Remembering Veterans Day

 

"He doesn’t care if he kills us all": Psychologist warns Trump is about to "act out"

Following the midterm blowout for the Republican Party that has been viewed as a referendum on Donald Trump’s second term, the president has entered the “third act” of his political career and is more dangerous than ever.

That’s the warning from Dr. John Gartner, a psychologist, former Johns Hopkins University professor and frequent Trump critic, who told the Daily Beast’s Joanna Coles that the president likely took the GOP’s defeat personally.

“Hell, hath no fury like a malignant narcissist scorned,” Gartner said. “I think we’re now in the third act of the tragedy, and I think we’re in more danger now than we’ve ever been.”

According to the Daily Beast, Gartner believes the 80-year-old president may now be even more inclined to wreak havoc. “He’s going to act out in the ways that are destructive—to show his power and dominance, and to gain the sadistic sense of pleasure that he gets from destruction,” Gartner said.

He compared the moment to a dangerous stage in an abusive relationship.

“I feel like we’re at the stage where a woman who’s been abused goes, ‘Thank God. I kicked him out of the house, I have a restraining order, I’m finally safe,’” he said. “And that’s often the time when the really destructive abusers say, ‘Okay, now I’m gonna kill the b---h.’ I think that he is that guy, and we are the b---h. And he doesn’t care if he kills us all.”

Gartner admitted he doesn’t have much advice to offer on how to deal with the impulsive president because he doesn’t believe “anyone can contain him.”

“I don’t think there is a strategy that will work,” he told Coles. “I think that he is going to do what he is going to do, and he’s going to reap maximum chaos, maximum destruction, maximum confusion.”

He warned that Democrats’ victory celebrations may be short-lived. “We’re so elated that Democrats have taken both houses of Congress, but I think he’s going to be successful over the next two years at stymying virtually every effort that they make,” he said.

Gartner argued Democrats will have little leverage because Trump has no agenda he needs them for. “Any bill that they pass that could help America is a bill he wants to thwart. That’s how his psychology works,” he said. “He doesn’t care if shutting down the government hurts the country. Look, he didn’t care that his actions hurt his party, right? He could care less.”

“At no point did he ever think maybe I should change my behavior because it’s gonna hurt my party,” Gartner concluded. “He doesn’t care about his party or his country or anyone else.”

-Tom Boggioni, NewsBreak

Trump plans imperial final act to his presidency

 

Donald Trump, with the clock ticking and congressional investigators closing in, plans to govern even more imperially, hell-bent on stretching executive power, targeting those on his enemies list, pardoning allies, and daring the courts and Congress to slow him down.

Why it matters: Trump and his allies are exploring executive action on new tariffs and immigration restrictions and asserting greater control over spending. 

On X over the weekend, Trump discussed targeting and perhaps jailing Democrats who investigate administration officials. He claimed politically motivated harassment.

Trump is retooling his White House by elevating the one official who's synonymous with his all-gas-no-brakes style: Stephen Miller, who took over for Susie Wiles as White House chief of staff on Monday.

---

Watch Miller and Russ Vought, the White House budget director, to understand how this approach will unfold. Both are architects and advocates of vastly expanding presidential power, believing there are virtually no restraints on what Trump can do as president.

The Swamp can expect tougher sledding: Miller, unlike most of his predecessors, is driven more by ideology than by meetings with lobbyists or industry groups. "Stephen gives zero f*cks what K Street thinks," a Trump confidant told us.

Between the lines: Midterm losses pushed Presidents Clinton and Obama to the center. Trump's instincts are the opposite: Assert maximal power. 

The playbook:

Restore MAGA. Two years ago, MAGA — mostly its network of podcasts, YouTubers and online activists — was a powerful, united force in media and politics. Today it's a hot, divided mess. Trump's attention to his base drifted. Now Vice President Vance and Miller desperately want to rebuild and rev up MAGA. That's why ending the Iran war, curtailing aid to Israel and pushing harder on RFK Jr.'s MAHA agenda are suddenly top-tier topics.

Rule by pen. Miller, Vought and White House lawyers have been drafting executive actions to govern without Congress, with Justice Department opinions ready to defend them, Reuters reported just before the election. 

Remember: Vought was an architect of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 blueprint for maximizing executive power in Trump II.

Target enemies. Before, it was pure payback. Now, it's also a preemptive warning that the Trump administration will target anyone, including elected members of Congress who target them. Trump ally Roger Stone told us: "Many Democrat lawmakers are going to find themselves under indictment and fighting conviction. Watch."

Purge the "deep state." The Supreme Court's ruling in a case about independent agencies, Trump v. Slaughter, widened the president's power to remove officials. 

"The Slaughter case gives the president tremendous powers," Trump said in an Election Day phone interview with CBS News' Robert Costa. The June ruling handed Trump the power to fire the heads of the FTC and other independent regulators (like FERC) for any reason or no reason.

More monuments. Trump's pharaonic need to gild the White House, build a ballroom, erect a triumphal arch and slap his name on buildings is also an exercise in raw power. 

He told New York Magazine's Ben Terris why he's honoring himself: "Nobody will do it once I'm gone. When I leave here, nobody will." No one can stop him.

The Republican resistance: Expect very little inside the new Congress. 

The reason: Most of Trump's Capitol Hill critics are gone. What's left is a much smaller, but more Trumpian, band of middle-aged and older white Republicans with margins too small to matter much.

The Trump bet: Congressional Republicans will quickly feel Democrats are overreaching and unify in solidarity with Trump, even if it's forced or begrudging.

Yes, but: One of Trump's most predictable attributes is his unpredictability. He said on election night that he'll "work together" with Democrats. What that may look like (with a heavy emphasis on "may"), based on reporting by Axios' Marc Caputo:

-Soften aspects of immigration enforcement, particularly regarding masked agents harassing U.S. citizens.

-Find common ground with MAHA's healthy food agenda, which has become the subject of vicious post-election infighting among Trump insiders.

-Sign legislation from the new Congress that would undo massive Medicaid cuts in his "One Big Beautiful Bill."

The bottom line: Trump is still Trump. He's 80 and it shows. But he meets force with force, and he'll go down swinging the more Democrats attack him. "Trump and his team are at our best when our backs are against the wall," one adviser told Caputo. "Trump comes out fighting. We're full-throated and full throttle."

