By Matt Bivens, Substack, 11/17/22

A celebrated American journalist goes to Ukraine. He finds a woman whose home has been destroyed by Russian bombs. The woman recounts that before the building collapsed, she and her 5-year-old escaped, but her grandmother did not.

The journalist has this woman’s picture taken in front of her destroyed home — in front of the wreckage and rubble piled over her dead grandmother. And he asks her a question. For The New York Times, he wants her opinion of certain Americans who have let her down.

Does he ask her about the Americans who could have prevented the entire Russian invasion in the first place?

After all, the U.S. White House had for years quietly enmeshed Ukraine’s military-security establishment with our own. For years we had also fueled the Ukrainian civil war with hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons (back when that seemed like a lot of money). We also for years insisted Ukraine would someday join NATO, even though ordinary Ukrainians had consistently expressed different desires: for peace, for military neutrality, and for economic and travel access to both Europe and Russia. Moscow had repeatedly stated it would go to war before it would allow NATO to absorb Ukraine, but we publicly dismissed that — even as privately, our top foreign policy experts inside and outside of government confirmed that, yes, indeed that’s what will eventually happen.

In the weeks before the invasion, the Kremlin repeatedly came to Washington — both privately and publicly — seeking one last time for a new understanding. Washington declined to entertain any of Moscow’s ideas. The White House would rather see Ukraine wrecked. This was so even as the new president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, had been elected on a peace platform, with a mandate to wind down the civil war in the Donbas. From the perspective of today, that war is forgotten, but even before the invasion it had lasted eight years and killed more than 13,000 people, and Ukrainians on both sides — the U.S.-backed and the Russian-backed — were tired of it. The White House could have worked with Vladimir Putin and Zelensky toward a diplomatic solution of all of this. Instead, again, we chose to see Ukraine wrecked. We then dedicated ourselves to fighting Russia down to the last Ukrainian, and congratulated ourselves on our noble spirit of self-sacrifice for the good of others.

But no. Our hero the journalist does not ask about any of this. This woman’s home is destroyed, her grandmother crushed to death, her life upended, it could have all been avoided with basic, commonsense diplomacy — but he does not mention this or ask her thoughts.

Does he ask her how she feels about Americans who actively sabotaged a tentatively-reached peace deal that could have ended the war seven months ago?

Seven months ago! Presumably her home could still be standing and her grandmother still alive if the U.S. government had not scuttled that peace process.

No. He does not ask her about this either. After all, there is a U.S. election happening back home. Control of Congress is at stake! People like “Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the firebrand Republican” are threatening to derail the Ukraine gravy train! What does this woman think of those spineless, heartless, quisling politicians? That’s the story we’re chasing here.

The journalist recounts that the woman hopes her grandmother’s body can be dug out from the rubble and given a proper burial, and then writes:

   “Her voice cracked with emotion, but she held together until I asked what she thought of Americans who say it’s time to move on from supporting Ukraine.

   “’We’re people, you understand,’ she said, and she began weeping. ‘It doesn’t matter if we’re Ukrainian or American — such things should not happen.’ And then she was crying too hard to continue.”

Such things should not happen.

We’re people, you understand.

It’s a universal and emotionally moving statement. And it’s such an interesting answer to his question — in part because it’s an answer that actually speaks more to the questions he didn’t ask.

If “such things should not happen”, then why did our government embrace yet another avoidable war? Why did it seven months ago sabotage peace?

“Buck Up America!”, Caws the Crow

I’ve long been a mild fan of this journalist, Nicholas Kristof. He has made a career out of defending human rights. He’s a thoughtful and kind-seeming person. He can be a powerful writer and the Ukrainians he profiles in this article are indeed inspiring and admirable.

Yet I’m so disappointed at the cartoonish conclusions drawn.

Apparently if you oppose allocating billions of dollars more in weapons for Ukraine then you a) don’t care about human suffering, and b) are a weak and silly person, and c) are probably Republican.

We are not offered any alternative to pouring more weapons into this conflict.

For example, we are not offered the alternative of a massive international humanitarian aide package — and how striking to see this omission by Kristof, a self-identified progressive, and a journalist whose focus on humanitarian needs has, per The Washington Post, “reshaped the field of opinion journalism.”

Nor are we offered any information about, or advocacy for, peace.

This is in fact one of the most pro-war opinion columns I’ve seen in awhile. It’s mesmerizing, and manipulative. It demonizes Russia and Russians repeatedly with the sort of luridly detailed reporting that could have been aimed at an emotional appeal for peace — but instead is a masterfully choreographed emotional appeal for more war, up to and including the photo of an attractive young Ukrainian woman, a television personality-turned soldier who, Kristof tells us, wants to fight the Russians because they “killed the man I love,” and who

   “projected strength, wearing body armor and walking carefully to avoid land mines. ‘Follow in my footsteps,’ she advised.”

Follow in my footsteps, says a woman bent on revenge. She’s earned her right to walk that path. But are we going to scorch every hectare of Ukraine and wreck millions of lives more following her down it? By “we” I mean the American Crows and Russian Seagulls who have collaborated to murder the peace of Ukraine.

It’s not until the 32nd paragraph of his article that Kristof notes that “a prolonged war will claim lives of children starving in Somalia and elsewhere because of higher food prices” — this echo of the old Kristof is bittersweet for being so pathetic, a day late and one hundred billion dollars short. Weirdly, Kristof never mentions the suffering of Ukrainian children now as a reason to seek peace, but he is apparently moved by the thought of Somalian children suffering later, and so he continues: “It may be that at some point outsiders should encourage Zelensky to make concessions (as he offered early in the conflict).”

“It may be that at some point” might kick off the mealiest-mouthed passage in the history of writing.

“At some point?” Such as when? After the mid-terms? They’re over. Can we get on with it now? (Apparently not. First we need to vote another $37.7 billion through a lame-duck Congress. And then? Well, I guess then we’ll see how much money is left, and which way the winds are blowing.)

Also: What “concessions” are you talking about that we maybe, might, at some point, want to encourage Zelensky to make? So, you’ve skipped the entire peace process — skipped all negotiation and gone straight to the surrender? How about just encouraging a cease fire and peace talks?

Also: “Outsiders” might someday get involved? Meaning us, the people orchestrating the war from Day 2, and fueling it gleefully to a massive new scale that is truly demolishing Ukraine?

This part — the suggestion that some unspecified day soon, American “outsiders” oughta get involved, if only for the children of Somalia — this part might be the most mendacious moment in the entire unpleasant exercise. Here Kristof reinforces the White House fiction that we’re taking our lead from Zelenksy — when it’s well-documented that Zelensky is almost as helpless a bystander as you or I. He was elected on a peace platform; sought peace in the civil war but was stymied by (CIA-backed) Ukrainian nationalists; sought peace with Putin after the invasion but was stymied by Washington and London; and only gets traction with the rest of the world when he sues for weapons and not for peace.

So Zelensky has been just as managed and manipulated as has any reader of this Kristof article. The New York Times, our masterful paper of record, has never really delved into any of this.

Instead, we are offered a binary choice: Either escalate the conflict with more weapons, or “abandon” the Ukrainians entirely.

“While President Vladimir Putin of Russia seems unable to break the spirit of Ukrainians, he is already shattering the will of some Americans and Europeans. … Buck up, America and Europe!” Kristof exhorts us. “And take some inspiration from Ukrainians themselves. … Ukrainians aren’t wavering the way some Americans, French and Germans are.”

Buck up, America?

Don’t “waver”, like a bunch of French or German sissies?

Keep fueling this terrible conflict with enormous amounts of weapons — and then keep complaining when the Russian response is proportionally (or disproportionally!) enormous?

Then, go document the horrific results of that enormously destructive Russian response, snap some pics of the victims — and use their stories to advocate for enormous amounts of additional weapons?

That’s the message from one of our more notable humanitarian writers?

Yes. Well, that plus some of the kookiest, most wooly-headed foreign policy thoughts imaginable. Kristof states that in addition to the moral reasons for shipping weapons to Ukraine, “there’s also a practical reason to do so,” because Ukrainians “are offering themselves as a human shield in ways that benefit the West.” He then cites how much better protected Estonia is from hypothetical future Russian aggression, now that Russia has worn itself out.

Again, how incredibly jarring to hear a person steeped in human rights lingo speak so approvingly about people serving as human shields. (Did the grandmother crushed in her apartment building “offer herself” for that?) International human rights law condemns people being used as human shields; the very term itself calls to mind a cowardly or immoral behavior in which combatants hide behind civilians, including the elderly and children. Yet here, Kristof applauds the use of the entire Ukrainian people, including the elderly and children, who supposedly “are offering themselves” as a “human shield” for the convenience of entire other, distant nations, like Estonia and America.

He continues:

   “Ukraine’s resistance may also increase the possibility that Putin himself will be toppled. That might lead to the rise of aggressive militarists who would be more likely to use nuclear weapons, but it could also moderate Russia and lead to a safer world …

   “The most important way in which Ukraine is arguably making the world safer is farther to the east. If Russia is defeated in Ukraine, China could take that as a warning and be less likely to move on Taiwan, reducing the risk of a cataclysmic war between the United States and China.”

That’s a lot of woulda-coulda mumbo jumbo. If we keep the pressure on, Putin might be toppled, which might lead to a nuclear war, or it might not, but if we ease up the pressure, China might be emboldened, which might lead to a cataclysmic war, or it might not.

So the only solution is: More war, which might or might not lead to more war.

C’mon Nick, what happened to you?

