Bolen C (Page 33)

“You’re future”, said a Russian writer I interviewed in 1993 about the Soviet Union’s decline in soon 1991. I was an British scholar in St Petersburg, and he was referring to the United States.

His reasoning was informed by a pseudo-scientific statistical theory that may ultimately find favour in the Kremlin, but more amazing to me then was the optimism with which he spoke.

If this person is still intact, he may be feeling vindicated. America’s recent retreat from its engagements around the world — from gutting USAID to abandoning Western allies — constitutes a retreat of authority superior in living memory just to Mikhail Gorbachev’s punitive withdrawals from Afghanistan, Eastern Europe and elsewhere between 1988 and 1991 — straight before the Soviet Union’s collapse.

Accompanying both international plan about-faces, we didn’t overlook profound shifts in the two states ‘ intellectual bases.

Destabilizing king signifiers

Gorbachev justified his “restructuring” or perestroika by invoking the Soviet Union’s founding parents, Vladimir Lenin. He did thus, but, by observing that the traditional Lenin had pragmatically modified plans according to circumstances. That called into question the mythical Lenin— an infallible warrior whose values could not be questioned.

The Russian-born American archaeologist Alexei Yurchak argues that Lenin was the Russian state’s “master sign”.

As long as his sanctity remained unchallenged, referring to Lenin had justify a range of policies and actions. Seeing Lenin through a traditional lens, but, called his holiness into question. It thus became difficult for Russian members to agree on what policies and actions were reasonable. This issue of meaning allowed persistent social, economic and social problems to suddenly be devastating.

America’s master sign is its Constitution, reverentially enshrined in Washington, DC, more like Lenin’s system is in Moscow. Under President Donald Trump, but, breaches of the Constitution have become daily, and the federal government’s legislative branch has shown little can to protect its forces from professional invasion.

Like Lenin under Gorbachev, it seems that the spiritual core of America’s social system has become destabilized. As a written agreement, a constitution is easier to interpret than the thoughts of a dying person. Lenin’s benefit, however, was that he could represent traits considered noble in the Russian system.

Where was Americans look for that same kind of guiding lighting? For most of American history, it was George Washington — the first senator who swore to uphold the Constitution.

George Washington’s America

As a warrior of the Revolutionary War, Washington could have become monarch.

Army officers, frustrated at the central government’s weakness after the war under the Articles of Confederation, considered a coup d ‘état. Washington — the army’s commander in chief — could have led the overthrow ( as Oliver Cromwell had or Napoleon Bonaparte would ).

Washington refused, and after American acquiescence in 1783, he relinquished his demand to Congress.

In 1789, after the Constitution was ratified as a legitimate solution to the problems of union, Washington was unanimously elected leader. After two words, nevertheless, he rejected recommendations that he have for a second.

He often stressed the importance of routine in human affairs and reasoned that, if he clung to authority, Americans might not get accustomed to calm and regular movement of office. By retiring, he transferred much of the devotion that had accrued to him onto the Constitution.

Remembering Washington

Washington’s holiday falls on February 22, and Americans began observing it while he was still alive. In 1879, US Congress made the time a national vacation, an occasion for celebrating the example of noble public support and respect for the rule of law that” the father of his state” had embodied.

So it remained until 1971. In that year, the Monday Holiday Act went into effect. Adopted in 1968 at the behest of the business lobby, which saw in three-day weekends an opportunity for sales, the act moved Washington’s birthday commemoration to the third Monday in February.

Since many states also celebrated Abraham Lincoln’s birthday and the new date fell between his and Washington’s, some began calling it” Presidents ‘ Day”. When nationwide advertisers and calendar-makers adopted the term in the 1980s, it came to seem official.

The name change, of course, eroded the holiday’s connection to Washington, and insofar as it remained more than a shopping day, it came to be associated with all the presidents, effectively cheapening it.

Though the federal holiday officially remains” Washington’s Birthday”, few Americans know that.

The dangers of mythologizing

The shift happened to coincide with a wave of revisionist historiography that pointed out Washington— a slave-owner — was not perfect.

All historiography is revisionist in the sense that historians revise existing interpretations on the basis of new evidence. For those who wanted an untainted idol, however, it appeared either that Washington could no longer fit the bill or that historical facts had to be massaged.

Ever since, historical assessments have tended to get lost in culture wars, where neither side can accept a real person with both reprehensible and admirable traits.

In the Soviet Union, however, most citizens found it difficult to think historically about Lenin because, under the conditions of dictatorship, open public debate based on factual information about him had been impossible.

Dictatorship depends on mythological thinking that worships heroes and does not expose contradictions between official pronouncements and reality. In the early 1990s, Russians failed to establish the rule of law for a similar reason: they could not overcome the habit of mythologizing, which made them prioritize personality over policy.

