. News about their sprawling table and sumptuous seven-course dinner was reminiscent of a Lewis Carroll story. But their meeting was deadly serious. Macron arrived to discuss the escalating crisis in Ukraine and threat of war. Ultimately, their talk foundered over expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

Yet the meeting was surreal for another reason. Over the past year, Macron, the leading European Union (EU) peace negotiator, has led an ambitious arms sales campaign, exploiting tensions to strengthen French commerce. The trade press even reported that he hoped to sell Rafale fighter jets to Ukraine, breaking into the “former bastion of Russian industry.”

Macron is not alone. NATO contractors openly embrace the crisis in Ukraine as sound business. In January, Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes cited “tensions in Europe” as an opportunity, saying, “I fully expect we’re going to see some benefit.” Likewise, CEO Jim Taiclet of Lockheed Martin highlighted the benefits of “great power competition” in Europe to shareholders.

On February 24, Russia invaded Ukraine, pounding cities with ordnance and dispatching troops across the border. The sonic boom of fighter jets filled the air, as civilians flooded the highways in Kyiv, attempting to flee the capital. And the stock value of arms makers soared.

The spiraling conflict over Ukraine dramatizes the power of militarism and the influence of defense contractors. A ruthless drive for markets — intertwined with imperialism — has propelled NATO expansion, while inflaming wars from Eastern Europe to Yemen.

Selling NATO

The current conflict with Russia began in the wake of the Cold War. Declining military spending throttled the arms industry in the United States and other NATO countries. In 1993, Deputy Secretary of Defense William Perry convened a solemn meeting with executives. Insiders called it the “Last Supper.” In an atmosphere heavy with misapprehension, Perry informed his guests that impending blows to the U.S. military budget called for industry consolidation. A frantic wave of mergers and takeovers followed, as Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing and Raytheon acquired new muscle and smaller firms expired amid postwar scarcity.

While domestic demand shrunk, defense contractors rushed to secure new foreign markets. In particular, they set their sights on the former Soviet bloc, regarding Eastern Europe as a new frontier for accumulation. “Lockheed began looking at Poland right after the wall came down,” veteran salesman Dick Pawlowski recalled. “There were contractors flooding through all those countries.” Arms makers became the most aggressive lobbyists for NATO expansion. The security umbrella was not simply a formidable alliance but also a tantalizing market.

However, lobbyists faced a major obstacle. In 1990, Secretary of State James Baker had promised Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that if he allowed a reunited Germany to join NATO, the organization would move “not one inch eastward.” Yet lobbyists remained hopeful. The Soviet Union had since disintegrated, Cold War triumphalism prevailed, and vested interests now pushed for expansion. “Arms Makers See Bonanza In Selling NATO Expansion,” The New York Times reported in 1997. The newspaper later noted that, “Expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization — first to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic and then possibly to more than a dozen other countries — would offer arms makers a new and hugely lucrative market.”

New alliance members meant new clients. And NATO would literally require them to buy Western military equipment.

Lobbyists poured into Washington, D.C. fêting legislators in royal style. Vice President Bruce Jackson of Lockheed became the president of the advocacy organization U.S. Committee to Expand NATO. Jackson recounted the extravagant meals that he hosted at the mansion of the Republican luminary Julie Finley, which boasted “an endless wine cellar.”

“Educating the Senate about NATO was our chief mission,” he informed journalist Andrew Cockburn. “We’d have four or five senators over every night, and we’d drink Julie’s wine.”

Lobby pressure was relentless. “The most interested corporations are the defense corporations, because they have a direct interest in the issue,” Romanian Ambassador Mircea Geoană observed. Bell Helicopter, Lockheed Martin, and other firms even funded Romania’s lobbying machine during its bid for NATO membership……………… https://truthout.org/articles/arms-industry-sees-ukraine-conflict-as-an-opportunity-not-a-crisis/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=734c56bc-48da-4e66-bea1-f2bedb7d1431

March 3, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The very perilous situation of Ukraine’s nuclear power stations.

Could the Ukraine conflict cause one of the world’s worst nuclear disasters?

