I’ll preface this post by saying that presidential hopeful Andrew Yang seems like a decent and authentic guy. He has some interesting ideas on domestic policy (e.g. universal basic income, renewable energy, electoral reform, etc.), so I’m glad that he’s still in the debates and the merits of some of his ideas can be discussed. He seems to have some breakout potential – more than, say, Marianne Williamson. I somehow got onto his email list and I saw that he made the individual donations mark before Gabbard did. He has a passionate following which has adopted the moniker of the “Yang Gang.” I can also picture some establishment types maybe being willing to eventually support him as a guy who has a few unconventional policy ideas but ultimately is more capitalist-friendly than a couple of other popular candidates. He would also satisfy the identity politics requirement that is disproportionately significant to some in the party leadership. That is why I’m taking the time to comment on him.

Unfortunately, whatever independent and out-of-the-box thinking that Yang is capable of on domestic policy doesn’t seem to extend to foreign policy. This is becoming clear as he is starting to develop and publicly discuss a foreign policy agenda. His comments on a “Yang Doctrine” were mentioned in a brief interview he did with a YouTuber who leads a Yang fan club. The Yang Doctrine as laid out in the video below consists of 3 criteria that would have to be met to trigger military intervention by the U.S.: 1) is a vital U.S. interest at stake or is there a humanitarian disaster that needs to be averted?, 2) is there a clear timeline for the commitment?, and 3) are our allies willing to engage and help?

Now, to his credit, Yang acknowledges that we’ve been engaged in too many wars and interventions over the past two decades. He also states that there must be more investment in diplomacy and willingness to talk to “dictators.” Additionally, on his website’s foreign policy page, he commits to rescinding the AUMF and giving Congress back the authority to declare war, except for “emergency military activity.” These are all things that are steps in the right direction.

However, what concerns me is the first point of his Yang Doctrine, which leaves a hell of a lot of wriggle room for aggressive shenanigans. He doesn’t define what a “vital U.S. interest” is. Also, he is embracing humanitarian intervention. There have literally been whole books written about how this often serves as a fig leaf for aggressive regime change wars. Again, Yang does not set out any specific details about what would constitute a “humanitarian disaster.” Would he have gone along with the Libya intervention? Libya was a perfect example of humanitarianism, which manipulates people to support a war, being used as a cover for a regime change agenda. Moreover, the humanitarian claims turned out to be bogus. But that inconvenient truth came out after the fact – after the damage had been done. After Libya was reduced from the most prosperous nation in Africa to a slave-trading, terrorist-infested failed state. How would Yang avoid ravaging another country like this in the future under the guise of humanitarianism?

Yang’s comments in this interview on the Crimea issue show that he doesn’t have any understanding of Crimea’s historical relationship to Russia and what even happened in 2014. He seems to think that Crimea was reunited with Russia against its will and is being mistreated. Given that our relationship with Russia is one of the most important and contentious bilateral relationships, a candidate should have at least a rudimentary understanding of the issues at play and Yang shows he doesn’t. His recent answers to foreign policy questions posed by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) to the Democratic candidates – which I’ll discuss in more detail below – merely reinforces this assessment. Yang stated in his answers that he wants to expand sanctions on Russia even further.  

Yang also made some comments on the Israel/Palestine issue during a media interview earlier this summer that showed he is not inclined to question the entrenched position in Washington of viewing Israel as entitled to the benefits and protections (and none of the accountability) of essentially being the 51st state. In fact, his answer seemed to indicate that he had little understanding of the actual history and dynamics of the conflict itself. This is not exactly an obscure conflict where only a few eggheads firmly ensconced in the deepest recesses of a university are going to understand it.  In his subsequent CFR answers regarding Israel/Palestine, Yang at least acknowledged that Israel has created illegal settlements that might be problematic. He also paid lip service to a 2-state solution but said nothing about the facts on the ground, which have been systematically created by Israel (i.e. settlements) to undermine any credible 2-state solution.  