Once upon a time an American President, Teddy Roosevelt, won the Nobel Peace Prize for helping to negotiate an end to a war between Russia and Japan. That was in a happier era, before we had nurtured and fed an enormous, malignant blob of military industry, a money-fattened blob that has oozed into 81 countries around the planet, a corrupting blob that has seeped everywhere into the American political system and has poisoned political thought itself.

Joe Biden could at any point rise above this blob. He could follow in Teddy Roosevelt’s footsteps, and could step forward with a bold peace initiative to bring the U.S.-Ukraine-Russia war to an end. He could do it tomorrow.

But he won’t. And why should he, when not even as renowned a humanitarian as Nick Kristof can be bothered to ask for this?

By Andrea Peters, World Socialist Website, 11/10/22

The Ukrainian government is intensifying its hunt for pro-Russian “collaborators,” lodging charges against hundreds, if not thousands, of its own citizens, particularly in regions that recently came back under the control of Kiev. The accused face prison sentences, in addition to heavy fines, seizure of property, and the loss of other rights. According to data recently released by the General Prosecutor’s office, the government has opened more than 18,000 cases related to “crimes against national security,” which include treason, sabotage, “assistance to the aggressor state,” and “encroachment on the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine.”

The Ukrainian government, hailed throughout the West as the embodiment of freedom and democracy, is waging a war not just against a foreign power, but against a section of its own population.

In late October, the director of a secondary school in Kharkiv was accused of collaborating with the enemy because he told instructors that they would reopen the institution, hold classes in Russian, use Russian textbooks, and employ Russian educational standards. A week earlier, another man from the region was charged with traitorous actions because, as the head of a municipal road repair shop in Balaklya, he made publicly-owned equipment available to Russian forces. Kharkiv was under occupation at the time.

In numerous instances, individuals are being targeted for nothing more than expressing some form of political support for Russia. Articles published in RBK-Ukraine between October 8 and 25 report that all of the following individuals are facing some form of collaboration-related charge: a resident of Yuzhnye who tried to convince acquaintances that the expansion of Russian sovereignty to Ukrainian territory was just; a woman who more than once discussed with a group of people her view that Ukraine’s independent existence was wrong; a resident of Kharkiv who repeated Russian “propaganda” that Moscow’s invasion was justified. A news anchor with Luhansk 24, a pro-Russian press service, has been notified that he is being investigated for collaborationism.

More prosecutions of this type are forthcoming. “Law enforcement is continuing its work to expose Ukrainian citizens who are supporters of Kremlin policy,” noted Ukr.net on October 15.

Accusations of “aiding the enemy” are also being leveled against people for, it would seem, attempting to keep their communities alive in times of war. A 32-year-old man also from Kharkiv is being prosecuted because he allegedly voluntarily agreed to guard a pharmacy and a depot holding humanitarian supplies while the city was under occupation. The head of the tiny village of Valenkove is facing charges because “acting on instructions from representatives of the Russian Federation, the woman collected data and applications from local residents to address organizational and humanitarian issues.”

Indictments that carry 15-year or more prison sentences—joining anti-Ukrainian partisan forces, telling the Russian military the location of Ukrainian forces, reporting on “patriotic” Ukrainians, and providing economic and other resources to the Russian side—are also being doled out. One detainee, captured on the charge that he was “employed” by a “people’s militia of the occupiers,” died because he allegedly sought to flee and blew himself up stepping on a Russian mine.

Areas of Ukraine that have large Russian populations are being singled out in the hunt for collaborators. According to Pressorg.25, most of the recently-created “investigative offices were opened in the Luhansk, Zaporozhye, Donetsk, Kharkiv and Kherson regions.” In August, The New York Times published an article about the work of pro-Ukrainian militias working behind enemy lines. According to the newspaper, one of their missions, in addition to killing alleged collaborators, is to monitor educators believed to be promoting a pro-Russian line. “Partisans,” however, “will not attack teachers,” they write. Rather, they “have sought to humiliate them through leaflets they often post on utility poles with dark warnings for collaborators, as part of their psychological operations.”

Ukraine’s recently-passed laws on collaborationism are extremely broad. They include things such as “public denial of the implementation of armed aggression against Ukraine, establishment and approval of temporary occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine,” “public appeals to support the decisions and/or actions of the aggressor state, armed formations, occupation administration of the aggressor state,” “implementation of propaganda of the aggressor state in educational institutions,” “voluntary occupation of a non-leading position (not related to the performance of organizational, administrative or economic functions) in illegal authorities established in the temporarily occupied territory,” and “participation in” or “organization and conduct of events of a political nature, implementation of information activities in cooperation with the aggressor state and/or its occupation administration, aimed at supporting the aggressor state and/or evading its responsibility for the armed aggression against Ukraine.”