ReNew Economy, Dr. Jim Green 3 March 2022

Over the past week the Russian military has taken control of the Chernobyl nuclear site in Ukraine and there have been two near-misses with military attacks threatening radioactive waste sites.

But the greatest nuclear hazards lie ahead and concern Ukraine’s operating nuclear power reactors. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said on March 2:

“The situation in Ukraine is unprecedented and I continue to be gravely concerned. It is the first time a military conflict is happening amidst the facilities of a large, established nuclear power program.

“I have called for restraint from all measures or actions that could jeopardise the security of nuclear and other radioactive material, and the safe operation of any nuclear facilities in Ukraine, because any such incident could have severe consequences, aggravating human suffering and causing environmental harm.”

Grossi cited a 2009 decision by the IAEA General Conference that affirmed that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency.”

Over the past week the Russian military has taken control of the Chernobyl nuclear site in Ukraine and there have been two near-misses with military attacks threatening radioactive waste sites.

But the greatest nuclear hazards lie ahead and concern Ukraine’s operating nuclear power reactors. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said on March 2:

“The situation in Ukraine is unprecedented and I continue to be gravely concerned. It is the first time a military conflict is happening amidst the facilities of a large, established nuclear power program.

“I have called for restraint from all measures or actions that could jeopardise the security of nuclear and other radioactive material, and the safe operation of any nuclear facilities in Ukraine, because any such incident could have severe consequences, aggravating human suffering and causing environmental harm.”

Grossi cited a 2009 decision by the IAEA General Conference that affirmed that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency.”

Worst-case scenario

It’s worthwhile comparing a worst-case scenario with the current situation in Ukraine. A worst-case scenario would involve war between two (or more) even-matched nations with a heavy reliance on nuclear power. War would drag on for years between evenly-matched nations. The heavy reliance on nuclear power would make it difficult or impossible to shut down power reactors.

Sooner or later, a deliberate or accidental military strike would likely hit a reactor – or the reactor’s essential power and cooling water supply would be disrupted. Any ‘gentleman’s agreement’ not to strike nuclear power plants would be voided and multiple Chernobyl- or Fukushima-scale disasters could unfold concurrently – in addition to all the non-nuclear horrors of war.

In the current conflict, the nations are not evenly matched and the fighting is limited to one country. There won’t be large-scale warfare dragging on for years – although low-level conflict might persist for years, as has been the case since Russia’s 2014 invasion of eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

Ukraine does share one component of a worst-case scenario: its heavy reliance on nuclear power. Fifteen reactors at four sites generate 51.2 percent of the country’s electricity. It is one of only three countries reliant on nuclear power for more than half of its electricity supply.

A March 1 IAEA update, citing the State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate of Ukraine (SNRIU), said that all 15 reactors remained under the Ukrainian control and they continued to operate.

But in its daily post dated March 1, SNRIU lists six reactors as ‘disconnected from the power grid’, comprising three reactors at Zaporizhzhia and one each at the Rivno, Khmelnitsky and South Ukrainian nuclear power plants. Those disconnections amount to about 20 per cent of Ukraine’s total national electricity generation.

In the weeks prior to the February 24 invasion, 0-3 reactors were disconnected. The number rose to five on February 26 and has remained at six since then. It seems likely that the invasion has resulted in decisions to disconnect a number of reactors. Ukraine’s nuclear utility Energoatom cites “operational safety” for the disconnection of two reactors at Zaporizhzhia.

Even before the Russian invasion, Ukraine’s reactor fleet was ageing, its nuclear industry was corrupt, regulation was inadequate, and nuclear security measures left much room for improvement. For the time being, it is highly unlikely there will be any meaningful national or international oversight or regulation of the country’s ageing reactors and other nuclear facilities.

Deliberate or accidental military strikes on nuclear plants

A deliberate military strike on a power reactor is highly unlikely – but not inconceivable. Bennett Ramberg, a former foreign affairs officer in the US State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, and author of the 1985 book Nuclear Power Plants as Weapons for the Enemy, draws this comparison: