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.

The Frenzy of Hate: “We used to just hang people like this.”

By Brigitte L. Nacos

In “1984,” George Orwell describes the fascist regime’s daily propaganda program “Two Minutes of Hate” that whips up audiences into “uncontrollable exclamations of rage” and “a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces with a sledge hammer…” All that is achieved within 120 seconds by the big screen hate machine fueled by Big Brother’s totalitarian machine. I thought of Orwell’s post-WW II warning of fascism earlier today, when I scrolled through some of the many “patriotic” online warriors raging against the evil enemies of their America—no longer un-American socialists but now communists in the global cabal of “The Great Replacement” of white supremacy. Today, we do not have the Orwellian two minutes of Hate once a day but a 24/7 frenzy of Hate.

Politics has never been a showcase for moderation, morality, and humanity. But the relentless vilification of the political opposition and the passionate support of liars and law breakers within their own ranks sets certain individuals, leaders and followers far apart from democratic norms. Just think of the consistent support for the Big Lie concerning the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election. Or the silence of leading Republicans after Donald Trump’s “death wish” threat against Mitch McConnell of his “Death Wish” and racial slur against McConnell’s Chinese-American wife.

Last night, James Carville said in an interview on MSNBC that immigrants are needed in this country. By farmers, for example. And now—in South-West Florida. He is right. But the hate and rage against immigrants by too many Americans is far greater than the rational choice that Carville suggested.

And then there are leaders who stir that Hate.

According to the New York Post, Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis said on Tuesday that most looters in post-Ian Florida were illegal immigrants and he would like to “drag them out by the collars” and “send them back to where they came from.” To be sure, looting is always despicable, especially in the midst of a catastrophic crisis, and should be punished. However, the outrage of the anti-immigration America First online army is equally despicable. Here are some sample comments to the alleged looting by illegal immigrants on a social media site I will not identify and thereby promote:

• They should consider themselves lucky they’re still alive. Now please tell us how they were simply looking for “bread” to feed their families, AOC

• Bullet to the head, simple.

• When the lootin [s] starts the shootin [sic] starts.

• Filthy fucking people!

• We used to just hang people like this.

Some of these statements are very similar to those made by a former president during his campaign and presidential mass rallies. Obviously, his fans remember.

Hurricane Ian and the two Faces of DeSantis

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Nine years ago, when Hurricane Sandy inflicted massive damage in coastal areas of New York and New Jersey, then Congressman Ron DeSantis was one of only two members of the U.S. House of Representative to vote against the federal relief package for the struck states. At the time, he was quoted as saying that he was sympathizing with the victims of the disaster. But that did not change his mind.

This week, when Hurricane Ian caused unspeakable devastation in Florida, especially along the South-Western coast, Florida’s now Governor DeSantis lost no time to request full federal reimbursement for the first 60 days. As a starter. And President Joe Biden, who ran two years ago with the goal to unite Americans, went out of his way to assure that Floridians get all the help the federal government can provide for them.

DeSantis, who is running for reelection as governor—and even more so for Republicans’ support in the 2024 presidential race—will be the main beneficiary of Washington’s generosity that he denied nine years ago to New York and New Jersey.

At the time, Tea Party Republican DeSantis could not vote in favor of federal assistance to states with clear Democratic majorities. Now, the Democratic president who has been attacked and belittled by a politician who embraces Trumpism—although seemingly not another candidacy of Trump—suspends all partisan consideration. Rightly so.

Looking at the images of fully destroyed and heavily damaged neighborhoods in Florida and listening to the testimonies of first responders and victims of the disaster, one can only hope that they receive help enough to rebuild their lives—including federal resources.

But besides providing immediate assistance to Florida, Washington should check to what extent DeSantis did not spend the billions of dollars his state received as Covid-19 relief funds. That federal money must now be used on helping Florida’s victims of Hurricane Ian—not on duping and flying exile-seeking people from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard and not on other political tricks.  

America’s Fanatic Anti-Abortion Enforcers Copy ISIS Women’s Cruelty

By Brigitte L. Nacos

The incredible sage of the 10-year-old pregnant girl, a rape victim, who had to be brought from her home in Ohio to Indiana in order to get an abortion, laid bare the horrific consequences of the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and the new legal reality’s implementations by GOP-dominated states.

Ohio’s categorical ban of abortions, in place when the case unfolded, and the Indiana Attorney General’s defamation of the female physician, who treated the little girl before the state could outlaw the procedures, were strikingly similar to the Islamic State’s abusive treatment of young girls under the terrorist organization’s interpretation of Sharia law.

