reflectivepundit

The Horror of Putin’s Nuclear Threat and Biden’s Armageddon Warning

By Brigitte L. Nacos

While many parts of the world suffer deadly or life-changing effects of all kinds of natural disasters--lethal storms, floods, draughts, and pandemics, there are plenty of man-made catastrophes—civil wars, deadly oppression of political dissenters, senseless mass shootings. But the probably most horrific threat today was described by President Joe Biden the other day as the most serious “prospect of Armageddon” since the Cuban Missile Crisis six decades ago. Biden’s assessment of President Vladimir Putin’s repeated warnings of using the nuclear option in Russia’s war against Ukraine should be taken as seriously as Putin’s nuclear threats.

This, then, is the time to remember that John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev found a way to end an existential crisis. Faced with an ultimatum and a blockade of Cuba by the U.S., the Soviet Union blinked. But Khrushchev’s agreement to remove the missiles from the island came with Kennedy’s promise to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey. Obviously, Kennedy and his advisers understood that the Kremlin needed a face-saving give-and-take deal. Never mind that the missiles in Turkey were considered close to obsolete at the time.

Whether Putin’s nuclear threat is understood as the use of tactical weapons of mass destruction in the Ukrainian theater of war or as all-out nuclear confrontation between Russia and the West does not matter now. The potential of the deployment of any nuclear weapons calls for all sides—Russian, Ukrainian, and American leaders--to think and talk about ways to end the disastrous war for both the Russian and Ukrainian people.

It would be naïve to believe this to be an easy task. The Ukrainians, on a roll in the Eastern provinces that Russia forcefully annexed and progressing even in the South, are not in the mood for a cease fire and peace negotiations. Washington’s revelation that Ukraine was responsible for the recent assassination of the daughter of one of President Putin’s allies was probably meant to warn President Volodymyr Zelensky publicly to refrain from further hostile actions on Russian territory.

Putin, increasingly criticized openly by war hawks among his longtime allies because of the failure of the Russian military, cannot and will not accept defeat. Therefore, his nuclear threat cannot be ignored.

For all the support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, the Ukrainian people, and Ukrainian leaders, Washington, along with European allies, must take the lead in getting Russians and Ukrainians to the negotiating table.

If there is any chance for an agreement, the peaceful end of the Cuban Missile Crisis provides an example that President Zelensky must understand: Without a face-saving deal for Putin—perhaps Russia keeping the long-disputed Crimean Peninsula and access to the Black Sea—there will not be peace but more suffering on both sides.

Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: The first World Wide Web War Is a Double-Edged Sword

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Since Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press, every generation has utilized well-established and often brand-new communication technologies.

In the last fifty years or so, the breakthrough of live TV coverage over long distances resulted in news coverage of dramatic events that the whole world could watch. The horrific assault on members of Israel’s national team at the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich was watched by an estimated audience of 500 million people around the world. The satellite coverage of the 1989 student protests in Tiananmen Square catapulted CNN into a premier international all-news network. Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11 Al Qaeda’s leadership boasted that the size of the global news audience had set a new record. Carefully orchestrated by the Pentagon, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was reported “live” by news teams embedded in military units.

And now, as Thomas L. Friedman writes in today’s column in the New York Times, people around the world watch “World War Wired — the first war in a totally interconnected world. This will be the Cossacks meet the World Wide Web.”

Friedman is right, individuals with smartphones capture the cruelty of war, upload images of horror and bravery on TikTok and other social media platforms, and make all of this available to people around the globe. The gatekeepers of traditional news organization or the censors of authoritarian regimes are being bypassed in the social media world.

But whereas the pure multitude of pictures and video clips captured by Ukrainians on their smartphones writes a new chapter in war reporting, the same platforms are available to professional propagandists. In the current conflict, Russian propagandists spin the news in both traditional and social media in carefully tailored narratives that counter the episodic images of smartphone photography. And the Ukrainian authorities may spin as well.

