As fires burn and unrest continues all over the country, it has been difficult for me to do the usual posts about Russia. My focus was closer to home this past week and it seemed entirely appropriate. Although, as I will explain, our foreign policy is not separate from the problems that have precipitated the current upheaval we are witnessing on American streets.

For years now, I have noted stories from all over the United States about police using excessive force and killing unarmed people, usually people of color, but not always. As a white person who was greatly disturbed by these continually mounting stories, I couldn’t imagine how it made the communities most directly affected feel as so often the police officers involved in these incidents don’t even get charged with a crime. In the rare cases when they do, they are typically acquitted, even when there is video evidence of their deeds.

The killing of George Floyd, a 46 year old black man, on Memorial Day in Minneapolis showed how utterly blatant police officers have become in using unjustified deadly force. The pleas of numerous bystanders to stop their deadly force on this unarmed and handcuffed man lying face-down on the pavement not only went unheeded, but the the officer pressing his knee into the back of Floyd’s neck had a subtle look of sadistic pleasure on his face. Knowing that there is video evidence being recorded and broadcast to the world doesn’t even cause these officers to flinch. These are the actions of people who are supremely confident of their impunity to inflict grievous bodily injury to the point of death on the civilian population.

Further video evidence from nearby surveillance cameras showed that Floyd did not appear to be resisting arrest as the officers tried to claim. The cops appear to have lied about the incident, trying to absolve themselves of their crime. How many times does this happen when there isn’t any videotape of the incident?

So how is it that officers get acquitted even on the rare occasions that they are charged and tried for killing unarmed people whom are not perceived as a threat to most witnesses to or people who watch a video of a police killing? It has to do with court rulings in the past three or four decades about the standard for the use of force – a standard that seems to amount to a get-out-of-jail-free card for police officers when they invoke it. As a Vox article from 2014 on the issue summed it up: “{B]roadly, police officers are allowed to use force if they reasonably perceive a threat even if a threat is not actually present.”

As a retired police officer told me about the standard established by these rulings in the late 1980’s:

This is the beginning of the troubles. When I was a cop deadly force was only justified to prevent imminent and serious injury or death and as a LAST RESORT. This bullshit of ‘I feared for my life’ is just a license to kill and a get out of jail card.

Keep in mind that these rulings were handed down years after the U.S. government declared a war on drugs. The political class in this country apparently lacks the imagination to deal with any problem outside of declaring war on it. If drug abuse seems to be a problem, they declare war on it. In the 1990’s they declared a war on crime by implementing draconian legislation that encouraged the continual increase of the incarceration of low-income people, mostly of color, for drug possessionas well as mandatory minimums for non-violent offenses. Parenthetically speaking, the role of prosecutors at the local level – who are typically elected officials and therefore political actors – is often over-looked in terms of the amount of discretion they have in bringing charges against suspects. The same goes for the profit motive that the private prison industry has in lobbying for laws that result in more incarceration.

Getting back to the militarization aspect, If you’re going to go to war, then you have to look and act the part. Police in recent decades began donning military-style clothing, carrying assault weapons and rolling through American streets in armored vehicles that look like they belong in a combat zone. The federal government has established programs to provide surplus military weapons and material to our domestic police forces. As Matt Purple said in a recent article for The American Conservative:

At issue is the Pentagon’s so-called 1033 program, which allows police to obtain military surplus equipment from the Defense Department. Among the gear that’s been transferred over the years are grenade launchers, armored troop carriers, M16 rifles, and helicopters. And while it’s difficult to find data on the Minneapolis PD specifically, the Star Tribune reported six years ago that police in Minnesota had received about $25 million in defense hardware. (It’s worth pointing out that not all of the military-grade equipment used by law enforcement comes from the Pentagon—some of it is privately purchased by the departments themselves.)

The result has been the creeping militarization of our police. This trend made national headlines in 2014 after cops in Ferguson, Missouri, used armored vehicles to suppress riots sparked by the death of Michael Brown. That next year, President Obama signed an executive order that stopped the Pentagon from transferring some hardware to police departments. This forced Ferguson to send back, among other things, two Humvee armored trucks.

Alas, President Trump reversed Obama’s order in 2017, allowing Pentagon equipment to proliferate once again.