The personality they chose as independent Russia’s first president — Boris Yeltsin — lacked Washington’s respect for the rule of law.

Losing sight of Washington

Thanks to Washington, the US got off to a better start. But by abandoning the widespread commemoration of his historically exceptional deference to the rule of law, Americans have lost an opportunity to practice historical thinking in the public sphere.

Not only has mythological thinking encroached, but it is now even possible for a president to style himself as a monarch and to emulate Napoleon, as Donald Trump has.

The Constitution — America’s master signifier — has lost its ability to unite citizens around a shared sense of meaningfulness. Will Washington’s country be next?

James Krapfl is associate professor of history, McGill University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Probably, or maybe not, Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special negotiator, will go to Moscow, supposedly to small Russian president Vladimir Putin. Right then Witkoff is in Riyadh with the rest of the US group in discussions with the Ukrainians.

The Russians have not confirmed any Witkoff attend.

Those conversations are supposed to get Ukraine’s heat on President Trump’s peace program. The administration has been saying that any deal did involve concessions from both sides, but Ukraine will have to offer up country.

What makes the Riyadh discussions ( I choose not to call the meeting a negotiation ) bizarre is that Vladimir Zelensky did not attend the talks.

Zelensky is in Riyadh. He met with Saudi Arabia’s actual head, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Sultan. What they talked about is anyone’s guess. Evidently he stayed on after that meeting, and may be across the house from where the meeting took place.

It is fair to ask how come Zelensky is not at the appointment and how come he is hanging about. The committee in the conference was, of course, consult with him during the cuts, and Zelensky was give guidelines.

The&nbsp, Duran says&nbsp, that Washington did not like Zelensky at the Riyadh meet. This is quite suspicious.

According to the latest from Riyadh, Ukraine says it is available for a 30 day continue fire. If this is what Washington “extracted” from the Ukrainians, it is technically irrelevant. With Russia on the verge of winning in Kursk and abroad, the Russians didn’t take any such offer. If it is a ploy to help the US to resume arms supplies to Ukraine, knowing Russia may accept it, the so-called peace program is a useless letter.

]After this was published, Washington announced it was resuming hands selling to Ukraine. The rest is history. ]

On the early morning before the Riyadh meeting, Ukraine launched a massive drone attack on Russia, with Moscow and the Moscow region ( along the drone approaches ) hit hard. The Ukrainians used internally produced Palianytsia which carries a 50 kg weapon and is travel 600km at about 800 mph. It is claimed that Palianytsia can operate without needing a man in the loop ( meaning now real time communications ), but this seems unlikely as&nbsp, video of take downs&nbsp, of Ukrainian drones using jammers have appeared online.

Immediately 337 robots were shot down, according to Moscow, by a combination of Soviet air threats and jammers. The Russians did not report how some robots were launched by the Ukrainians or how many got through and hit their targets. Complicating matters is that a helicopter that is hit may also drop and destroy property or kill or wound people.

Of the 337 picture down, here is an finance, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense:

91 UAVs – over the place of the Moscow area,
126 UAVs – over the place of the Kursk area,
38 UAVs – over the place of the Bryansk place,
25 UAVs – over the place of the Belgorod place,
22 UAVs – over the place of the Ryazan place,
10 UAVs – over the place of the Kaluga area,
8 UAVs – over the place of the Lipetsk area,
8 UAVs – over the place of the Oryol area,
6 UAVs – over the place of the Voronezh place,
3 UAVs – over the place of the Nizhny Novgorod place.

Most of the goals appear to have been flat blocks, some rail ranges, at least one gas storage ability, and others not yet reported. The number of killed and wounded also is not already available.

It was controversial for Kiev to release these attacks, although they had explanation in that the strikes had been called hostile, at the moment of the conference in Riyadh. The choice to do so appears to have been taken because Ukraine is close to being firmly defeated in Kursk and is trying to cover up that battle by deflecting interest from it.

Given the choice to come back at the very instant of the conversations in Riyadh even served as a sort of caution to Washington. Ukraine’s true mantra is to keep fighting no matter what the price.

This explains why it is unlikely in the extreme that there will be a peace procedure, no matter how little Washington wants one, or says it does.

Very possibly, the outcome of the war will be on the field, not then.

This leaves Washington and Europe with no real leave. Europe knows that if it tries to save Ukraine with Euro/NATO troops, a common war will start and the Russians may attack NATO’s installations and try and punish those states backing for a mission, particularly the UK, France and even Germany. In such a case, as President Trump has made clear, the US will not come to the rescue, at least not right away.