-NewsBreak

Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen 

Trump sparks outrage with "wildly disrespectful" claim about troop casualties

 

Donald Trump outraged some political analysts on Sunday after he blurted out a false claim about military casualties in the Iran conflict. Speaking to reporters at the airport in West Palm Beach, Florida, Trump claimed no soldiers have been killed in the conflict, a claim that his own Department of Defense has refuted. In October, the Pentagon raised the official death toll in the Iran war to 23, Stars and Stripes reported.

"We won in Iran," Trump said. "It's just a matter of closing it out now. Maybe we'll wait. Some of their neighbors would prefer that we keep it the way that it is. Again, we haven't lost anybody. No soldiers," he added, comparing America's casualties in Iran with larger conflicts like the war of Russian aggression in Ukraine and the Vietnam War.

Trump's comments sparked a firestorm of criticism online. Nick Field, a politics writer, described the president's comments as "f------ horrible" in a post on X, reiterating the number of casualties that have been reported. Quentin Ocama, state outreach officer for the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, posted on X that Trump's claim was also "wildly disrespectful" to service members. 

"Wildly disrespectful of the service members who have been killed or injured in this clusterfuck of a conflict," he wrote. "Our crisis with a lack of serious and competent leadership continues…." Journalist Aaron Rupar described Trump's claims in a post on X as "lies."

-Robert Davis, NewsBreak

 

Key Developments This Week in Ukraine

 

🕯️ A community mourns people who came for humanitarian aid. On November 2, Russian aerial bombs struck a former school serving as a humanitarian aid distribution point in Komyshuvakha, Zaporizhzhia Oblast. By November 7, the reported death toll had reached 55, with search operations continuing beneath the rubble.

⚡ Fresh attacks leave Kyiv struggling with electricity, water, and heat. Russia launched a major missile and drone attack overnight into November 7, damaging energy infrastructure, residential buildings, and Kyiv’s Northern Bridge. Substations connecting nuclear power generation in western Ukraine to Kyiv and central regions were hit. With colder weather arriving, the damage threatens more than lighting—it disrupts heating, water supplies, and everyday life for families already enduring repeated blackouts.

🛡️ Faster Russian drones are changing the battle in the skies. Ukraine’s Air Force reported that 137 of the 172 attack drones launched overnight into November 7 were jet powered. Ukrainian defenses intercepted 117 of those faster drones, according to the military. The figures show both the growing threat and the work being done to counter it.

🇺🇦 Ukrainian defenders push back near Lyman and Kostyantynivka. Fighting continued around the eastern cities Russia is trying to capture. In its November 6 assessment, the Institute for the Study of War reported Ukrainian counterattacks southeast of Lyman and a recent Ukrainian advance in northwestern Kostyantynivka, supported by geolocated footage.

🎯 Ukraine targets the weapons used against its cities. Ukraine’s General Staff reported strikes on two Russian Iskander missile launchers and a Pantsir-S1 air-defense system in Bryansk Oblast between November 6 and 7. Separately, the military confirmed a Neptune missile strike on the Proton-Electrotex plant in Oryol, which it says produces components used in Russian missile systems.

💔 Children under occupation face pressure to surrender their identity. A November 5 report published by EU NEIGHBOURS east highlighted the growing militarization and assimilation of Ukrainian children in occupied territories. Drawing on testimony and the work of The Reckoning Project, it described schooling shaped around Russian state narratives, obedience, and hostility toward Ukrainian identity. The struggle to protect Ukraine’s future also means protecting children’s language, culture, and connection to their home.

Thank you for standing with Ukraine and for continuing to support our community. Behind every headline are people trying to keep their families safe, help their neighbors, and hold on to hope. Your solidarity helps keep their stories visible and reminds Ukrainians that they are not alone.

With Love, 💙💛
— Ukrainian Apparel

 

Neil Young sues Trump campaign again for playing "Rockin' in the Free World" at rally

 

Rock veteran Neil Young has filed a $10m lawsuit against a fundraising committee that supports US President Donald Trump, citing "unauthorised" use of his 1989 song "Rockin' in the Free World."

The Canadian-American star alleges that the Trump 47 Committee infringed on his copyright when it played the song before Trump took the stage at a 12 October rally in Ohio. Playing the song amounts to an "unauthorised public performance", the lawsuit states. The singer-songwriter sued the Trump re-election campaign in 2020 over its use of the same song and "Devil's Sidewalk." Young said the parties settled the matter shortly thereafter.

The White House referred to the Republican National Committee, who the BBC has contacted for comment. Through his company Silver Fiddle Music, Young alleges that the song was played without a licence or Young's permission at a political event in Youngstown, Ohio on 12 October. In the US, music used at campaign rallies often requires a public performance licence for it to be played for an audience, even if a campaign has already purchased a legal copy of the recording.

According to US Congress, because sound recordings do not have a general public-performance right, permission is only needed from the musical-work copyright holders, which can be obtained directly from the copyright holders themselves or through performing rights organisations.

The five-page federal lawsuit says that Trump "was personally aware that a licence would be required to play the Song at rallies," and that Young "has not, and would not, grant the required licence." It also says the song has been played "numerous times at other rallies."

The Grammy Award winner, who has strongly opposed Trump's politics, characterises the song as "a blistering anthem that contrasts the hollow promises of American political rhetoric with the harsh realities faced by the poor, homeless and forgotten." Young says that the song is "the opposite of everything that Donald J Trump stands for."

In 2020, Young sued Trump's re-election campaign for copyright infringement over the same song, as well as "Devil's Sidewalk." The new lawsuit claims that the campaign, at the time, "asserted no defence and immediately settled shortly after it was served," promising to never use the song without permission again.

Young posted about the lawsuit on his website on Tuesday, thanking Trump for coming to so many of his shows in the 1980s and 1990s, but stopped short of allowing him to play his music. "I am sorry it came to this, but money and transactions are something you understand," he wrote.

Young, The Rolling Stones, Rihanna, Adele, REM and the estate of Prince have previously criticised Trump for using their music at campaign events.

-Nardine Saad, BBC

It's Time for New Democratic Leadership in the Senate

 

To say this election was a rebuke of Trump is, technically, accurate. But it massively understates the case. This was a hard reset. A grassroots-powered overturning of entrenched power unseen for decades. People took this country, turned it upside down, and shook corrupt politicians and spineless enablers of fascism out of every legislative body from the US Senate down to county councils and everywhere in between. 