In sharp contrast, the uploaded images and sounds of smartphone owners present brutality and violence in multi millions of snippets in social media. It is a double-edged sword: raw and unfiltered images on the one hand and one the other hand a complete lack of contextual information that would allow  assessments of the snippets on the screen.

I have been told in the last several days repeatedly that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is a “media war” or was asked whether that is the case.

The conflict is a real war on real land and in real airspace. In spite of the attention to the compelling images on TikTok and other social media platforms, I prefer the war coverage by the well-trained journalists of the best traditional news organizations. They provide the context that TikTok and YouTube do not.

The un-American former President and his Idol in Moscow

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Miffed about the lack of applause from Democrats during his 2018 State of the Union Address, then President Donald Trump complained,

“They [the Democrats] were like death and un-American. Un-American. Somebody said, ‘treasonous.’ I mean, Yeah, I guess why not? Can we call that treason? Why not? I mean they certainly didn’t seem to love our country that much.”

Un-American, treasonous, and unpatriotic. Serious charges against political opponents who sat on their hands during another Orwellian speech by the narcissistic liar-in-chief.

And now, after his idol Vladimir Putin has started his unholy war against neighboring Ukraine, the twice impeached former president showed once again that he is America’s most un-American and most unpatriotic actor. How else can one interpret Trump’s praise for strongman Putin whom he called a genius for invading a democratic country next to his Russian autocracy?

 What else can one make of Trump’s simultaneous attacks on the crisis-managing President Joe Biden who managed to pull all NATO countries together after his predecessor’s disastrous transatlantic politics. Worse, yet, the vast majority of Trump’s Republican Party is blindly following a self-obsessed emperor without clothes: no moral compass, no shame, no concern for the fate of this county and its long-time allies.

In Russia, Trump’s buddy Putin is for more than two decades in complete control because he achieved long ago what Trump and his party are trying to putting in place now: a rigged electoral system designed to return King Trump to the throne for another term and guarantee one party rule in Washington, D.C. and a bunch of states as well.

Imagine the unthinkable: Putin and Trump becoming ruling partners again—the would-be Czar and would-be King.

Perhaps, though, there may be a brewing threat to Putin’s power. The large number and the significant size of Russia’s peace movement in response to the war against Ukraine are not the norm in Putin’s Russia. Add to that the huge demonstrations in democracies around the globe. Even strongman like Orban and Erdogan are not siding with Putin.

The unexpected strong resistance by the Ukrainian military and by civilians does not bode well for Putin and his quest for the resurrection of a greater Russian empire. Surely not as long as NATO sticks to its coda that an attack on one member is an attack on all of NATO’s members.

The greatest problem right now may well be the uncertainty. Not only in Ukraine but in Europe and the whole world. Especially, in view of Putin’s explicit and implicit nuclear threats.

ISIS and the Terrorist Threat after the Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Kudos to the our country’s intelligence community, our Special and Conventional Forces, and the Syrian Kurds for locating and taking out ISIS’s founder and spiritual leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a daring raid. After the earlier demise of the physical “caliphate” this weekend’s death of Baghdadi is a welcome victory for the United States and all other targets of the ruthless and cult-like doctrine of the Islamic State and its fanatic jihadists.

It was hardly surprising that Donald Trump during his rhetorical victory lap resorted to superlatives as he compared the end of al-Baghdadi to the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden during Barack Obama’s presidency. During his Q & A session with the press President Trump boasted in the style that dominates his political rallies, “This is the biggest one perhaps that we’ve ever captured...This is the biggest there is. This is the worst ever. Osama bin Laden was big, but Osama bin Laden became big with the World Trade Center. This is a man who built a whole, as he would like to call it, a country." Trump tried to bolster his own achievement and minimize that of his predecessor by characterizing al-Baghdadi as bigger than bin Laden; he also diminished and dehumanized the ISIS leader as dying “like a coward” and “like a dog.”

Trumpian lingo, not the tone normal presidents used in similar situations!

By declaring that “the world is a much safer place,” the president raised a very important question, namely, whether the death of the leader of a dangerous terrorist organization will likely weaken that group or even signals the beginning of its end.