In early 2015, ISIS’s all-female al-Khansaa Brigade posted the tract “Women of the Islamic State: A Manifesto on Women” on several social media sites. According to the manifesto, “the fundamental function for women is in the house with her husband and children.” In tune with this, al-Khansa prescribed a rudimentary education for women built around their obligations to please their husbands and bear children raising boys and girls to become future jihadists and wives respectively.

In what I thought was the most shocking passage, the guidelines stated that “it is considered legitimate for a girl to be married by the age of nine” [emphasis added].

Obviously, this passage would not shock the army of fanatic GOP antiabortion legislators and enforcers. If you are firm in dictating that a 10-year-old child, impregnated by a rapist, must give birth to a baby and become a mother, you must be perfectly okay with ISIS-women’s edict that marriages of nine-year-old girls are legitimate.

That’s what you get, when religious zealots are at work. Whether they call themselves  Muslims in ISIS or Christians in Ohio, Indiana, and elsewhere in America.

The Evil Goal of a Supreme Court Justice: Make Liberals’ Lives Miserable

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Clarence Thomas, an intellectual lightweight, had according to one of his own clerks one overriding mission, when he entered the Supreme Court: “The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years,” he said, “and I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years." Last week, on two consecutive days, he accomplished that and some more: Within 24 dramatic hours, the highest court increased and decreased the authority of states significantly pointing in both cases to the U.S. Constitution as they (1) took away the states’ power to protect Americans’ lives by striking down modest gun-control measures and (2) gave states the control over women’s reproductive decisions by overruling the nearly 50-year-old Roe vs. Wade decision. The Court claimed to rely in both these contrary decisions on the US Constitution. Incredible.

Thomas, the most radical among his reactionary peers, left no doubt that he wants to make liberals even more miserable: He signaled in a concurrent opinion that he wants the SCOTUS majority to outlaw any birth control measures, consensual relation between gay persons, and, for sure, gay marriage. The three-judge minority dissented “in sorrow” as they put it. Many women share that sorrow.

In her column in the New York Times, Maureen Dowd  describes the line-up of male characters who gained power during the years “by trading away something that meant little to them compared with their own stature: the rights of women." This road put Thomas, now the most influential Supreme Court Justice, into his current power position on the Court. All this began with his nomination by President George H.W. Bush. It was no secret that Thomas was an arch-conservative. But Bush disregarded the long pro-choice position of his family to please pro-life conservatives in his party and win African-American support for nominating a Black to the highest court. His son, George W. Bush, appointed Justice Samuel Alito, who has been a life-long Pro-Life fanatic. And in an unimaginable irony, it was left to Donald Trump to put three (!!!) super-conservatives onto the Court—of course, with the machinations of GOP majority leader Mitch McConnell who conned the Democrats and the American people. It shouldn’t be forgotten that the Democrats more than once let him get away with—and much more.

During Thomas’s confirmation hearings, Joe Biden, then chairing the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee, presided over the destruction of Anita Hill who testified—in the view of many women credibly--that her former boss Clearance Thomas had, as Dowd puts it, tormented her “with unwanted attention and dirty talk about the pornographic films he liked to watch.” In other words, the one-time sex-harasser and pornography addict is now part of the SCOTUS majority that dictates morality according to the standards of the Middle Ages from which Justice Samuel Alito draws repeatedly in his sub-standard opinion.

Several of the justices in the majority lied to the Senate’s Judiciary Committee and to individual Senators, among them Susan Collins and Joe Manchin, when asked about Roe vs. Wade. Perhaps that is not surprising, since they were appointed by the liar-in-chief Donald Trump. But it is nevertheless mind-boggling that among the highest and most influential guardians of our laws and the US Constitution here are several justices who swore to tell the truth in their confirmation hearings—and once they got on the Court--they lied!

If America wants to stop Thomas and his fellow radicals from making their lives more miserable, they need to be just as relentless advocates of their rights as Thomas and Co. are determined to take those rights away from them.

Protesting peaceful, relentlessly, and voting for local, state, and federal candidates committed to repeal SCOTUS decisions via contrary legislation are the right ways to fight back.

First the Post-Massacre Playbook; Then the Do-Nothing Nation

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Not all of the ten victims of the Buffalo mass shooting were buried, when an 18-year-old gunman killed at least nineteen children and two of their teachers in an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. Since lethal incidents like those in Buffalo and Uvalde have become as American as apple pie, they are by now followed automatically by the same post-massacre playbook: Flags are flown at half-mast, solemn prayer are services are held, make-shift memorials are established and buried under mountains of flowers, calls to pray for the victims and their families are issued, prominent people visit the venues of grief, shock and anger are expressed.