Americans rejected officials who allowed communities to be brutalized by ICE. They jettisoned corporate-backed politicians who stuck data centers in their backyards. They wiped out Members of Congress who defunded healthcare and then used the money to launch illegal wars and enrich the wealthiest people on earth. 

And across the country, they backed candidates who rejected corporate money and promised to usher in a new era of people-centered politics -- candidates who showed they were ready to take the fight to the Trump regime and the rotting systems that propelled its rise. 

Now Democrats must choose a Senate leader who can meet this moment and lead that fight. It’s hard to fathom the Chuck Schumer of the past two years being the man for the job.

Indivisible has not been shy about voicing our concerns about Schumer’s leadership over these past two years. As millions of Americans were in the streets standing up to Trump, Schumer bent the knee, funding the authoritarian agenda voters just rejected in historic numbers. 

Whatever his intentions, Schumer repeatedly failed to rein in Trump or even marshal his own caucus against some of Trump’s most destructive cabinet members. Now, he is treating his leadership as pre-ordained, telling reporters, “I will be re-elected as majority leader.” 

We say: Not so fast. The people voted for a new kind of politics, not for old guard politicians to anoint themselves with titles just because they’ve held power for so long. With the stakes this high for our democracy -- and for the future of the Democratic Party -- Democrats need to read the room and hold an open, transparent election to determine who will lead the Senate. 

Email your Democratic senator(s) now and demand they oppose a Schumer coronation.

Join us in urging Senate Democrats to demand new leadership and refuse to go along with a Schumer coronation >>

In solidarity,
Indivisible Team

 

Now What?

 

Now comes the hard part. The damage Trump and his cronies, including those in Congress, have done to the country, its people, its institutions, its policies, and its values is staggering. It will not be corrected overnight, or even in the next two years. 

No doubt, Trump’s allies — including billionaires like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Bill Ackman, and Larry Ellison — will pour unconscionable amounts of money into campaigns that will blame everything that goes wrong on the Democratic majority, who now share governing responsibility with Trump. There will be confrontations over investigations, subpoenas, and funding of programs that could lead to government shutdowns, along with vetoes of initiatives passed by both the House and Senate.

There will be a slew of substantive, strategic, and political ambitions Democrats in Congress will face when they assume power. But before any of those are addressed, the top priority has to be a serious reconsideration and reconfiguration of how Congress does its business, how it communicates with the American people about its efforts, and why. 

The challenge of determining where to begin will be immense. Voters are expecting real change, whether it is alleviating the affordability crisis, taking on rank corruption, confronting the shattered domestic and foreign policies and processes followed by Trump and his administration, or reforming our broken governing institutions.

Business as usual won’t cut it. So, what to do? Democrats, soon to be running the House and Senate, have to completely restructure the way they operate and communicate. There is a throughline to lay out: corruption, billionaire and corporate privilege, big money flooding politics, blowing up essential government services, safety nets and protections, senseless tariffs, and a reckless war have all created a toxic mix that has benefited bigwigs and caused average Americans to struggle to keep their heads above water. Congress will need to highlight who the miscreants are, in and out of government, and make clear what will be done to deal with them.

Democrats need to tell powerful stories, lay out relevant facts, put forth a road map to improve people’s lives and hold the villains accountable — not retribution against perceived enemies, but real justice. It starts with reforming the hearing process in every committee. 

For decades and more, committees have followed the practice of having five-minute segments for each committee member, alternating for the parties, often starting with rambling opening statements by chairs and ranking members. 

The process generates far more heat than light. If the witness is a hostile one — which will be the case with every hearing involving a Trump appointee — that means five minutes of him or her stonewalling, followed by five minutes of respite granted from a partisan ally likely to waste time either lambasting colleagues across the aisle or extolling the witness. And, as a general matter, majority members don’t coordinate their questions. The result is a lot of disjointed yelling, with an occasional insight or meaningful confrontation to make a sound bite.

Bottom of Form

There is a better model, one we saw demonstrated by the January 6 committee under Chairman Bennie Thompson. Start with a thirty-minute overview done by a professional staffer to lay out the premise of the hearing, followed by thirty-minute segments for each member. Make sure all the majority members are on the same coordinated page, prepared to deliver relentless follow-ups if witnesses evade, dissemble, or dance around their answers. Each hearing should have a goal — if it is a policy issue, include the panoply of those related to affordability. Inform people what the issue is, why it is important, and why Trump et al. are responsible for failures. Then articulate clearly what to do about it.

If it is about a lawless or corrupt act or set of acts, establish coherently why it was wrong, illegal, and unacceptable; who was responsible; what damage was done to the populace; and why it should result in those responsible being fired or impeached. It must become less about sound bites and dealing with Republican stonewalling, and more about what the witness did, how they did it, and what should follow.

The number of outrages and issues to cover is nearly endless, from corruption scandals — like pay-for-play pardons, crypto schemes, insider trading, and bribes from foreign governments — to tariffs, to slashing medical research while eviscerating Medicaid and health insurance protections, to cutting disaster relief, to undermining national defense and food safety. More broadly, there is the abuse of the Justice Department, the FCC, the CDC, the IRS, and the Postal Service — among other crucial institutions.

The Trump Administration has indeed flooded the zone with scandals and outrages. But the way for a Democratic Congress to combat this gross abundance is not to play Whack-a-Mole with a dozen or more misdeeds at a time; it is to have focus and discipline. One key focal point each week, starting with a press conference to lay out that week’s issue, with the relevant committees poised to take it on from their respective areas of expertise. Members should utilize every venue — the House and Senate floors, social and other media, podcasts, town halls, and prime-time debates — to communicate the key issues. 

That is the way to get through to a populace that is otherwise focused on their daily lives and a media that too often puts a thin veneer on most of these issues and scandals. That is also the way (if the result is not new policies forced by Trump’s vetoes or Senate filibusters) to highlight why the failure to act falls on Trump and Republicans, and what Democrats will do if they add the White House in 2028 to their majorities in Congress.