Yang addressed some other major foreign policy issues with the CFR questions. One of those is Iran. Yang said he would rejoin the nuclear deal, but he still characterizes Iran as a destabilizing force in the region. This, along with his comments on Israel/Palestine, show little understanding of the Middle East, just the repetition of establishment talking points.

With regard to China, Yang again shows little understanding of another major country that represents an important but contentious bilateral relationship. For example, he suggests that China is “becoming more authoritarian” with its embrace of technology to censor and surveil – as if mainland China hasn’t been “authoritarian” for much of its history.  The utilization of recently available (surveillance) technology to reinforce these tendencies is less an example of “increasing authoritarianism” than the western democracies utilizing that same technology in a more gradual but very similar way to undermine pre-existing civil liberties.  The latter is an example of going from less authoritarian to more authoritarian.  China, not so much. If a supposed brainiac like Yang cannot recognize that his comments don’t make logical sense, then we have a problem.   

With respect to Venezuela, he repeats the establishment line that Maduro is “undemocratic” and that outside powers, led by the US, have the right and duty to force him to step down and allow Guaido to be in charge until further elections.  His position reveals that he believes in imposing regime change, just without a military invasion. He also doesn’t mention the deaths caused by our economic sanctions there.  

I understand that it’s still very early on and I also understand that most Americans are concerned with more immediate domestic policies. However, as I’ve said before, given the actual responsibilities that the job of U.S. president entails and the power that presidents wield on foreign policy, a serious candidate cannot simply view foreign policy as some b.s. afterthought. A politically inexperienced candidate who is utterly ignorant on foreign policy can be easily manipulated by the blob into dangerous actions that potentially have consequences for all Americans as well as the entire world.

Yang, along with all of the candidates, is applying for the toughest job in the country and if he – or any of those candidates – can’t show the intellectual grasp, critical thinking skills, and judgment to be commander in chief in addition to the other duties of the office, then they aren’t qualified for the job.  

A few years ago, when I would occasionally read Mark Galeotti’s commentary and analysis of Russia, I’d often disagree with his take, preferring professors Richard Sakwa and Dominic Lieven as the best British experts on Russia. However, Galeotti actually gives a more nuanced and interesting analysis during this interview with Russian journalist Oksana Boyko on Worlds Apart. A lot of what makes this an interesting discussion is Boyko’s pushback on some of the assumptions that Galeotti rolls out about Russia and Putin, which forces Galeotti to backtrack on some of the things he starts to say that, in my opinion, reflect lazy and stereotypical thinking. I think Galeotti knows better, but he’s so used to providing the group think assessment of Russia that the Anglo-American establishment demands that it’s a conditioned response.

Having a more reasonable sounding view of Russia suddenly seems to be gaining popularity. After last week’s G7 meeting – the mutual admiration society of the western liberal democracies – French president Macron made comments acknowledging that western hegemony in its recent iteration since the end of the Cold War is declining. He also acknowledged that western nations needed to change their current attitude toward Russia or risk dangerous and unnecessary strategic errors that are not in the west’s long-term interests, like a Russian partnership with China. Macron also wants to position France as a key arbiter of relations within Europe, filling the void that will be left by Britain’s exit from the EU and Merkel’s declining influence on behalf of Germany.

According to a new Rasumussen poll out last Friday, 56% of likely U.S. voters believe that ” … having Russia in a friendly posture, as opposed to always fighting with them, is an asset to the world and an asset to our country, not a liability.” Furthermore, the respondents admitted that Trump was actually being aggressive in his policies toward Russia. This appears to be evidence that the basic premise of the Russiagate narrative has been effectively debunked for a good portion of the electorate.

Below is the video with English subtitles of Putin’s remarks prior to an August 23rd special meeting with his security council about the implications of Washington’s recent testing of a missile off the coast of California that violates the recently dissolved INF Treaty.

The meeting was attended by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matviyenko, State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin, Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office Anton Vaino, Secretary of the Security Council Nikolai Patrushev, Interior Minister Vladimir Kolokoltsev, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, and Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service Sergei Naryshkin.

A full transcript of the remarks are available in English here.