Unfortunately, the answer is a clear NO. Remember that al-Qaeda did not go away after bin Laden’s violent death but gained in strength in various regions of the world—including Syria. And ISIS, an off-shoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq, became a deadly factor after bin Laden was gone.

As President Trump allowed, indeed encouraged Turkish President Erdogan’s troops to force Syrian Kurds, our staunchest allies in the fight against ISIS, out of their homeland as U.S. forces left the area hastily, the many thousands of ISIS fighters in hiding and a growing threat of their brethren escaping from prisons guarded by Syrian Kurds are major factors in ISIS’s likely revival. Moreover, even after the caliphate was defeated, ISIS expanded elsewhere, including in Afghanistan and several African regions.

In his statement and exchanges with the press yesterday Mr. Trump’s first and most profoundly thanked Russia (and his idol Putin), Turkey (and his strongman friend Erdogan), and Syria (and human rights violator supreme Assad) for their assistance. Those parties merely allowed the U.S. military to fly over their controlled parts of Syria. Although the Kurds were crucial in providing human intelligence to pinpoint al-Baghdadi’s hiding place, the President minimized their role. And he once again attacked our Western allies, democracies, for their lack of cooperation.

America’s posture in the fight against ISIS, al-Qaeda and their many affiliates relied for years on relative small footprints of the American military and major fighting roles for local allied forces.

But Trump's betrayal of the Syrian Kurds does not bode well for present and future alliances of this kind nor for America's crucial alliances in Europe and Asia.

 

Flattering Trump and Avoiding War

 

By Brigitte L. Nacos

There is no doubt the John Bolton, President Trump’s National Security advisor, has been itching to go to war against Iran for decades. And now, he finally sees a very good chance to realize his plan. In a way, the hawkish Bolton in the Trump White House resembles the hawkish Richard Cheney in the George W. Bush White House, where the then Vice-President (along with fellow neo-conservatives) finally got his war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq that they had plotted for years.

So, today, the worries that the Middle East will soon see another war of choice, not a war of necessity, are real. In the current climate, wittingly or unwittingly, hostilities can break out any time.

However, in one respect the build-up to the Iraq invasion was different than the current period of heightened conflict rhetoric.

George W. Bush was different than Donald Trump—especially in one important respect: Contrary to George W. the current president is an extreme narcissist who needs constant admiration, affirmation, and assurances of love.

The mirror-hungry Trump looks day-in and day-out for reflections of complete devotion—on FOX News, during his frequent rallies, in the absolute obedience and service of Republican politicians, his on-their- knees cabinet members, and his White House advisers.

Nothing is feeding his insatiable appetite for compliments more than assurances by his admirers that God send him to be the leader of America.

Obviously, the North Korean leader Kim Jong Um recognized the U.S. president’s narcissistic traits and fed his ego in “lovely” letters and personal encounters.

While the North Korean leader and his minions clash with members of Trump’s cabinet, they never have a bad word for Trump himself. In the words of President Trump, he and Um, “We fell in love!”

In this spirit, the narcissist Trump downplays the missiles that North Korea test-fires now and then as not violating his accord with Um. And never mind they expansive nuclear arsenal.

As for Iran, there is a constant drum beat of rhetorical attacks on Iran although there is no conclusive evidence that Tehran violated the Nuclear Accord that was agreed on by the Obama administration, Europeans, Russia, and China but severed quickly by the Trump White House.

Earlier this year, the National Security Advisor used a YouTube clip to send a message to Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It was not a congratulatory gesture at the 40^th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution in 1989 but rather a threat. Directly addressing the Ayatollah, Bolton ended his message with the sentence, “I don’t think you’ll have many more anniversaries to enjoy.”

But war is not inevitable.

According to reports Trump so far resists Bolton’s anti-Iranian drum beats, is not ready for war.

The Ayatollah and/or Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani could send a “lovely” letter to Mister Trump and exploit his narcissistic needs. Just like the one time Trumpian “rocket man” Um recognized that the U.S. President is a real sucker for flattery, the Iranian leadership could play their cards in similar ways and beat Bolton and other hawks in Washington and elsewhere.  