Particularly for those located in areas that have come under occupation, it is easy to fall afoul of laws that ban essentially any engagement with Russian military or political authorities, much less the expression of a political thought that contradicts the official line of the government in Kiev.

Punishments include stripping people of the right to hold various offices or other posts for up to 15 years, confiscation of property, arrest for up to six months, imprisonment from three to 15 years or for life, and sentencing to two years of correctional labor.

Charges, trials, and punishments are proceeding at a rapid pace. The Telegram channels of Ukraine’s General Prosecutor and other state offices are filled with near-daily photos of the newly-accused. Under conditions of martial law, the destruction of infrastructure, and the exodus of more than seven million people—including, no doubt, many attorneys—it is impossible that anyone caught in this maelstrom is receiving a fair trial. Guilty verdicts and sentences follow quickly on the heels of charges. Online images show that among the accused are the elderly and women, many of whom appear to be visibly poor.

The pictures of defendants released by the state are blurred but often still identifiable. The Ukrainian military is currently using US-provided facial-recognition-technology to both monitor its own population and torment the families of dead Russian soldiers by finding their social media accounts online, contacting their relatives, and sending them images of their dead bodies. In posting photos of those charged with collaboration on social media, state officials are creating conditions under which friends and family of the accused can be found and made subject to collective punishment.

At the same time, there are efforts underway to strip parliamentary representatives from opposition political parties, which were banned by President Zelensky in May, of their seats, on the grounds that they are sympathetic to Russia and, by virtue of that fact, collaborationists.

Last Thursday, a Dutch court reached a verdict on the 2014 MH17 airplane crash in the Donbass. Four men were on trial for the downing of the civilian flight which killed 298 people, including passengers and crew. Three out of the four men were convicted and sentenced to life in prison while the fourth – the only one of the defendants who was represented by counsel at the trial – was acquitted. According to Euronews:

Russians Igor Girkin, Sergey Dubinskiy and Ukrainian Leonid Kharchenko were found responsible for the disaster, Presiding Judge Hendrik Steenhuis said.

Another Russian national, Oleg Polatov, was acquitted of the charges.

The court declared that Girkin, Dubinskiy and Kharchenko must also compensate the relatives of the victims a total of €60 million. Prosecutors and the defendants have two weeks to file an appeal.

The quartet on trial were not present in the courtroom. All at large, they refused to attend the trial, which lasted two and a half years…

…The plane was struck by what the Dutch court established was a missile supplied by Moscow and broke up mid-air, scattering wreckage and bodies over farmland and fields of sunflowers in the Ukrainian region of Donetsk. 

The Russian Foreign Ministry has condemned the trial and its verdict as RT reported:

The decision taken on Thursday by a Dutch court on the MH17 plane crash was absolutely political, the Russian Foreign Ministry has insisted in a statement. Earlier in the day, judges found three people guilty of downing the Malaysian passenger jet over Ukraine in 2014….

Moscow has made it clear that, in accordance with the country’s constitution, it will not be extraditing its citizens.

The court’s decision was based on the conclusions of Dutch prosecutors, which, in turn, were built upon the accounts of anonymous witnesses and evidence presented by the Ukrainian Security Service, which is “an interested party” in the case, the ministry argued. Arguments presented by the Russian side, including data declassified by the Russian Defense Ministry were discarded, it added.

It’s easy to assume that Russia would deny guilt regardless of what actually happened. However, there is reason for skepticism about the investigation that the trial relied upon. First, there was reporting by the late Robert Parry of Consortium News whose investigation and sources revealed gaps and logical inconsistencies in the official narrative of how the ill-fated plane came down:

According to the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), which while “led” by the Dutch was guided by the Ukrainian SBU intelligence service, the Russians delivered the Buk anti-missile battery at a border crossing about 30 miles southeast of Luhansk on the night of July 16-17, 2014. From that point, there would have been an easy and logical route to the JIT’s claimed firing site.

The convoy would have followed one of two roads west to H21 and then taken H21 southwest to the area around Snizhne before getting onto a back road to Pervomaiskyi where the JIT says the launch occurred.

Instead, according to the JIT account, the convoy took a strange and circuitous route, skirting south of Luhansk to Yenakiieve, a town that sits along highway E50, which incidentally offered another easy route south to Snizhne. Instead of going that way, according to the JIT, the convoy proceeded southwest to the city of Donetsk, stopping there before turning east on H21 passing through a number of towns on the way to Snizhne.

Not only does this route make no sense, especially given the extreme sensitivity of the Russians providing a powerful anti-aircraft missile battery to the rebels, an operation that would call for the utmost secrecy and care, but the eventual positioning of the Buk system in the remote town of Pervomaiskyi makes little military sense.

According to the JIT’s video narrative, the presumed purpose of the Russians taking such a huge risk of supplying a Buk system was to protect rebel troops from Ukrainian military aircraft firing from heights beyond the range of shoulder-fired MANPADs.