While the last chapter of the playbook is still open in the aftermath of Buffalo, the first chapter is now devoted to the events in Uvalde. Yes, our hearts and souls hurt. Yes, we are praying for the victims and survivors. Yes, we are angry that within two weeks two 18-year-old adolescents killed a total of thirty-one human beings. And, yes, we are frustrated that both killed with assault weapons, weapons of war, semi-automatic rifles that allowed them to kill a multitude of persons in record time.

The gun lobby and their supporters have a standard slogan: Guns do not kill—people do. What a tragic joke! For the idea that reasonable people with guns can stop crazy people with guns was once again disproven in Buffalo and in Uvalde: In the first case, bullets from the gun of a guard in Tops Friendly Market could not stop the mass-shooter because the latter wore body armor. In the second case, two police officers encountered the shooter before he entered the school but, again, their shots were deflected by perpetrator’s body armor.

No other country in the world makes it as easy as this country to purchase assault weapons and magazines that guarantee the largest number of people killed in the shortest possible time. In the United States, the number of handguns is significantly larger than the total population size. And no other country has as many mass shootings and people killed by handguns than the United States.

Again and again, public figures and regular people will say in response to catastrophic shootings, “This is not what we are!”

Unfortunately, this is what we are.

Going Back to the Middle Ages to Overturn Roe v. Wade

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Every woman and every man appalled by the prospect of stark limitations to or prohibition of abortion rights as spelled out in the leaked draft of Justice Alito’s radical opinion should read the document. While news reports and commentary following the release of the draft by POLITICO summarize the opinion and the actual consequences of the expected majority ruling, the details in Alito’s arguments and justifications are interesting. Most of all his claim that the Court must be “guided by the history and tradition that map the essential components of our Nation's concept of ordered liberty…”

For history and tradition Alito does not merely rely on the U.S. Constitution and the fact that the Founders’ document does not spell out abortion rights. He relies on and cites from English Common Law in sketching the long history of males condemning abortion as punishable murder. Here are some examples from Alito’s and most likely soon the Court majority’s opinion:

• Henry de Bracton's 13th-century treatise explained that if a person has “struck a pregnant woman, or has given her poison, whereby he has caused an abortion, if the foetus be already formed and animated, and particularly if it be animated, he commits homicide.

• Sir Edward Coke's 17th-century treatise likewise asserted that abortion of a quick child was “murder” if the “childe be born alive” and a “great misprision” if the “childe dieth in her body.”

• In 1732, for example, Eleanor Beare was convicted of “destroying the Foetus in the Womb” of another woman and “there-by causing her to miscarry." For that crime and another “misdemeanor,” Beare was sentenced to two days in the pillory and three years’ imprisonment.

Noting that the American colonies followed the lead of English Common Alito writes that “the few cases available from the early colonial period corroborate that abortion was a crime.”

So, if you do not like the coming overturning of Roe v. Wade, its, history, stupid—English Common Law and the failure of the Founding Fathers to grant abortion rights in the Constitution.

Following the news about Alito’s draft opinion last night, there were spontaneous protests in front of the Supreme Court and elsewhere. It was not surprising to see not only women but also men defending the nearly 50-year-old Roe v. Wade decision.

Addressing women, Alito writes, “Our decision returns the issue of abortion to those legislative bodies, and it allows women on both sides of the abortion issue to seek to affect the legislative process by influencing public opinion, lobbying legislators, voting, and running for office. Women are not without electoral or political power.”

On this point, Alito is right.

Pro Choice women have electoral and political power—and so do Pro Choice men. They and others who could have their established rights repealed by the New Far Right in the near future have still the opportunity to use the ballot to counter the reactionary forces.

The next, most important battle ground will be the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and the White House. If all three institutions are controlled by the GOP following the 2024 elections, federal legislation along Alito’s opinion will follow. Not only with respect to abortion rights.

Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine and the Weak Links in the Western Bloc

By Brigitte L. Nacos

The much-praised unity of the European-North American bloc since the Russian invasion of Ukraine has in reality weak links. The weakest is Hungary, a member of both the EU and NATO. The country’s newly reelected Prime Minister Viktor Orban is a long-time admirer of Russia’s dictator Vladimir Putin and a constant critic of EU and NATO leaders in Brussels.