None of this is natural to members of Congress or their leaders. It is hard to change the way you have done things for decades, and hard to adapt if you are new to Congress. There will be powerful voices saying, “Hey, business as usual is what gave us these huge gains!” But no matter the inclination to revert to tried-and-true methods of deliberation, it is imperative to revise such practices. Otherwise, they will be perceived as just another group of politicians stuck in a system that most Americans now view with disdain and distrust. Unless our 120th Congress show an ability to bring palpable change to stalled, tired systems, their tenure in the majority will be short-lived.

Norman Ornstein is a renowned political scientist, co-host of the podcast “Words Matter,” and author of several books, including “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism.”

---

Join The Contrarian community to support bold journalism and help fund critical lawsuits to stop Trump’s corruption — Subscribe now.

 

"Perhaps this is one of Zelenskyy’s greatest achievements"

 

We have witnessed a weary President Zelenskyy win a grueling three-week standoff against Trump’s White House, Hegseth’s Pentagon, and Bessent’s Treasury Department… 

He won without raising his voice, slamming any doors, or demeaning Trump. Following his high-profile "diesel deal," Zelenskyy launched a genuine diplomatic counteroffensive—active and persistent, yet without a single public jab at the American president. He didn't get drawn into an emotional game; instead, he simply seized the initiative.

And he didn't just seize the initiative—he brought Ukraine back to the center of the international agenda, compelling partners to once again take his position into account. Rather than playing the part of someone aggrieved by Trump, the Ukrainian president began setting the pace and the agenda himself. In diplomacy, that carries more weight than the loudest public statements. Do you think Erdoğan invited our president out of pity? Certainly not. Yet, remember all the uproar—claims that Zelenskyy was a pathetic madman, that he was putting Ukraine in jeopardy… remember all that whining and wailing? 

And today, Ukraine is striking Russian oil refineries once again—and Washington remains silent. Silent as the grave. And it’s not just silence: they have actually signed off on the transfer of missiles to us. Note that just a month ago, there was no talk of missiles whatsoever. The Pentagon was saying… We didn't have it...

But it exists—and in Washington, words of high regard for Zelenskyy and Ukraine are already being voiced. Washington has come to realize that Zelenskyy cannot simply be pushed away from the table where the fate of his country is being decided. It certainly seems that, this time, Trump has had to swallow a reality that is not particularly pleasant for him.

And it appears that Europe, too, has finally let out a sigh of relief. It has been quietly applauding Zelenskyy’s intense diplomatic maneuvering—recognizing that, in this diplomatic game, Ukraine possesses not only its own will, strength, strategy, and moves, but is actively sharing that very strength and resolve with Europe. Europe is becoming stronger.

Perhaps this is one of Zelenskyy’s greatest achievements: he has not only defended Ukraine’s standing as an independent actor, but has also helped Europe rediscover its own strength, regain political weight, and engage with Washington as a partner. Ukraine—which for so long relied on Europe for support—has now become a pillar of support for Europe itself. 

And now, that is no less vital for Europe. Furthermore, I have been struck by the incredible distance Zelenskyy has traveled over these years—a journey that many other politicians fail to complete in an entire lifetime. 

We, as Ukrainians, should place greater trust in him, offer our support, and remember this: at the table of international politics, he now stands as a major political leader—one who commands deep respect and whose opinions are taken seriously. 

He represents not his own personal ambitions, but Ukraine—all of us. I often recall the words of a well-known journalist, spoken on the first day of the war: there are clowns who become great national leaders. And there are leaders who become clowns…

- Ladislav Scharbo

Hear, Hear, Canada!

 

Last Night’s “Blue Wave” Means Nothing if We Don’t Stop the National Defense Authorization Act

 

Last night’s election results proved that a majority of people in this country do not want war and genocide. Polling overwhelmingly showed that the war on Iran was one of the biggest motivating factors in voting. 

So why are we about to give the very people voters rejected an unprecedented $1.5 trillion budget to continue their reign of death and destruction? Why are we going to allow Congress to hand over the largest war budget in human history to weapons manufacturers and AI tech billionaires who work at the behest of known war criminals?

In the next few weeks, Congress is set to pass what should be viewed as the deadliest piece of legislation of our time – the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – or the country’s defense budget, as it is more commonly known. 

Its potential passage is setting U.S. taxpayers up to be the funders of their own demise by giving carte blanche to a department of war criminals and their humanity-destroying tech-fascist friends with an obscene 1.5 trillion-dollar treasure chest to control, murder, oppress, and destroy the planet as we know it. Sounds a bit hyperbolic? Not if you look at their past and what they are openly saying now, as a prologue.

To understand why this war budget is a catastrophic time bomb, you first have to understand what it actually funds. Under the guise of providing national “security” and protecting “democracy,” the annual Pentagon budget does little of both. Instead, the budget, which consistently fails its financial audits, is a mechanism to funnel billions of dollars into the pockets of weapons manufacturers, who make the very weapons that murder men, women, and children and destroy the planet. Well over half of the discretionary budget each year goes directly to private contractors.

Between 2020 and 2024, the Pentagon designated roughly $2.4 trillion out of $4.4 trillion in discretionary spending to private industry. But hey, at least those private companies are providing much-needed jobs for America’s workforce, right? Well, not so fast.

According to the Climate and Community Institute, employment at military contractors has plummeted over the past three decades: from an estimated 3.2 million workers during the Reagan military-spending peak in the mid-1980s to 1.1 million workers in 2020. The drop occurred even as Pentagon budgets rose 22 percent over the same period. 

Meanwhile, the industry’s top recipients of military contracts, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Boeing, pay their CEOs a combined salary of almost $100 million a year. They are literally making a killing off the killing of others.

And now, not only are we draining our pocketbooks for weapon company CEOs, but we are also subsidizing tech-overlords whose recent main objective is to move jobs and agency away from the working class to robots, as well as use that very technology to mass-surveil those who oppose it. 

The Pentagon is requesting an unprecedented $58.5 billion this year for an artificial intelligence program. This program is already responsible for the February 28 Minab School massacre that murdered at least 156 schoolchildren and staff.

Even more frightening, the money for that deadly program is set to go to the most insane lineup of anti-worker villains, including Sam “bad things should happen to benefit AI” Altman; Peter “if you’re evil, you’re not bad” Thiel; and Elon “AI will make jobs irrelevant” Musk. They’re openly telling us they don’t need humans anymore. Meanwhile, they are building their bunkers so that when the United States military finally plunders away all the resources around the world, they can survive.