Journalist Rania Kkalek discusses the evolution of the militarization of our police forces more in the video below:

Here’s why US cops look like soldiers, and how it all went wrong in the first place @RaniaKhalek @inthenowpic.twitter.com/Vi044aGRRi

— The Link ? (@thelink2020_) May 23, 2020

I had a conversation a couple of months back with a gregarious Lyft driver who was also an NRA member who taught gun safety classes and has a legal permit to carry. Of course, there were things we disagreed on but one point of common ground in our conversation was how out of control our police forces are in this country. He told me a disturbing story that reflects an all too common attitude among our domestic police officers.

One day, in a parking lot, he saw a man wielding a knife at a terrified woman with a baby stroller. He said he calmly walked up closer – but still at a safe distance – and let the man know that he was legally carrying a concealed gun and asked if there was a problem. While he had the man distracted, the woman was able to get away and call the police. In effect, he was able to “talk him down” by the time the police arrived. He never once had to even reach for his gun. When the police arrived, one of the officers asked him, “Why didn’t you shoot him? I would have shot him.”

My driver was mortified at the attitude of these officers. He was a military veteran and said that he often was very upfront with people in his gun safety classes about the idea of shooting another human being. He knew from combat what it was like to shoot someone and said that you’re never the same afterward if you’re a normal person to begin with.

The truth of the matter is – we can’t have a violent imperial culture that enables our citizens to go around the world visiting massive violence on other human beings on behalf of profits and a self-righteous missionary agenda and not expect it to boomerang back onto the home front. This is perhaps best captured in the scene last night of members of the National Guard and Minneapolis Police Department marauding through a residential neighborhood, shooting paintball canisters on law-abiding citizens’ front porches while exclaiming “Light ’em up”.

Share widely: National guard and MPD sweeping our residential street. Shooting paint canisters at us on our own front porch. Yelling “light em up” #JusticeForGeorgeFloyd #JusticeForGeorge #BlackLivesMatter pic.twitter.com/bW48imyt55

— Tanya Kerssen (@tkerssen) May 31, 2020

Recall that “light ’em up” was also the cry of the US soldiers as they rained down death and destruction upon Iraqis, including children and journalists, as captured in the Collateral Murder video.

As of May 12th, the federal Russian paid holiday came to an end as the Russian economy began to re-open. It was reported that Russia’s fourth largest city, Yekaterinburg, was re-opening shopping centers, parks and outdoor patios of restaurants earlier this week.

Though Putin’s political opponents criticized the move for being premature and motivated more by economics than science, polling showed that 80% of Russians supported sending people back to work and 89% supported partial re-opening of important sectors of the economy as long as precautions were taken. Another poll suggested that around 1/3 of Russians had been affected by reduced income during the crisis.

As of yesterday, there were over 317,000 confirmed cases of Covid-19 in Russia with 3,099 deaths, still mostly concentrated in Moscow. The rate of infections seems to have stabilized in the last few days.

Last week, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov was diagnosed with the virus and is being treated in the hospital. The mercurial Chechen leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, has been hospitalized as a suspected case in recent days. Prime Minister Mishustin has recovered and returned to work earlier this week.

Intellinews reported last week that Russia will use its Sovereign Wealth Fund to finance mass production of an antiviral drug said to demonstrate effectiveness against the coronavirus:

The Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, is ready to start the mass production of a drug it claims is effective in the treatment of the coronavirus (COVID-19) together with Russian pharmaceutical company ChemRar Group, the fund said on May 13.

Together RDIF and ChemRar have developed a drug called Favipiravir that is based on a drug developed in Japan that was used against influenza, but was tested for use against COVID-19 and found effective….

….As bne IntelliNews reported the fund has already invested into, and is producing, a state-of-the-art briefcase-sized testing kit that can determine if a person is infected with the COVID-19 that was supposed to go into mass production in April. The kit was developed with the participation of Japanese scientists and Russia’s leading virology institute Vektor, based in Novosibirsk.

Now the RDIF, together with ChemRar Group, has announced the positive first interim results of a “multi-centre randomised open comparative clinical trial” of the drug Favipiravir on patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

“According to the data received, 60% of the 40 patients who took Favipiravir have tested negative for coronavirus after five days of treatment, which is two times higher than in the standard therapy group. The data is consistent with the results of studies conducted in China, which also showed a reduction in the disease duration from 11 days to 4-5 days,” the RDIF said in a statement.