Emboldened by his election victory last Sunday, Orban used his acceptance speech for a rhetorical slap in the direction of Brussels. And three days later, this Wednesday, he broke with the EU’s refusal to pay for Russian gas and oil with rubles. “If the Russians ask for it, we will pay in rubles,” he told reporters. While other neighbors of Ukraine facilitate NATO weapon transports into the embattled country, Hungary has refused to cooperate.

One wonders, whether Hungary is such an important part of EU and NATO that Orban can violate the European Union’s agreements, laws, and court rulings designed to strengthen democracy. After all, Orban destroyed Hungary’s developing democracy and replaced it with so-called illiberal democracy, a benign code for autocracy. While the democratic institutions are still in place, they are completely controlled by Orban and his Fidesz party.

Yet, along with Poland, which was before the Ukraine invasion moving to become a full illiberal democracy as well, Hungary receives the highest payments from the European Union.

As for the United States and NATO, things are not going well either: 63 Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted yesterday, Tuesday, against a non-binding resolution in support of NATO. And that in the face of the horrific Russian invasion of Ukraine.

These are the main points of the resolution.

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) reaffirms its unequivocal support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as an alliance founded on democratic principles;

(2) calls on the President to use the voice and vote of the United States to adopt a new Strategic Concept for NATO that is clear about its support for shared democratic values and committed to enhancing NATO’s capacity to strengthen democratic institutions within NATO member, partner, and aspirant countries; and

(3) calls on the President to use the voice and vote of the United States to establish a Center for Democratic Resilience within NATO headquarters.

Why in heaven did close to one third of the GOP conference vote “no?”

They took exception to the following provision in the resolution’s full text:

“Whereas democracies across the alliance face external threats from authoritarian regimes such as Russia and China and internal threats from proponents of illiberalism [emphasis added]…”

The naysayers, close to one third of the GOP conference, rejected the highlighted part of the above sentence because they perceived it as a criticism of Hungary and Poland by the Liberal Left. After all, hard-core Trumpian GOPers admire those countries’ illiberal democracies and strive to introduce their authoritarian models right here at home.

These GOPers are fans of strongmen. And, of course, of one particular would-be strongman who does not support NATO and endorsed Orban's latest candidacy.

NATO and EU should enlist Ex-Chancellor Merkel as Peace-Maker

By Brigitte L. Nacos

As the Ukrainian military and civil defense units fight the invading Russian military effectively, Vladimir Putin’s decision to place his military’s nuclear forces on high alert heightens the threat of his use of nuclear weapons in the Ukrainian theater of war—and perhaps beyond. In this critical situation, all efforts must be made to find a peaceful solution. And the best person to enlist for what seems a mission impossible is in my view Germany’s ex-Chancellor Angela Merkel, She  speaks Russian fluently und knows Putin better than any other Western politician. Her ability to reason like the trained scientist she is would be a good basis of discussions with the usually rational but more recently highly emotional Russian leader.  

The unity displayed by NATO and EU and allies in other parts of the globe in their swift opposition to Russia’s war against Ukraine must have come as an unprecedented shock to Putin. The Russian president must have underestimated how effective President Biden’s repair of the U.S.-European relationship has been. He reversed his predecessor’s efforts to destroy NATO as we know it and weaken the EU and thereby strengthened Western democracies so that they now can resist Russian expansionism forcefully without direct participation in the military hostilities.

Two weeks into this war, the Ukrainian military and civilian Territorial Defense Forces have stalled Russia’s plan to occupy its neighbor. The unprecedented sanctions against Russia have isolated the country cutting it mostly off the global markets. This has already resulted in hardship for the Russian public.

As Thomas Friedman writes in today’s New York Times, “Russia has no good way out [of this war]…” And that is the problem. Not only for Putin but for the Western alliance against him. Strongman do not want to accept defeat, cannot accept a loss. That’s bad enough, as we learned following the 2020 presidential election in the U.S., in a country in which the institutions of government still work as supposed. But in an autocracy with a sole ruler on top there are no built-in restrains. Thus, the danger of Putin’s end game that may include the deployment to weapons of mass destruction.

The frequent and long phone conversations between Putin and various Western leaders are signs that there may be room for actual negotiations. But that would need a most skilled negotiator.

Ex-Chancellor Angela Merkel would be the best possible choice!

The goal must be to find a solution that guarantees Ukraine’s independence but at the same time offers Putin a way out with the ability of justifying the war and its end result as something positive to his people  

One Picture Says More Than a Thousand Words

Mr. Putin and his Advisors in Monday (Feb 29^th) Meeting

Source: Alexey Nikolsky/Sputnik, via Agence France-Presse - Getty Images