There is one interesting development that suggests there may be a way to enforce a deal. The new head of the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe, Secretary General Feridun Sinirlioglu, visited Moscow the day before the attack, and was shown the results of the drone attack by the Russians.

Relations between the OSCE and Russia have been very bad for a number of years. Apparently Sinirlioglu wants to change that. Sergey Lavrov, who met with Sinirlioglu in Moscow, was upbeat on the potential for change.

What does this have to do with peace in Ukraine? OSCE was the security overseer of the Minsk Accords in 2014 and 2015. Could Moscow be thinking about a return engagement either with a sanctioned peace deal, or some arrangement in future if Russia wins the war? Time will tell.

A key point is that the presence of OSCE ( where Russia has a veto ) obviates the need for any other peacekeepers, European, NATO or otherwise. This may be at least one plan Moscow has in its back pocket.

Meanwhile Russia continues pressing Ukraine’s army, gaining ground. If Russia forces Ukraine’s army into surrendering, the game is over. Then it is Russia’s problem figuring out what to do with a hostile population and a wrecked infrastructure.

Stephen Bryen is a special correspondent to Asia Times and former US deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. This article, which originally appeared on his Substack newsletter&nbsp, Weapons and Strategy, is republished with permission.

Continue Reading

Soon after the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria, the new government led by rebel chief Ahmed al-Sharaa pledged to join Syrians and create a” legal peace” in the country.

In recent days, this delicate serenity has been tested. Late last year, conflicts broke out between federal security causes and the vestiges of pro-Assad militias in the former president’s enclave of Latakia state on the northern coast. More than 1, 000 people were killed, mainly residents.

In a good sign, a big deal was struck on Monday between the state and another military party, the Syrian Democratic Forces ( SDF) of the semi-autonomous Kurdish region in northern Syria. The SDF has agreed to combine all of its causes and organizations with the main federal in Damascus.

However, the threat of more assault in the damaged country remains. This raises significant questions about whether al-Sharaa’s perspective can become a reality.

What caused the current crime?

The turmoil in Latakia was sparked by an invasion strike by pro-Assad gunmen against authorities security forces ( composed mainly of former rebel soldiers ) last Thursday. This reignited old scars from Syria’s 13-year civil war, triggering the deadliest crime since the fall of al-Assad in December.

According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, at least 1, 068 civilians were killed in the murder – mostly people of the Syrian majority ( a religion of Shiite Islam ), as well as some Christians.

The United Nations said it had received “extremely troubling” reports of complete people being killed, including children.

Some users of Assad’s home and his former administration’s high-ranking authorities belong to the Alawite majority. Conflicts have persisted between these Assad unionists and the new government, which is dominated by Sunni groups with a record of ideology and anti-Shiite affiliations.

The government said its functions against the pro-Assad troops had ended by Monday. Al-Sharaa also acknowledged that human rights violations had occurred and announced an analysis to identify those concerned.

Nevertheless, he placed key blame on the pro-Assad teams for instigating the crime. While defending the assault nevertheless, he stressed that safety makes may not “exaggerate in their answer”.

Following the murder, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed solidarity with Syria’s spiritual and cultural minorities, calling on the time government to keep the perpetrators accountable.

The European Union, which recently eased some limits on Syria to support an “inclusive social transition”, also condemned the violence.

Transitional righteousness is essential

In a different and deeply divided state like Syria, the years of tyranny eroded national identification and fueled religious conflict. This is why a detailed procedure of transitional justice is important.

Such a method would help bridge the groups between different ethnic and religious areas. This may develop regional unity, while respecting the distinctive personalities of specific groups.

Although the new leadership has emphasized the importance of social cohesion, its troops are accused of acting desk to this commitment and carrying out extrajudicial killings. Religious language from some pro-government numbers has just further inflamed tensions.

Moreover, Alawites have faced increasing alienation, including sackings from public work, salary cuts and focused persecutions.

These advances underscore Syria’s immediate need for an independent transitional justice committee. Without a structured approach to keep those responsible for offences committed under the Assad government and national peace, the region risks replacing one pattern of persecution with another. This will only strengthen grievances, never treat them.

A well-designed fairness process is crucial to enable Syria move beyond the stress of the previous program and build a robust, equitable future.

Obstacles to a united Syria

Amid the ongoing turmoil, the recent agreement signed between the Syrian Democratic Forces ( SDF) and al-Sharaa’s government has raised hopes the country may still have a chance to maintain its unity and avoid fragmentation.

However, the specifics of how the SDF troops will be integrated remain unclear. Does the Kurds ultimately reach their long-held desire for semi-autonomy within a national condition? Or will this connectivity mark the end of their dreams?

The condition is extremely difficult for the Alawites and Druze areas in the western and southern regions of Syria, given they have two strong regional forces backing them.