So why would the Russians position the Buk battery in the south far from the frontlines of the heaviest fighting which was occurring in the north and then have the crew shoot down a commercial airliner when, according to the JIT, there were no military aircraft in the area?

To accept the JIT’s narrative, you have to swallow a large dose of credulity, plus assume that the Russians are extremely incompetent, so incompetent that they would send a highly secret operation on a wild ride across the eastern Ukrainian countryside, ignoring easy routes to the target location (only about 70 miles from the Russian border) in favor of a route more than twice as long (about 150 miles) while passing through heavily populated areas where the convoy could be easily photographed.

Then, the Russians (or their rebel allies) would have placed the Buk system in a spot with marginal if any military value, misidentify a commercial airliner as some kind of military aircraft, and – with a sudden burst of efficiency and competence – shoot it down.

The JIT’s claim about the exfiltration of the remaining Buks has similar problems of logic. The JIT asserts that rather than take the most direct (and most discreet) route back to Russia by heading east, the missile battery supposedly traveled north to Luhansk before crossing back into Russia, a longer trip through more populous areas, another head-shaker.

Parry also stated that his sources in the intelligence community told him that it appeared rogue Ukrainian forces were responsible for the downing:

“I was also told that at least some CIA analysts shared the doubts about Russia’s guilt and came to believe that the MH-17 shoot-down was the work of a rogue and out-of-control Ukrainian team with the possible hope that the airliner was a Russian government plane returning President Vladimir Putin from South America.”

In addition, there had been eyewitness reports of at least one military fighter jet in close proximity to MH17 before it went down, which cast doubt on a BUK missile being the source of the plane’s demise.

Other investigative journalists have looked into the case and come up with evidence that casts doubt on many aspects of the Ukrainian-produced “evidence” accepted by the JIT investigators and used as the basis for the trial of the four men. The film below includes interviews with eyewitnesses to the crash and the moments leading up to it, the Malaysian Prime Minister, an officer from the Malaysian military who was originally tasked with collecting the black boxes, and the conclusions of outside experts who studied the aforementioned evidence provided by Ukraine.

Link here.

By Sumantra Maitra, American Conservative, 11/19/22

“This is getting ridiculous,” an unnamed NATO diplomat was reported to say, “the Ukrainians are destroying [our] confidence in them. Nobody is blaming Ukraine and they are openly lying. This is more destructive than the missile.”

The outburst came after the Ukrainian government denied consensus NATO and American opinion that it had goofed up and misfired a missile into the territory of one of its biggest backers, killing two. It would have been noble to admit the mistake outright and show some remorse, and the incident would have been unlikely to be held against Ukraine. After all, it is the one facing an invasion, and friendly fire incidents happen in a saturated theatre even with the best militaries, even with top-tier deconfliction processes in place.

The most responsible behavior in the incident came from Poland, the country struck by the missile. Warsaw stated that an investigation was underway, and then called NATO to discuss the apparent “attack.” Once it was beyond a reasonable doubt that the strike wasn’t from Russia, Poland withdrew its Article 4 request.

But for about fourteen hours, the threat of nuclear war loomed large over the Euro-Atlantic. The claim that a Russian missile had flown into Poland hinged on the words of a lone anonymous “senior intelligence official,” amplified first by the Associated Press and then by lobbyists masquerading as national security experts. Its spread was recklessly fuelled by the Baltic states and Ukraine.

The Ukrainian president said it was time for a serious NATO countermeasure. The Ukrainian foreign minister channelled his inner girl-boss and said it was a “conspiracy theory” to say that Poland was hit by Ukrainian air defences. Ukrainian M.P. Lesia Vasylenko tweeted, “2 #russia missiles fly over #Ukraine #Polish border. Hits of polish territory and so far 2 possible civilian casualties. This calls for @NATO article 5 reaction. Right?” Then, as the narrative collapsed in real time, tweeted again, “This is #russia’s fault! If #putin hadn’t gone crazy with a missile shower over #Ukraine yesterday, there would be no hits. In #Kyiv, #Kharkiv or #Przewodow”.

The BBC reported, “Baltic states on the front line with Russia were quick to call on the collective defence of Nato. The President of Lithuania Gitanas Nauseda declared on Twitter: “Every inch of NATO territory must be defended!” Others said the incident made the case for even greater military support for Ukraine. Latvia’s defence minister, Artis Pabriks, suggested NATO could provide more air defenses for Poland and “part of the territory of Ukraine.” Kaja Kallas, Estonia’s prime minister, said the West should give Ukraine more military, humanitarian, and financial support.

Put simply, a whole bunch of people called for direct war between the two largest nuclear powers, all for their petty localized interests.