The day before, Russia and China convened an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council about this same issue. Russia was represented at the meeting by its deputy Ambassador to the UN, Dmitry Polyanskiy who made some of the same points as Putin above:

Washington apparently planned to leave Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty long before announcing its withdrawal from the 1987 agreement back in February, Polyanskiy added, since this is the only way it could have tested a new ground-launched cruise missile that violated the accord mere weeks after it officially expired.

The launcher used in the test was the same one installed in Aegis Ashore missile defense batteries in Romania and Poland. When the first of those systems was placed in 2016, Moscow expressed its concerns over their capability to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles in violation of the INF treaty. The US assured Russia at the time the Aegis systems did not have such features.

“Now these suspicions are confirmed,” Polyanskiy said.

The Russian envoy also warned that the US was putting the world on a path toward a new and more dangerous nuclear arms race due its reckless quest for preeminence. He also criticized Washington’s European allies for being too timid to stand up for the treaty before Washington unilaterally withdrew.

Meanwhile, the nuclear-related explosion that occurred on the White Sea of northern Russia a couple of weeks back was initially assessed by the US intelligence community and most of the establishment media as involving the test of a nuclear-powered missile known as the Burevestnik. However, that assessment is turning out not to represent a unanimous view.

An August 15th article by RFE/RL discussed the emerging skepticism among some independent experts and analysts that rather than a Burevestnik, the explosion may have involved a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG).

The case for the Burevestnik explanation is supported by Ankit Panda of the Federation of American Scientists:

“Most of the evidence about the Arkhangelsk event points to the Burevestnik program being the culprit,” Ankit Panda, a nuclear expert at the nonprofit Federation of American Scientists, told RFE/RL in written comments. “This assessment is shared by the U.S. intelligence community.”

Panda noted the Nyonoksa test site’s resemblance to others where the Burevestnik is known to have been tested and the involvement of scientists affiliated with the Sarov nuclear-research institute.

“We also see signs that the Serebryanka” — a nuclear-fuel carrier that was present during previous Burevestnik tests and could potentially be used to transport a nuclear device — “was situated near the incident site.”

But the RTG explanation is seen as a possibility by other experts.

Edwin Lyman, acting director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Nuclear Safety Project, told RFE/RL on August 16 that he was “initially skeptical” that the accident involved a Burevestnik system because such an event would generate a range of different fission products, some of which are fairly dispersible and could be detected in trace amounts far away.

“It’s not just the radiation level, but the type of radiation,” he said, and to date nobody has reported the presence of radioactive iodine, which would indicate a reactor accident….

….Andrei Zolotkov, head of Bellona-Murmansk, the Russian chapter of the Norway-based Bellona Foundation independent environmental monitor, wrote to RFE/RL on August 15 that “there is no final conclusion, because the information is presented in doses and in an often contradictory way.”

All that is clear, he said, is that the accident was related to the testing of a “nuclear device” at a military site.

Zolotkov gave two alternative scenarios: an accident involving either “a small-sized nuclear installation or a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG).”

Military weapons expert Scott Ritter just weighed in on behalf of the RTG theory in an article earlier this week in The American Conservative. Ritter explains that Russia has been looking to utilize autonomous delivery systems for weapons in which the missiles can be installed in canisters and fired from the ocean floor or other locations remotely. The bug in this system that the Russians have been trying to work out is how to power missiles with these “autonomous” delivery systems since the “power supply for any such system must be constant, reliable, and capable of operating for extended periods of time without the prospect of fuel replenishment.”

An RTG, which acts as a kind of nuclear battery using Cesium-137, was the possible solution that was being tested. An RTG system creates energy by converting the heat released by radioactive decay of materials. Ritter goes on to explain this in the context of the August 8th explosion in Russia in which detection of Cesium-137 and its byproducts rather than radioactive iodine as well as the limited spread of radiation are major clues as to what happened and what didn’t happen:

On August 8, a joint team from the Ministry of Defense and the All-Russian Research Institute of Experimental Physics, subordinated to the State Atomic Energy Corporation (ROSATOM), conducted a test of a liquid-fueled rocket engine, in which electric power from Cesium-137 “nuclear batteries” maintained its equilibrium state. The test was conducted at the Nenoksa State Central Marine Test Site (GTsMP), a secret Russian naval facility known as Military Unit 09703. It took place in the waters of the White Sea, off the coast of the Nenoksa facility, onboard a pair of pontoon platforms.