The drug is still undergoing extensive clinical trials, including at six leading Russian institutes in Moscow, Smolensk and Nizhny Novgorod. In total, 30 medical centres in eight Russian regions will conduct studies on 330 patients with confirmed coronavirus infection, the RDIF said.

This morning there were reports out of Russia that the first round of testing on a vaccine had shown positive results: immunity appeared to be established with no negative side effects so far.

Douglas Valentine is an author who specializes in the study of the CIA. His most famous book – the one that started Valentine on his road to focusing on the notorious intelligence agency – is The Phoenix Program. The title is a reference to the CIA’s program to “neutralize” the Viet Cong and its sympathizers throughout the Vietnamese countryside. His new book is called The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World. The following is a 9-minute clip from a longer video interview with Valentine by Regis Tremblay about the history of the CIA and its operations. This clip focuses on the CIA’s 70-year history of secret operations in Ukraine against the Soviet Union and later the Russian Federation.

Note: I plan to post the entire interview at a later time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRicZc-cZ0I&t=40s

by Natylie Baldwin

Originally appeared at Oped News on 5/13/20

The Covid-19 pandemic has reminded many of us of our vulnerability and mortality. It has also led some to realize that perhaps our nations should cooperate on behalf of the greater good. The world’s two nuclear superpowers, the U.S. and Russia, have both delivered aid to each other over the past six weeks. Moreover, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin released a joint statement honoring the 75th anniversary of the U.S. and Soviet armies meeting up at the bridge over the Elbe River in Germany during WWII, in which both countries allied to defeat Hitler’s Nazi regime.

Many of us who grew up during the subsequent Cold War, with the specter of nuclear annihilation always looming in the background, heaved a sigh of relief when the two superpowers seemed to call a halt in 1989, with several nuclear arms control treaties having been negotiated. As our media and culture moved on to other problems, one might have thought nuclear weapons were no longer a danger.

But, in fact, the U.S. and Russia together still have 1700 nuclear weapons pointed at each other on hair trigger alert. Several scientific studies have indicated that, in addition to killing millions in the immediate aftermath of the explosions, even a limited exchange of these weapons would lead to nuclear winter within a year, wiping out much of our global agriculture and killing billions of people through starvation.

The U.S. unilaterally pulled out of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 and the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019. It now appears that the remaining arms control agreement known as New START is in danger of expiring in February, despite Moscow’s repeated announcements that it is ready to renew it without preconditions. Since the U.S. Congress has passed legislation that hamstrings the president in terms of withdrawing some or all of the sanctions as a tool in any negotiations with Russia, it is imperative that the administration agree to the extension of New START, which would require no congressional action.

In response to these setbacks on arms control, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved their doomsday clock to 100 seconds to midnight in January. Later that month, the U.S. deployed its first “usable” low-yield nuke onto a submarine on patrol in the Atlantic. Last month, in response to a U.S. State Department paper suggesting that the fielding of such weapons could help counter Russia and China, a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson stated unequivocally that any use of such low-yield nukes against Russia would be met with full retaliation. The Russians have also stated their fear that the deployment of a “missile defense system” in Eastern Europe by Washington has the capability of being used for a potential first strike against it.

Although it’s unlikely that either Washington or Moscow would decide to intentionally start a nuclear war, there is a documented history of accidents and close calls throughout the nuclear era that were averted by a combination of luck and cooler heads prevailing. In current conditions where controversial military exercises by both NATO and Russia occur within short distances of each other, adding “usable” nukes and dubious “defense shields” into the mix presents even greater risks.