Now that there is a consensus that the incident was a stray Ukrainian missile, it seems highly improbable that the Ukrainian government and some of their lobbyists in D.C. didn’t know that. It is almost impossible to conceive that a leader of a country at war had not received the frontline information from his battlefield command about the trajectory of the misfired border air-defense missile around the same time that he and his government were making statements about the urgency of NATO imposing collective defense.

In the parlance of D.C., it appears a clear case of deliberate “disinformation.” It is, quite frankly, unlikely that the Ukrainian government and military did not know that they were calling for what would have effectively amounted to a world war. Every sane military strategist knows the meaning of Article 5. The NATO states know that. The Baltic states should know that. Frustrated American intelligence and administration officials, trapped by their earlier Churchillian rhetoric, know that, at least by now. And yet.

A still contested puzzle in international relations is whether great powers influence their satellites or whether ideological small states drag (or “chain-gang”) their witless and myopic benefactors. As Schumpeter wrote, “there was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Roman allies…”

From a Machiavellian standpoint, one can understand why Ukrainian leadership would lie to the world to get everyone else to fight their war, even at the risk of nuclear annihilation. Deception is often more effective than force. Fidel Castro also tried to drag the Soviets into his war, but the Soviets were prudential enough to leash their dogs.

One would expect rational small states to zealously guard whatever small influence they have, instead of undermining the core interest of the group that protects their existence. So, what explains Baltic fanaticism about NATO enlargement or brinkmanship with Russia? What explains Ukrainian resistance to any grand bargain, to the point of antagonizing their allies? Whatever the result of a total war they seek so ardently, they would not survive one as an intact unit of polity anyway. So, what gives? There are potentially two causes, by no means exclusive, and possibly intertwined.

One, this is ideological. Historically, a simple hypothesis is often correct. But two—and here it gets more complicated—the bigger the alliance, the more constrained the choices of the hegemon. Expanding NATO consolidates the liberal-internationalist orthodoxy and multiplies an imperial, self-sustaining, and expanding bureaucracy, making it more difficult for a hegemon like the U.S. to act in its own interests as opposed to the interests of the group. No great power or empire in history has been this trapped by its own ideological overreach. Fenrir, in this case, is not only chained, but has proceeded to neuter himself.

NATO did not and would not do anything without the permission of Washington, D.C., but this episode presents an opportunity to contemplate and reconsider some peripheral alliance commitments, and the risk of resultant escalatory spirals. Next time the world might not be so lucky.

By Debbie Lerman, Brownstone Institute, 11/3/22

Note: The National Security Council was created as a result of the 1947 National Security Act, which also created an unaccountable agency known as the CIA. Emphasis in article below is from the original. – Natylie

“It means our response to the Covid pandemic was led by groups and agencies that are in the business of responding to wars and terrorist threats, not public health crises or disease outbreaks.“

In previous articles I discussed the probability that Deborah Birx, the White House Coronoavirus Task Force Coordinator, was not a representative of the public health agencies but, rather, was appointed by the National Security Council. I now have proof that this was, indeed, the case. I have also uncovered documents that show:

• As of March 13, 2020 the National Security Council (NSC) was officially in charge of the US government’s Covid policy.
• Starting on March 18, 2020, The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), was officially in charge of the US government’s Covid response.

The Covid Task Force Coordinator was brought in by the NSC

On March 11, 2020, at a Heritage Foundation Talk, Trump’s National Security Advisor, Robert O’Brien, when discussing what the White House and NSC were doing about the virus, said: 

“We brought into the White House Debi Birx, a fantastic physician and ambassador from the State Department. We appreciate Secretary Pompeo immediately moving her over to the White House at our, well at the President’s, request.” (min. 21:43 – 21:56)

The National Security Council was in charge of our Covid Policy

An astonishing government document dated March 13, 2020 entitled: “PanCAP Adapted U.S. Government COVID-19 Response Plan” (PanCAP-A) (embedded at the end of this piece) reveals that United States policy in response to SARS-CoV-2 was set not by the public health agencies designated in pandemic preparedness protocols (Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act, PPD-44, BIA), but rather by the National Security Council, or NSC. 

This is the pandemic response org chart, from p. 9 of PanCAP-A, showing the NSC solely responsible for Covid policy:

What is the National Security Council?

According to its website, the NSC “is the President’s principal forum for considering national security and foreign policy matters with his or her senior advisors and cabinet officials.” 

The NSC does not include as regular attendees any representatives from public health-related agencies.  

It does include the President’s National Security Advisor, who is “the President’s most important source of policy advice on foreign and national security policy,” according to the White House Transition Project’s document for The National Security Advisor and Staff. “In some administrations,” the document continues, “foreign and national security policy making is essentially centralized in the hands of the NSC advisor with minimal input from cabinet-level departments such as State or Defense.” Furthermore, “there is little statutory or legal constraint (beyond budgetary limits) in how the role of NSC advisor is defined or how the NSC staff is organized and operates.” (pp. 1-2)

In other words, if the NSC is in charge of Covid response, it can pretty much decide and impose anything it wants without any constraints or oversight, as long as the President agrees, or at least lets them take the lead.