Why are we handing the military $1.5 trillion to do all this? As it stands, U.S. taxpayers are already paying $116.43 million every hour for war and terror. 

That’s more than $4,000 in weapons and war costs for the average taxpayer last year alone. Both figures will likely double, since the Trump administration’s request is Biden’s already bloated $1 trillion. Meanwhile, nearly 30% of people have to finance groceries, and 45,000 people will likely die because they lack health insurance or access to affordable healthcare.

If you were watching a summer Blockbuster and the main characters were handing over their hard-earned money and essentially their trust to the person you know is going to assassinate them in the final act, you would be screaming at the screen, “Don’t do it!” But that is exactly what is happening right now, and in fact, many are screaming.

Polls consistently show that Americans are moving away from a war-centric approach to foreign affairs. Almost two-thirds of people in the United States disapprove of Trump’s war on Iran, and 60% disapprove of the U.S. supported genocide in Gaza. 

Similarly, 59% of voters believe the proposed $1.5 trillion Department of Defense budget is too high, and 3 in 5 voters (58%) prefer directing government funds toward domestic priorities like healthcare rather than military or war spending.

The voices are there, but most of those with the power to stop it aren’t listening or are too invested in the war-industrial complex to care. Which begs the question: How can we even call ourselves a democracy, much less its defender, when we, the people, seem to have no agency outside of voting and the majority’s demands are ignored?

This administration, as did previous ones, proudly ignores what the majority is begging for: an end to the genocide in Gaza and the occupation of Palestine; an end to the war on Iran that was started for no reason and is currently sustained through the administration’s pompous arrogance; an end to ICE’s reign of terror across the United States; an end to the AI/data center boom that is chipping away at our humanity and livelihoods; and reinvestment into the things that will actually keep us safe, such as healthcare, housing, and climate justice.

Make no mistake, the 1.5 trillion dollars set to go to Pete Hegseth’s war department is not funding our security; it is funding our endgame and stealing from our lifelines. If passed, it will be nearly impossible to undo the damage that will come. We all must unite around this – healthcare workers, environmentalists, teachers, journalists, students, veterans- and make democracy actually work for the people before it’s too late. We have to let those we elected to work for us know that this is a red line that humanity cannot afford to cross.

History shows that public pressure can influence policies. Our collective voice can change this country’s trajectory – if we mobilize now. We don’t have to fund our endgame; we can say no. Join us in DC Nov. 10- 13 as we demand our country stop funding war and start funding life.

Melissa Garriga is the communications and media analysis manager for CODEPINK. She writes about the intersection of militarism and the human cost of war.

 

It's about Time!

 

"...This was a personal repudiation of Donald Trump and his reign of corruption, but also of fascist, brutal, reactionary, and xenophobic MAGA rule and policies. An entire generation of dynamic, diverse Democrats rose to power in one dramatic night…"

Scotus Tells Trump NO

Late [yesterday] afternoon, the Supreme Court told Trump no. There is no opinion, so we don’t know what the Court’s reasoning was. We don’t know whether the decision was unanimous or split, and if it was split, who voted which way. 

But we do know that the Supreme Court declined to let Trump interfere in the election in California at this late date. It rejected DOJ’s request, which would have forced the state to deal with the junk list of voters the administration thinks might not be citizens.

In its emergency request to the Court, DOJ told the people on the list “appear to be registered to vote in California based on publicly available information at the time the information was received,” but that they “in the United States’ view, are likely not U.S. Citizens.”

Adam Klasfeld tweeted: “Count the number of weasel words packed into a single sentence in the Trump DOJ’s emergency request for SCOTUS to bless attempted election interference.” It was hardly the kind of definitive statement you would expect the Justice Department to make before trying to interfere with votes while an election is already underway. “Likely not.” “In the United States’ view.” “Appear to be registered.”

The Yiddish word “shanda” comes to mind. It means a shame, a disgrace, a scandal, and an embarrassment—all rolled into one. Scandalously bad behavior. Shanda aptly captures Donald Trump’s efforts to interfere with the election, and I’m relieved that the Supreme Court didn’t let Trump get away with the stunt he tried to pull in California.

District Judge David Carter’s decision last week, which we discussed in detail here, explains why this was the right result. I’ll sleep better knowing the Supreme Court let his decision stand.

And one more thing before we call it a night. If you’ve been reading Civil Discourse without subscribing, this is a good time to join us. We have an election tomorrow. Courts are making consequential decisions, sometimes in the dead of night. We have a Justice Department whose arguments deserve close scrutiny. There is a lot of work ahead of us, whatever happens at the polls.

Democracy isn’t a spectator sport. Neither is Civil Discourse. I’m grateful for the company of people who refuse to give up on democracy. We’re the cavalry—the ones we’ve been waiting for. Tomorrow will come soon enough. For tonight, get some rest

We’re in this together,

Joyce Vance

We Need a Real Congress to Stop the Illegal War

 

Should Democrats win control of even one house of Congress (and both is increasingly likely), the most urgent issue will be to head off resumption of the illegal, reckless, and fruitless Iran war. Donald Trump has been itching to resume his unilateral war, insistent that with just one more round (just a short one!) of random destruction, he can “win.”

There is zero evidence that additional military action (let alone one advertised in advance as brief) will force Iran to release its grip on the Strait of Hormuz and/or topple the regime. It therefore remains a mystery what plan could produce a result that anyone other than a deluded, addled president would consider victory. (Besides, he keeps saying we already won, so why is further action required?!)

According to news reports, Trump, ominously, received an in-person briefing last week on the resumption of active military operations from Adm. Brad Cooper, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine. Meanwhile, the potential that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — who egged Trump on to fight a preposterous regime-change war and sees his own legacy as tied to the (impossible) attainment of that goal — will remain in power after the inconclusive Israeli elections increases the likelihood for another joint operation.

The prospect of further war — never authorized by Congress (and opposed in multiple War Powers Act votes), overwhelmingly unpopular with voters, and likely to deepen the energy crisis and inflationary spiral — should alarm all Americans. And how Trump intends to wage this fiasco should be even more alarming.