The test had been in the making for approximately a year. What exactly was being tested and why remain a secret, but the evaluation went on for approximately an hour. It did not involve the actual firing of the engine, but rather the non-destructive testing of the RTG power supply to the engine…. 

….When the actual testing finished, something went very wrong. According to a sailorfrom the nearby Severdvinsk naval base, the hypergolic fuels contained in the liquid engine (their presence suggests that temperature control was one of the functions being tested) somehow combined. This created an explosion that destroyed the liquid engine, sending an unknown amount of fuel and oxidizer into the water. At least one, and perhaps more, of the Cesium-137 RTGs burst open, contaminating equipment and personnel alike. 

The Russian Meteorological Service (Roshydromet) operates what’s known as the Automatic Radiation Monitoring System (ASKRO) in the city of Severdvinsk. ASKRO detected two “surges” in radiation, one involving Gamma particles, the other Beta particles. This is a pattern consistent with the characteristics of Cesium-137, which releases Gamma rays as it decays, creating Barium-137m, which is a Beta generator. The initial detection was reported on the Roshydromet website, though it was subsequently taken offline. 

Specialized hazardous material teams scoured the region around Nenoksa, Archangesk, and Severdvinsk, taking air and environmental samples. All these tested normal, confirming that the contamination created by the destruction of the Cesium-137 batteries was limited to the area surrounding the accident.

Read Ritter’s full article here.

In this series of interviews with MIT Professor Theodore Postol, award-winning journalist Aaron Mate discusses how the dissolution of the INF Treaty is already impacting a nuclear arms race between the U.S. and Russia, what the accusations of violations on both sides were, and how previous policy mistakes paved the way for distrust and eventual disintegration of the treaty.

In this first video, Postol goes into the recent testing off the coast of California by the U.S. of a missile that was prohibited by the INF and what the consequences of an escalated nuclear arms race are:

In this next video, Postol discusses the action of the Obama administration in 2009 that not only contributed to sabotaging the “re-set” with Russia, but helped pave the way for the Trump administration’s ultimate dumping of the INF framework of arms control.

In this final video, Postol explains why Tulsi Gabbard is correct, based on the scientific evidence, to question the narrative put forth by both Washington and the establishment media regarding alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government.

The DNC is up to its old tricks of sidelining candidates who have policy positions that the establishment doesn’t approve of and, therefore, doesn’t want you to continue to hear.

In this video, political analyst and radio personality Kim Iversen unpacks the arbitrariness and lack of transparency behind one of the criteria the DNC is using to determine which of the candidates will be allowed on the debate stage for the third Democratic debate next month: the requirement to get 2% or more in four approved polls by August 28th.

There have been numerous polls since the last debate with results that are inconsistent with each other. Even the pollsters themselves are acknowledging that the polls aren’t terribly reliable at this point – more than a year away from the election. But only certain polls are being considered for the DNC’s purposes. In this twisted setup, Tulsi Gabbard – a candidate who is still actively gaining momentum as reflected by her having over 170,000 unique donors with approximately 50,000 of those gained since the last debate – has polled at 2% or better in 23 polls, but the DNC is only counting 2 of those (as of 8/20)*, without any meaningful explanation as to why some polls are getting the stamp of approval and others aren’t. Iversen discusses what demographics tend to get favored by the small number of polls that are being accepted and which candidates, in turn, that phenomena is favoring.

The link to the petition Iversen mentions is here for those who wish to sign.

*Note: this video was recorded on 8/18 and, at that point, Tulsi only had one qualifying poll. On 8/20, it was reported that she has now made the cut in 2 qualifying polls. But we don’t know how many more qualifying polls will come out before 8/28.