But what exactly is PanCAP-A, in which the NSC appears in such a surprising Covid-response leadership role?

PanCAP-A is the closest we have to a national Covid response plan

PanCAP-A stands for Pandemic Crisis Action Plan – Adapted. 

An exhaustive online search did not turn up the Pandemic Crisis Action Plan from 2018, which was apparently “adapted” to produce PanCAP-A. However, the existence of the original document is confirmed in various documents, including a statement on “Preparedness for COVID-19” presented to the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs on April 14, 2021. 

In this statement, Elizabeth Zimmerman, a former FEMA Administrator, who is sharing with the Senate Committee her findings on “The Initial Pandemic Response and Lessons Learned,” says she had trouble finding the government’s plan for the US response to Covid-19:

“In researching disaster response plans to refresh my memory for this hearing, I found several detailed plans that were publicly available and saw mention of plans and directives that were not publicly available. The time spent searching for these plans and directives was frustrating for an experienced emergency manager…” 

Then, in reference to the plans she was able to find, or knew about but may not have actually seen, she says:

“Following the Anthrax attacks in 2001, the federal government invested a lot of money on processes and plans centered on public health response – bioterrorism and pandemics in particular. … One of the latest plans, January 2017, is the Biological Incident Annex (BIA) to the Response and Recovery Federal Interagency Operational Plans (FIOPs). The BIA is the federal organizing framework for responding and recovering from a range of biological threats, including pandemics. 

However, it was not publicly seen that these plans were being used during the onset of COVID-19 nor does it seem that there was a national COVID-19 response plan. 

Finally, she references the 2018 PanCAP, the adapted PanCAP, and then makes another surprising statement:

Also, there was a 2018 Pandemic Crisis Action Plan (PanCAP) that was customized for COVID-19 specifically and adopted in March 2020 by HHS and FEMA; the plan identified the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as the Lead Federal Agency (LFA) with FEMA supporting for coordination. However, a mere five days after the national COVID-19 emergency was announced, FEMA became the LFA.” [BOLDFACE ADDED]

FEMA replaced HHS as the Lead Federal Agency, with no warning or preparation

What Zimmerman is saying here is that, in the PanCAP-A org chart, where the NSC is in charge of policy and the HHS is in charge of almost everything else – actually, FEMA is in charge of everything else.

This means that, in effect, starting on March 18, 2020, the HHS –which comprises the CDC, NIAID, NIH and other public-health-related agencies – had NO OFFICIAL LEADERSHIP ROLE in pandemic response – not in determining policy and not in implementing policy.

This is a staggering piece of information, considering that all pandemic preparedness plans, as Zimmerman notes, placed the Health and Human Services Agency (HHS) at the helm of pandemic response.

How was FEMA put in charge?

According to the Stafford Act, which “constitutes the statutory authority for most Federal disaster response activities especially as they pertain to FEMA and FEMA programs,” the disasters to which FEMA is empowered to respond include: 

“any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, winddriven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under this Act to supplement the efforts and available resources of States, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby.”

Very clearly, FEMA is an agency neither designed nor intended to lead public health initiatives or the country’s response to disease outbreaks. 

Yet, as Zimmerman reported, on March 18, 2020, just five days after the official date of PanCAP-A, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was removed from its lead role in pandemic response, and FEMA was (at least operationally if not policy-wise) put in charge.

In a Congressional Research Service report from February 2022, entitled “FEMA’s Role in the COVID-19 Federal Pandemic Response,” the opening paragraph states:

“On March 13, 2020, President Donald J. Trump declared a nationwide emergency under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288 as amended), authorizing assistance administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Five days later, the President notified then-FEMA Administrator Peter Gaynor that the agency would assume leadership of the federal pandemic response effort—the first known instance of FEMA serving in such a role for a public health incident.”

FEMA’s January 2021 COVID-19 Initial Assessment Report emphasizes how unusual this chain of events was:

“The agency’s response to COVID-19 has been unprecedented. When the White House directed FEMA to lead operations, COVID-19 became the first national pandemic response that FEMA has led since the agency was established in 1979. It was also the first time in U.S. history the President has declared a nationwide emergency under Section 501b of the Stafford Act and authorized Major Disaster Declarations for all states and territories for the same incident.” (p. 5)

A FEMA fact sheet from March 4, 2020 reveals that the agency was not given advanced warning of the enormous new responsibilities that would be thrust upon it just two weeks later:

“At this time, FEMA is not preparing an emergency declaration in addition to the Public Health Emergency declared by HHS on January 31, 2020.” (p. 2)

The table below is from a September 2021 report from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Homeland Security, “Lessons Learned from FEMA’s Initial Response to COVID-19.” This document stresses that “The PanCAP-A did not address the changes that ensued when FEMA was designated the LFA. Furthermore, FEMA (and HHS) did not update the PanCAP-A or issue interim guidance addressing the changes in critical roles and responsibilities for each agency.” (p. 11)

In other words, HHS – the agency designated by statute and experience to handle public health crises – was removed, and FEMA – the agency designated by statute and experience to “help people before, during and after disasters” like earthquakes and fires – was put in charge. But the pandemic planning document was not updated to reflect that change or how that change would affect the Covid response.