Speaking at the Middle East Institute last week, Sen. Murphy, fresh from a visit to the region, told the audience, “I think we are seeing the president ready another devastating military campaign after the election, just as illegal as the first iteration was at a time where Americans are fed up with this war.” Denied access to damaged bases, he reported on “a cover-up that is underway — a dizzying and coordinated attempt to try to hide from the American people and from Congress the costs and the consequences of this war.” 

Most frightfully, he warned: "In one of these briefings, we did get the chance to have a fairly detailed conversation about what the war plan would be if we restarted military operations. You’ve heard a preview that it would be a short-duration plan. I will just say this: their plan is insane. It will lead to devastating escalation and the likely destruction of our commitment to the rule of law. …

"There’s been open reporting as to what we may be planning and the civilian infrastructure that we may be targeting. They’ve been asked by the President to develop a plan. Whether they believe it will work or not, I do not know. But the plan that they have developed will lead, in my view, to a prolongation and an escalation of this war that will be devastating for our security interests.

"We do not know if that is the plan about which Trump was briefed last week, but we do know that any military action absent congressional authorization would be unconstitutional, further deplete our munitions (already critically low), endanger our troops at bases we are apparently unable to defend, kill and injure more people (including civilians, about whom the Trump regime has shown shockingly little regard), cause further physical destruction in the region, imperil our regional allies (whose oil facilities we are also unable to protect), and ultimately reinforce the image of the United States as a hapless, weakened oaf toddling around the region, unable to defeat a second-tier power."

Should Trump order our military to engage in massive war crimes, he would imperil them personally and further erode the standing of the U.S. military (which has already alienated allies because of its extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean).

As Murphy made clear, “this is the textbook illegal war.” He explained, “They are fighting a war without congressional authorization. They haven’t sought congressional authorization. There hasn’t been a hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee.” He added that “it is also clearly in contravention of international law and commitments that we have made to the rule of law to deliberately target civilians and to use the harm or potential harm of civilians as leverage in war. And it is also violative of commitments we have made to target political leadership at scale.”

The first order of business for lawmakers after the election therefore should be a vote to bar further offensive action against Iran, deprive the Trump administration of any funding for this outrageous gambit, and make crystal clear that anyone engaged in this illegal escapade — up to and including the president — will be held fully accountable to the greatest extent of the law (be that impeachment, prosecution for war crimes, court martial for senior brass, etc.).

Will Congress act, either before or after the new Congress is sworn in? Well, we will find out. Even if Democrats are outvoted on a party-line vote before January, their unity on these items is essential to make clear what will transpire as soon as new legislators are sworn in on January 3. Going on record unanimously may slow down military action, encourage Gulf allies to push back against Trump, and give military leaders additional arguments to dissuade Trump from acting.

It would be unfathomable for Democrats not to try to mount a furious effort to stop the resumption of the war. “We become an illegitimate body, especially with respect to our foreign policy powers, if we do not use our spending power to end the war,” Murphy reminded us. “The president has ignored the Constitution and ignored us. He has gone to war repeatedly in the Middle East, illegally, without congressional authorization.” He added, “The natural consequence of that should be for the Congress to deny funding for the war if you are not prepared to come to us and get authorization.”

Murphy is right that it is Congress’s “sacred responsibility as a co-equal branch to use the spending power to end the war.” And it is the sacred obligation of democratic citizens, whose obligations do not end with casting of ballots, to hold elected leaders to the promises they made and to abide by the unequivocal mandate of the American people to end the war.

Mass, peaceful protest may be required to bolster Democratic opposition. No Democratic lawmaker, whether just elected or considering future runs, should expect to hold power if he or she cannot wield the most consequential powers in Article I: the powers to declare war and to make appropriations. No Democrat serious about running for president in 2028 can remain on the sidelines. The election is tomorrow, but the most fateful decisions for the country, for the Middle East, and for the international world order will come after the votes are counted.

---

The Contrarian is community-supported. Help fund bold journalism and critical lawsuits to stop Trump’s corruption by becoming a paid subscriber. Join the fight now!

 

This week brought devastating attacks on civilians and Ukraine’s power grid, but also emotional reunions as residents of occupied Oleshky finally reached safety.

Dnipro mourns victims of a railway station attack. On October 29, a Russian drone struck a crowded railway platform where passenger trains were standing. The death toll rose to 15 after another wounded man died in hospital. Fourteen people were injured, with an 11-year-old boy among those seriously hurt. People making ordinary journeys never made it home.

A journey out of occupied Oleshky. A temporary local ceasefire allowed humanitarian aid to reach the devastated city and residents to evacuate. On October 31, evacuees reached Ukrainian-controlled territory after a long journey through occupied Crimea, Russia, and Belarus. Families reunited after years apart, while exhausted arrivals received hot meals and medical care. Some described severe hunger and months of struggling to survive.

Fresh strikes leave families without electricity. Russia continued attacking energy infrastructure, including power facilities in Kyiv, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, and Shostka. On October 31, President Zelenskyy reported that around 200,000 households in Dnipro and the surrounding region, along with more than 80,000 in Kyiv Oblast, were without power. Repair crews worked to restore supplies as colder weather approached.

Ukraine strikes military production and supply hubs. On October 31, Ukraine’s General Staff reported striking the Kamensky rocket-fuel plant in Russia’s Rostov Oblast, causing a warehouse fire and damaging four production workshops. Earlier, on October 26, Ukraine reported hitting the Energia plant, which produces specialized batteries for Russian glide-bomb guidance systems. Ukrainian forces also reported strikes on four military supply depots in occupied Donetsk, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts. These operations aim to disrupt the production and supply of weapons used against Ukraine.

Fierce fighting and an unusual operation near Kupiansk. Heavy fighting continued, with the Pokrovsk and Huliaipole sectors among the most active. On October 27, President Zelenskyy highlighted Operation Veles, in which Ukrainian troops used underground infrastructure to reach Russian positions near Kupiansk. The operation had first been disclosed the previous week; the reported 15-kilometer distance referred to underground movement, not a 15-kilometer advance of the front line.

European funding remains essential—and tied to reforms. Following the €2.9 billion Ukraine Facility payment earlier in October, attention turned to securing further support. A separate €3.7 billion payment remained delayed amid outstanding reform requirements. This week, the EU also outlined plans to bring forward its planned 2027 support, helping Ukraine meet urgent military and budget needs.