With increased tensions and hostility between the nuclear superpowers in recent years – often enabled by sensationalist media reporting and domestic partisan fights – what might happen if a political leader or military officer in Russia had to make a quick decision on how to interpret an early warning system telling them there are incoming nuclear missiles from the U.S.? This actually happened in September of 1983 when Soviet Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov received such a message. The message was erroneous, but he couldn’t know that for certain at the time. He technically violated military protocol – and was reprimanded for it – by not reporting the warning up the chain of command, which would have set in motion a retaliatory nuclear strike on the U.S.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, John Kennedy had to deal with hardliners on his national security team who were encouraging escalation in response to the installation of Soviet nuclear missile sites in Cuba. Kennedy opted for a naval blockade rather than an attack on the island. The fact that the Kennedy administration was operating on a mistaken CIA analysis, which had concluded that nuclear warheads had not yet been delivered to Cuba, makes Kennedy’s restraint all the more critical in retrospect. Nikita Khrushchev, who had to keep his own hardliners at bay, also showed restraint when he ordered Soviet ships that were approaching the U.S. blockade to stop. The confrontation ended when Khrushchev accepted a deal conveyed by Robert Kennedy to the Soviet ambassador that, in exchange for Khrushchev withdrawing nuclear weapons systems from Cuba, the U.S. promised not to attack Cuba and to surreptitiously remove nuclear weapons in Turkey on the Soviet border.

During the crisis, both American navy forces and Soviet nuclear submarines were in the Caribbean. At one point, the Americans detonated non-lethal depth charges in the vicinity of the B-59 Soviet submarine. Cut off from communication and believing they were under attack, two officers on the B-59 wanted to fire their nuclear torpedo. But Vasili Arkhipov, the third officer who had to grant permission for the order to be carried out, refused, thereby averting WWIII.

Historians James Blight and Janet Lang, two of the foremost experts on the Cuban Missile Crisis, have calculated that if the crisis were run 100 times with the same conditions, 95 times it would end in nuclear war. How many times will we luck out?

We should all welcome the opening that the pandemic has provided, giving both the U.S. and Russia the opportunity to make cooperative gestures in order to gradually build trust, which could lead to the repair of the tattered safety net we’re currently relying on when it comes to the still profound danger of nuclear weapons.

Classic movie buffs may remember a 1950’s film noir called Sunset Boulevard starring Gloria Swanson as Norma Desmond.

Norma is a woman beyond her prime and living in the past. She cannot accept the fact that she is not the beautiful and feted movie star that she was 20+ years before, that no one hangs on her every move anymore, and no more leading roles will be forthcoming – in short, the world has moved on. To push away the pain of this rejection – as well as the courage and effort it would take to rebuild her life on a different basis, she creates an elaborate delusion to live in. Within this delusion – which is enabled by a number of others still in her orbit, namely her butler – Norma has tons of fans who still adore her and Cecil B. DeMille is going to call her any moment to give her a big role.

With the delusion having been set for a long time, everyone must tiptoe around Norma, careful not to upset the charade.  They sense to do so would be dangerous.  When a ne’er do well writer who has latched on to Norma, played by William Holden, decides he’s had enough of her, he says something very blunt and direct to pierce her delusion during a fight. Norma flips out and shoots him dead.  The last scene of the movie is classic, showing just how insane she’s become, still failing to recognize how she has destroyed herself and others. 

As a fan of old movies in general and Sunset Boulevard in particular, I keep coming back to how the psychological profile of Norma Desmond’s character seems so reminiscent of the United States right now – or more precisely the political class that dictates its policies and the narrative used to maintain the illusion.  After the end of the Cold War, Washington was the grand dame on the world stage, at the peak of her powers economically and militarily. And she wielded her power without apology for years, becoming entitled to wield it – making demands and bossing others around whom she perceived to be lesser lights.

She’s declining now but doesn’t accept it – continuing to bomb other nations without remorse, assassinating foreign military leaders, sanctioning 1/3 of the world’s population, dotting every corner of the globe with military bases, and engaging in brinksmanship – all while continuing to proclaim her greatness, exceptionalism and indispensability. Other players on the world stage seem to see through the masquerade, but still feel the need to tiptoe around her.

Having a population whose life expectancy is decreasing, an infrastructure that rates a D+ from civil engineers, doesn’t manufacture much of its essential needs, and who can’t even competently handle a public health crisis doesn’t upset the story that America continues to tell herself. Rather than accept her declining stature and use whatever influence she still has to engineer a soft landing domestically and work with the rest of the world toward a multi-polar order that values peaceful co-existence, America seems to have chosen the Norma Desmond path: very entitled, very narcissistic, and dangerously deluded.