While the tough words of Iran's leaders do not favor my peace diplomacy I still hope that soft (and clever) power trumps hard power.

 

 

 

Trump’s Dangerous Wrecking Crew

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Trump does not unite but he divides people and nations;

Trump does not build but he destroys bridges;

Trump does not solve but he creates problems;

Trump does not clean up but he corrupts politics;

Trump does not uphold but he violates democratic values;

Trump does not tell the truth but he lies day-in and day-out.

Voices of reason and sanity are not heard in President Trump’s White House and Administration. Instead, the intellectually and ethically challenged narcissist-in-chief is validated by his like-minded wrecking crew of extremists in domestic (i.e., AG Jeff Sessions and EPA Director Scott Pruitt) and foreign/national security (i.e., John Bolton and Mike Pompeo) politics and policy.

In her new book titled “Fascism,” former Secretary of State Madeline Albright writes in the concluding chapter, “Trump is the first anti-democratic president in modern U.S. history…If transplanted to a country with fewer democratic safeguards, he would audition for dictator.”

I wonder, though, how many of those safeguards are left and whether the remaining ones will crumble under constant attacks by Trump’s wrecking crew.

The Republican majorities in both Congressional chambers certainly are not democratic safeguards against presidential encroachment. Instead of providing the inter-branch checks and balances prescribed in the U.S. Constitution, GOP members are on bended knees before their dear leader.

The judiciary still holds strong. The question is, how long?

As candidate and as president, Mr. Trump has relentlessly attacked officials in the Department of Justice, the FBI, the intelligence community, and judges whose rulings he did not like. Just read a few of his many tweets for confirmation.

And now, Republican members of congressional committees, such as Rep. Devin Nunes, act more like President Trump’s defense attorneys than members of an independent legislative branch in their war against the Department of Justice, especially independent counsel Robert Mueller, Deputy Attorney-General Rod Rosenstein, and most recently even AG Sessions—all of them Republicans.

A free press is the most important foundation of a democratic system. Thus, the First Amendment! 

 Major news organizations have maintained their independence thus far. After providing “breaking news” all the time to Trump’s campaign for the Republican nomination, the press’s investigative reporting had displayed in the last 18 months and continues to report on the dark underbelly of President Trump and his supporting cast.

But Trump’s attacks against the “fake” media are of great concern. Today, he threatened to take access credentials away from the press. He has repeatedly threatened changes in the libel law—even though that would not be in his power.

And, then, there is Trump’s impact the rest of the world.

The Most Dangerous Man in the World Sits in the White House and Spineless Republicans in the Congress Do Nothing to Prevent the Catastrophe that the President Himself Threatens

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Nine month-worth of 24/7 nightmares unleashed by Donald Trump’s daily menu of outrageous tweets and ludicrous deeds are enough to realize that Trump is an emperor without clothes.  

If you hoped this spoiled, narcissistic child-man would grow in the august Oval Office, you know now that there are no such miracles.

Every hour it becomes clearer that the President of the United States and supposed world leader is precisely what his own Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has called him—a moron who does not and does not want to understand our governmental system, its  institutions, and domestic and foreign policy-making, and most of all the U.S. Constitution.   

Today, October 12, 2017 is another “normal” day in the disturbing saga of Donald Trump’s presidency:

• He threatens to challenge NBC’s broadcast license because of the News Division’s credible reports that Trump demanded from the U.S. military a significant build-up in the nuclear arsenal.
• He announces the signing of yet another Executive Order to weaken Obamacare further by allowing insurances to sell cheap plans to the young and healthy.
• He threatens to end relief efforts in Puerto Rico where the majority of U.S. citizens still do not have electric power, lack drinking water and health services.
• The State Department announces that the United States withdraws from UNESCO, the United Nation’s agency for the sciences, culture, and communication, because of UNESCO's "anti-Israel bias."
• Congress wrestles with President Trump’s announcement that he will not certify the Nuclear Deal with Iran.