A new step in Ukraine–NATO technology cooperation. On October 29, Ukraine and NATO’s Defence Innovation Accelerator, DIANA, signed an agreement to expand joint technology development and testing. The partnership gives Ukrainian innovators greater access to NATO expertise and testing infrastructure, while bringing Ukraine’s wartime experience into shared defense innovation.

Thank you for standing with Ukraine and for continuing to support our community. Every act of solidarity helps keep Ukraine's story visible and reminds Ukrainians that they are not alone.

-Ukrainian Apparel 

Roaming Charges: The Anal Stage of US Politic

 

Few men had been as cavalier and as debauched as the Président, but completely jaded, utterly torpid, all he was left with now was the depravity and turpitude of libertinage.

–Marquis de Sade, The 120 Days of Sodom

Donald Trump seems to have reached that transcendent state of personal satori, where he is liberated from all inhibitions, political and psychological. His true persona has been unleashed out on the road, at one pit-stop rally after another.

Trump seems not to care–perhaps he doesn’t even notice–that the once-packed auditoriums have dwindled to the point where giant curtains don’t cover the sections of empty seats. 

The rousing receptions have been groans and baffled silences, as he rambles on and on about his own peculiar obsessions. He riffs on Nicki Minaj’s ass and Arnold Palmer’s penis. He brags over and over again about being the only president to have taken and passed (without missing a question) “a very difficult” cognitive test, three times! Even though his recent performances would suggest otherwise.

He drops strange hints about his declining health. He showed up to one rally with a bruise on his left eye, leaving some to wonder whether Meiania belted him or Natalie smacked him with her portable printer.

He indulges in his lusty fantasies on the musculature of the male anatomy, using a sitting US senator as a case study. He spins sadistic stories of violence, murder and torture. He enjoys the theater of cruelty, though not Artuad’s kind. He often sounds like he’s narrating a slasher film. Here is Trump entertaining his followers with a debased description of the murder of Iryna Zarutska for no discernible reason other than his own titillation:  He was a big, strong guy and he stood up and violently slashed her neck. Almost cut her head right off. Slashed it violently and viciously. For those people who are able to handle that kind of stuff, you know exactly what I’m talking about. Very rarely do you see it run beyond the actual, almost-hit. If you did, you wouldn’t see anything like it, probably. 

In many cases, you wouldn’t be the same. Her head was barely attached. And she looked up in that final second of her life, and she said, to herself, ‘Oh god. What happened to me, oh God.’ And she knew she was dead. She knew it. She literally probably lived seconds. Or just a second. She knew what happened. The slash was inches deep. She knew she was in trouble. She walked onto the train because she didn’t wanna…I don’t know what. You could see how scared she was.

Trump boasts endlessly about his own wealth and openly expresses his envy of those wealthier than he is and his disdain for the poor. 

He ridicules his own supporters and thinks he can get away with it. He tells them their own financial problems are delusions. At one stop, Trump invited his MAGA followers to Mar-a-Lago, with this stipulation: “You could even come to Mar-a-Lago. You’ll be my guest. The problem is that for $5,000, the most you’ll be able to buy is a hamburger and maybe a small dessert. I’m not even sure you could buy that! No, don’t go there. It’s not a good place if you’re price conscious.”

At another stop, he doubled down on his statement that he couldn’t care less about higher gas prices, saying: “I can just see the fake headlines: ‘President Trump is talking about all the money they’re making while people are suffering at the pump.’ That’ll be the headline. I said I don’t give a damn. I’m gonna say it: We’re making a freaking fortune.’”

America’s truckers, who once convoyed for Trump, aren’t making a fortune. In fact, they’ve been smacked hard by his tariffs and the spike in diesel prices from his imbecilic decision to go to war with Iran. At least 221 trucking companies have filed for bankruptcy this year alone, the most in decades. Smaller companies are, of course, the most vulnerable to financial ruin and are being gobbled up by big conglomerates like JB Hunt.

Trump’s speeches–rants, really–have become more and more profane. 

It’s like listening to less f-word-fueled private recordings of LBJ or Nixon, except delivered in public before audiences of evangelicals and Christian Nationalists. This is Trump unbound, unconstrained by the grammatical demands of paragraphs or even sentences. Free association is now the name of his rhetorical game and the thoughts and anecdotes unroll in no particular order, skipping from one not necessarily parallel universe to another.

More and more of Trump’s speeches have devolved into mere glossolalia (aka, grunts, groans, belches, wheezes and episodes of gurgling aphasia), which will be interpreted by the most devoted members of his cult as him speaking in the Divine Tongue. But most, I suspect, will see it as evidence of a mind unraveling in real time.

Trump seems to have embraced his own weirdness, a weirdness that has gone pathological. He is the Buffoon-in-Chief, and his presidency is our national opéra bouffe with a soundtrack by Lee Greenwood and the Village People. What is the point of his ravings? Often there is none, except his own gratification. 

His jokes have no punchlines. His stories fade off without endings. His anecdotes have no discernible political messages. He seems bored. Bored by the road. Bored by his crowds. Bored by his job. Several times he’s told his sparser and sparser audiences he doesn’t want to be there talking to them. They’re not really his kind of people. The kind of people that like ballrooms and are members of golf clubs. He repeatedly interrupts his rants to complain, “Why am I here? I don’t need this.” But of course, he needs this. Blind adulation is what he drinks instead of blood.

After all, this losing campaign isn’t really about him, even though it really is all about him. Sure, he’ll seize credit for any unlikely victories. But he won’t take any blame for the losses that seem sure to come.

Everything has gone to hell, and he seems to know it, despite Natalie only feeding him (highly edited) good news. 

His tariffs have backfired economically. His war on Iran is a debacle. He can’t stop the Ukraine war despite his vow to end it on day one. He has been diplomatically outplayed by Xi, Putin, Zelensky and the Prime Minister of Canada. Netanyahu calls and Trump comes and sits. His military has taken it on the chin from Iran and, embarrassingly, the Houthis. Internationally, few fear him anymore, and none respect him. He has alienated his base. His flacks in the White House are scheming behind his back. Women reporters just shrug off his verbal assaults and attempt to humiliate them. Much of the American public now views him not just with disdain but with disgust.

In the end, Trump replaced neoliberalism with neo-narcissism. 