Israel has made significant inroads in the Druze areas of southern Syria, offering to support the Druze if needed. Also, Iran continues to support the Alawites, with its administration predicting an rebellion against the new Palestinian program.

These dynamics provide major impediments to Syria’s unification. In such a divided environment, a national system may be the last viable choice to protect the country’s cohesion. However, if the new government continues to reject this idea, the country risks separation and certainly more crime.

Ali Mamouri is a research fellow in Middle East studies at Deakin University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was arrested at Manila’s Ninoy Aquino International Airport on Tuesday ( March 11 ) morning, after the government received the official warrant for his arrest by the International Criminal Court. &nbsp,

The revelation arrest comes after weeks of gossips the ICC was about to walk on Duterte, despite the courtroom remaining cautious on when the warrant had been issued. The previous president seemed resigned to his death during a visit to Hong Kong on the weekends, telling press he was willing to be arrested on his return to the Philippines.

The ICC has been probing the former president since 2017 and has now accused Duterte of committing crimes against humanity during his administration between 2016 and 2022. This includes his “war on drugs” that unleashed decades of dangerous anti-drug activities and vigilant crime across the Philippines that human rights groups claim killed up to 30, 000 individuals.

The move was made despite Duterte formally withdrawing the Philippines from the jury in 2019, in an unsuccessful attempt to stop the research. Recent President Ferdinand Marcos Jr had until now even stubbornly&nbsp, refused to cooperate, saying in January next month he had never “lift a hand” to support the ICC.

But Marcos Jr appears to have bowed to the inevitable, with his administration now holding his predecessor in custody in an airbase in Manila.

Duterte now appears destined for trial and would only be the second former head of state to end up at The Hague. But unlike the acquittal of former Côted’Ivoire president Laurent Gbagbo in 2019, the evidence is stacked against the former Philippine president.

Duterte has always been unapologetic about his role in igniting the drug war, making several damning public statements that demonized drug users and pushers and fuelled widespread violence under his watch.

During the 2016 election campaign, Duterte darkly promised what was to come, claiming 100, 000 people would die in his crackdown, with so many dead bodies dumped in Manila Bay that fish there would grow fat from feeding on them.

Duterte also bizarrely claimed he had killed people himself while mayor of Davao City, telling media he had personally killed suspected criminals while” cruising the streets on a motorcycle looking for trouble”.

The intention – according to Duterte – was to” show to the guys ( police officers } that if I can do it, why can’t you”?

Duterte used his inaugural press conference as president to urge people to kill drug addicts and vowed to wipe out drug traffickers. Duterte told his audience that “if you know of any addicts, go ahead and kill them yourself as getting their parents to do it would be too painful”.

Months later – in September 2016– Duterte appeared to compare himself to Hitler and drug addicts to Jews murdered during the Holocaust, saying” Hitler massacred three million Jews … there’s three million drug addicts. There are. I’d be happy to slaughter them”.

Duterte also publicly tried to protect the police from accountability, offering to pay the legal fees of any officer accused of extrajudicial killings.

This came after an Amnesty International report in 2017 showed police used unverified lists of drug suspects to raid homes and shoot unarmed people, including those prepared to surrender.

More recently, Duterte admitted to a parliamentary hearing last year his administration provided funds and incentives to police officers who conducted anti-drug operations. This came after former police Colonel Royina Garma testified the former president offered police up to US$ 17, 000 to kill suspects during the war on drugs.

The question now is whether Marcos Jr is willing to hand Duterte over to the ICC for trial, something the president was unlikely to do just months ago.

Despite the withdrawal from the ICC and Marcos Jr’s refusal to rejoin, the court has maintained jurisdiction over crimes committed while the Philippines was a member.

This includes the drug war, and delivering Duterte to The Hague is a chance for Marcos Jr to live up to the promise he made to the United Nations his administration would respect international law,

Polling also shows Filipinos support the probe into Duterte, so cooperating with the ICC would give Marcos Jr a political boost before midterm elections in May. With a February survey revealing 43 % of Filipinos were dissatisfied with his performance, holding Duterte accountable would help make the president look strong in the eyes of Filipinos. Duterte had planned to run for mayor of his hometown of Davao, which may or may not now happen.

The arrest of Duterte also gives Marcos Jr the chance to end the drug war for good, something he has promised and largely failed to do since he was elected in 2022. The president has implemented policies focusing on education and rehabilitation, but people continue to be killed in anti-drug operations under his watch.

While not a fait accompli, a Duterte trial and conviction at The Hague would allow Filipinos to move past a dark chapter in their country’s history and give victims and their families a belated form of at least partial justice.

Continue Reading