All those irrational threats and actions came before 12 noon today. Plenty of time to add to the insanity that has the last word in Washington with ripple effects around the country and the world.

And what does the Republican majority in both houses of the Congress do?

Besides Bob Corker, the courageous U.S. Senator of Tennessee, nobody puts the interests of the whole country first.

There is silence--even though the President has threatened repeatedly war against North Korea-- in the words of Corker --WWIII.

In Trump’s Reality Show Even the Generals Surrender

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Not enough that GOP leaders and foot soldiers in Congress, elected offices around the country, and so-called experts in think tanks continue to defend the indefensible in the Trump campaign, transition operation, and White House. What many observers described as the adults around Trump, cool-headed generals, have surrendered as well.

John Kelly, the Secretary of Homeland Security and H.R. McMaster, the National Security Adviser, went public this weekend with nonsensical excuses, even endorsements of Jared Kushner’s reported efforts during the transition period to use secret Russian communication means to communicate with Moscow’s decision makers. Since nothing happens in the Kremlin without Vladimir Putin, one has to assume that the communication the political novice Kushner had in mind was with his father-in-law’s most admired dictator Putin.

Come to think of, Kelly’s statement shouldn’t have surprised. Since taking over at the DHS the retired marine general has echoed or trumped Trump’s crazy ideas beginning with the need for The Wall to separating children from their parents in the most cruel enforcement policy against undocumented immigrants.

As for General McMaster, his impeccable credentials in the military took a hit earlier this month, when he refuted a Washington Post story that President Trump had revealed highly classified intelligence during his meeting with Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov and Russia’s  Ambassador Kislyak by countering points that the Post had not made. Now add to this the General’s defense of a backchannel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin that Kushner tried to establish.

And then there is James Mattis, the Secretary of Defense, who spoke out in support of his boss’s shocking behavior at NATO headquarters in Brussels that threatens the seven decades old transatlantic defense arrangement between the U.S. and European allies. As Mattis explained, previous presidents, too, complained about European countries’ insufficient financial contributions to NATO. What the General conveniently omitted is the real reason for the rift in the alliance, namely, Trump’s refusal to endorse NATO’s mutual defense agreement as stated in Article 5. Coming on the heels of Trump’s campaign statement that NATO is obsolete, Secretary Mattis, who once commanded NATO’s Supreme Allied Command for Transformation, should know better than depicting Trump’s dangerous  reality show in Europe as merely business as usual.

Putin and his team are rejoicing. They wanted nothing more than a split in the transatlantic defense alliance. And now they got it.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is right. Europe can no longer count on the America of Donald Trump as a dependable NATO ally.

As it turns out, the generals are not the voices of reason, not the adults in White House and administration.

The Vienna Agreement: Now the Choice is between War and Peace

The frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination, Donald Trump, whose crude propaganda campaign receives free air time hour for hour on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and headline news in other media, said in reaction to the Vienna agreement that all of Iran is laughing at us. No, Mr. Trump, the whole world is laughing at us because you are dominating the political discourse of the Republican Party—now also with respect to the agreement designed to prevent Iran from building a nuclear arsenal.

The GOP clown show starring real estate mogul and TV reality star Trump occurs at a time when we are faced with a choice between war and peace. And this choice does not involve non-state actors, such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, and the likes but a major nation state—Iran.

Do we really want John McCain “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” refrain come true?

Have we forgotten the lessons of Vietnam and the post-9/11wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Have we forgotten how many young Americans lost their lives and limbs in those conflicts?

Yesterday, seasoned politicians in the Congress and elsewhere as well as novices like Mr. Trump condemned the agreement before reading the whole document without offering peaceful alternatives; in one way or the other they echoed Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s assessment that the world the world is now a "much more dangerous place" than without the agreement.

Not exactly a logical argument. Without the implementation of this agreement and its strict inspection regimes Iran is free develop the capability to build nuclear bombs.

How would that make the world a safer place?

Even some thoughtful and knowledgeable observers complained that the Vienna agreement does not touch on Iran’s human rights violations and support of terrorism.