Why was FEMA suddenly and unexpectedly given this lead role? I would argue that the NSC wanted to ensure that no policy or response initiative emanating from the public health departments would play any role in the Covid response. Since FEMA had no planning documents or policies regarding disease or pandemic outbreaks, there would be nothing in the way of whatever the NSC wanted to do.

So what did the NSC want to do? PanCAP-A, in which the NSC takes the lead role in setting Covid policy, does not give a detailed answer, but does clearly place NSC policy above anything else that might contradict it.

What does PanCAP-A say?

On p. 1, under “Purpose” it states:

“This plan outlines the United States Government (USG) coordinated federal response activities for COVID-19 in the United States (U.S.). The President appointed the Vice President to lead the USG effort with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) serving as the Lead Federal Agency (LFA) consistent with the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA) and Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 44.”

In other words, in accordance with a bunch of pandemic preparedness laws and directives, the HHS is the Lead Federal Agency in charge of pandemic response. 

As we move through the document, however, the roles and responsibilities of the HHS become increasingly muddled and diminished.

On p. 6 under “Senior Leader Intent” it says:

“The National Security Council (NSC) requested adaptation of the PanCAP to address the ongoing threat posed by COVID-19 in support of the Administration’s efforts to monitor, contain, and mitigate the spread of the virus. The plan builds on objectives that prepare the USG to implement broader community and healthcare-based mitigation measures…” [BOLDFACE ADDED]

In other words, everything the Pan-CAP-A says about how the HHS is planning to address the pandemic is “adapted” in favor of “objectives” that prepare the government to implement “broader measures.” 

On the next page, we get the exact same vague language under “Strategic Objectives,” which include implementing “broader community and healthcare-based mitigation measures.” A footnote tells us “These objectives were directed by the NSC Resilience DRG PCC on February 24, 2020.” [BOLDFACE ADDED]

What is the NSC Resilience DRG PCC? There is no explanation, appendix, or addendum, nor anything in the entire PanCAP-A to answer this question – a noteworthy omission, since it apparently defines the objectives upon which the entire US pandemic response is based.

Similarly, on p. 8 under “Concept of Operations,” we read:

“This concept of operations aligns interagency triggers to the CDC intervals for each phase and groups key federal actions according to response phase. It also layers in the COVID-19 Containment and Mitigation Strategy developed by the NSC.” [BOLDFACE ADDED]

There is no explanation or description of what the “Containment and Mitigation Strategy developed by the NSC” is referring to. 

Conclusion

Everything we thought we knew about the US government’s Covid response is upended in the Pandemic Crisis Action Plan – Adapted (PanCAP-A), which gave the NSC sole authority over policy, and the simultaneous Stafford Act declaration, which resulted in FEMA/DHS taking the lead role in its implementation.

This means the doctors on the White House Task Force who headed HHS departments – including Fauci, Redfield, and Collins, the heads of the CDC, NIAID and NIH – had no authority over determining or implementing Covid policy and were following the lead of the NSC and the DHS (Department of National Security), which is the department under which FEMA operates.

It means our response to the Covid pandemic was led by groups and agencies that are in the business of responding to wars and terrorist threats, not public health crises or disease outbreaks.

I believe that the national security authorities took control of the Covid pandemic response not just in the US but in many of our allied countries (the UK, Australia, Germany, Israel and others) because they knew SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered virus that leaked from a lab researching potential bioweapons.

Whether or not the “novel coronavirus” was in fact a highly lethal pathogen, it was a military threat because it was a potential bioweapon, and therefore it required a military-style response: strict lockdowns in anticipation of Warp Speed vaccine development. 

Furthermore, all of the seemingly nonsensical and unscientific policies – including mask mandates, mass testing and quarantines, using case counts to determine severity – were imposed in the service of the singular goal of fomenting fear in order to induce public acquiescence with the lockdown-until-vaccines policy.

And once the national security authorities were in charge, the entire biodefense industrial complex, consisting of national security and intelligence operatives, propaganda/psy-op (psychological operations) departments, pharmaceutical companies and affiliated government officials and NGOs assumed leadership roles.

Much research is needed to unearth more evidence in support of these hypotheses. The work continues.