Fair enough. The negotiations in Vienna were from the outset strictly about the most pressing problem, namely, the threat of an Iran with nuclear weapons. The sanctions as punishment for Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism remain in place.

Yes, lifting the tough sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program will provide the mullahs with more resources some of which could be channel to terrorists. But even during the economically tough times, there is always room for these sorts of transactions in authoritarian states.

But it should also be noted that most of all the decision-makers in Iran came to the negotiating table and made an agreement to improve the country’s economic conditions and the hardship of its citizens.

Forgotten in the attacks on President Obama is that the Vienna agreement was not the result of U.S.-Iranian negotiations but rather a multilateral affair with all important players involved, most of all the UK, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia and China. If the agreement is rejected in Washington, there will not be allies for sanctions against Iran and certainly not for military actions.

Ronald Reagan remains a much admired figure in the GOP. But there seems no collective memory among those who like to portray themselves as Reagan’s heirs. They should remember that their hero negotiated arms treaties with the Soviet Union, our most formidable enemy during the long Cold War.

Reagan’s formula expressed in particular during the INF treaty negotiations, “trust but verify,” was an excellent one that also guided the U.S. and its partners in the negotiations with the Iranian delegation in Vienna.

The hawks in Washington and elsewhere around the  warn that the agreement with Iran will not sit well with “moderate” Arab states, most of all Saudi Arabia. Not a good argument in view of Saudi Arabia’s history in the spreading of its kind of Wahhabi Salafism without which there would be an Al Qaeda/ISIS movement. Nor should one forget that the vast majority of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.

Congressional Republican's tried to sabotage the Vienna negotiations by appealing to the most conservative religious and political strata in Iran to prevent an agreement. 

That's when they showed their cards.

If Republicans manage to derail the deal that, of course, could also be rejected in Tehran, the choice is a tragic one--war, not peace.

 

 

Dick Cheney did Not Learn from Iraq Debacle, Wants Repeat

By Brigitte L. Nacos

It is difficult enough to listen to John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and others in the camp of perennial foreign policy hawks who have not seen a violent conflict or a perceived major threat abroad without demanding American military aid or military deployment. This was the case in the Libyan uprising against Gaddafi, the Syrian civil war, the conflict in the Ukraine, Iraq, again. And, of course, Iran!

It is more difficult to watch former Vice President Dick Cheney making the same case. He wants more of our military in Iraq, left more forces in Afghanistan, and, strangely, told ABC’s John Karl he “would definitely be helping the resistance up in Syria, in ISIS' backyard, with training and weapons and so forth, in order to be able to do a more effective job on that end of the party.”  Karl did not call him on that. ISIS is by far strongest force of the Syrian resistance against the Assad regime. How, then, would Cheney support the Syrian National Coalition and prevail?  

While out of the country I missed some of Cheney’s frequent media appearances. He has his lines remembered, repeats them at every stop. Especially when ask about the Iraq invasion. “I believed in it then. I look back on it now - it was absolutely the right thing to do.” That’s what he said the other day during a friendly “Playbook Lunch” hosted by Politico’s Mike Allen. That’s what he said when interviewed on ABC’s “This Week.” That’s what he had repeated elsewhere according to transcripts and reports I read today.

 “At this stage, you know I’m not spending a lot of time looking back 12 or 14 years at what was or wasn’t done then,” Cheney told the Daily Caller, “I’m concerned about the future. And about the threats were going to face and do face as a nation at this very moment.”

Sure, instead of pondering his starring role in past blunders, he rather criticizes President Obama for his measured foreign policy decisions, especially, as they relate to the Middle East and South Asia.

In the interview with Karl he said, “I don't intend any disrespect for the president, but I fundamentally disagree with him. I think he's dead wrong in terms of the course he's taken this nation and I think we're in for big trouble in the years ahead because of his refusal to recognize reality and because of his continual emphasis upon getting the U.S. basically to withdraw from that part of the world.”

Interestingly, just as Cheney has fundamental disagreements with the president, he has the same problem with fellow-Republican Rand Paul who actually agrees with Barack Obama on these foreign and security issues.