His economic strategy is unabashed self-enrichment for him and his cronies. Though look out if you were a crony who made out better than he did. Trump has no friends, only collaborators and co-conspirators. He’s never really trusted anyone, not even his sons and accountants. He trusts NDAs, not the people whom he forces to sign them.

So, he celebrates his own malfeasance. Trump wallows in the aroma of his own mess. In the Anal Stage of US politics, it’s a thin line between self-love and self-loathing. 

One oozes seamlessly into the other. Trump’s personal wealth has swelled by $3.3 billion since retaking office. He may be America’s first self-dealing president. He’s turned the White House into his own gift shop. Contra Obama, it looks less like a Cheesecake Factory than Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch. Interior design as an infantilism.

He’s suggested he will issue sweeping pardons (thank Biden for the precedent) for even the lowest-ranking members of his staff, effectively indemnifying them from prosecution for any crimes or trampling of the Constitution he tells them to commit. And then he will, of course, force them to sign NDAs to prevent them from ever disclosing what crimes and who ordered them.

Trump doesn’t think he’ll need to pardon himself, though he may do so anyway, just because no one else has had the nerve to, not even Nixon, who was trained by Roy Cohn. It would be another first. And Trump likes firsts, the more unscrupulous, the better.

Trump believes the Supreme Court has given him the green light to do whatever he wants without legal consequences. 

And he may be right. He can trade on inside information. He can manipulate the markets to his advantage. He can cheat on his taxes. He can shake down white-collar criminals for pardons.  He can accept jumbo jetliners from a foreign government with ties to terrorists. He can reward purchasers of his meme coins with private meetings, even foreign nationals with dealings before the federal government. He can build monuments to himself and deface those of his predecessors. He can target his enemies with revenge prosecutions. All without, he believes, legal consequences. The disruptor agenda of 2015 has shriveled away. All that’s left is the cashing in.

The last vestige of populism that Trump exudes–and he more than exudes it–is his free-wheeling bigotry and the license he gives his followers to hate the same people he does.  As Tolstoy said of Napoleon after his Russian debacle, “He lost the power to think a decent thought.” […].

-Jeffrey St. Clair, CounterPunch

Happy Unhappy...

The Wall that Protects Europe

 

                              Lest we forget what happened on September 1, 1938.

Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2022

War, International Law, and Russia's Inhumane Crimes against the People of Ukraine by Glen Brown

Though Russia began its war with Ukraine in 2014, it was on February 24, 2022 that we began to witness a widespread and unlimited brutality of artillery and aerial bombing of innocent non-combatants.

To try to comprehend this brutality and terror on a sovereign nation, according to Quincy Wright, an American political scientist: “It may be said that wars usually result (1) technologically, because of the need of political power confronted by rivals continually to increase itself in order to survive, (2) legally, because of the tendency of a system of law to assume that the state is completely sovereign, (3) sociologically, because of the utility of external war as a means of integrating societies in time of emergency, and (4) psychologically, because persons cannot satisfy the human disposition to dominate except through identification with a sovereign group.”1 William James, a nineteenth century American philosopher, historian and psychologist, believed war is a permanent obligation, “a biological and sociological necessity, uncontrolled by ordinary psychological checks and motives.”2

In examining the sociological and psychological aspects of war, it appears that aggressive behavior is both a personal and social phenomenon as well as a manifestation of the same drive system: the instinct to unify is as strong as the instinct to destroy. However, it is the organization of political parties and the ideologies of nation-states that give sanction to personal aggression, for war is often a product of in-group thinking, an identification of the self with a nation-state focused upon an out-group, and “once war begins, there are no moral limits, only practical ones, only the limitations of force itself.”3 

It has been stated that rights of non-combatants are protected by international law, “derived from positive compacts or treaties between governments, binding in justice, but ceasing to bind when the other party [or aggressor] has ceased to observe it.”4  Though “international law is a relatively precise body of rules, defined in general and particular treaties, judicial precedents, and centuries of juristic analyses, with established international institutions, capable of making clear its applications in particular cases, [it is] not always successful in preventing violation or in applying remedies.”5

The paradoxical problem with the concept of political and legal sovereignty in international law is that it implies a nation-state is free to resort to war, even though international law also promotes (and is supposed to protect) human rights. It is true that “international law is said to allow no distinction between the foreseen and the intended consequences of an action, and that neither the League of Nations nor the United Nations contemplated enforcement of all the rules of international law. Sanctions were provided only to prevent or to stop illegal hostilities and, in the United Nations, to enforce World Court judgments. These sanctions were intended to preserve peace rather than to maintain law… If international law is to be real law, sovereignty must be subordinate to it and sanctioned by the community of nations.”6 

This, of course, would be an impossible undertaking with today’s rise in authoritarianism. In order to succeed, a peaceful world-community would depend upon moral conformity by leaders of every nation composed of diverse cultural values, political ideologies, mixed economies and nationalistic tendencies. If the truth be told in Russia, for example, it would depend upon exposing and dismantling Vladimir Putin's malicious propaganda, conspiratorial gaslighting, kleptocratic capitalism, and corrupt patronage. Now that he has shut down independent radio and television news stations and the internet, the majority of Russian people will be deceived indefinitely. The war in Ukraine can only be referred to as “a special military operation” in the media. Anyone who dares call it a war is subject to 15 years in prison. 

Furthermore, it is indisputable that Putin’s systematic and vicious annihilation of the Ukrainian people and their cultural heritage and independence is none other than what it is: a crime against humanity. What is the ultimate good which is supposed to compensate for this evil? Putin had no justifiable emergency and reasons to attack Ukraine in order to secure Russia’s survival, no just or legal cause, no right or moral intention, and no promise of a successful victory.

All attempts by western media to understand and explain Putin’s resentment and xenophobia toward the West, his intentions and rationalizations for war, such as his all-consuming ambition to restore the Soviet Union, his claim that Ukraine is not a sovereign country and belongs to Russia, his desire to eradicate the Ukrainian language and culture, his desire to aid the Separatists in their autonomy in the Donbas region, and his belief that the minority-aligned fascist militias in southeastern Ukraine and NATO’s eastern expansion are serious threats to Russia’s sovereignty..., cannot justify Russia's indiscriminate raping, torturing, killing and imprisoning innocent Ukrainian people and the kidnapping of Ukrainian children.  

Finally, let’s remember Putin’s threat to the world: “Today's Russia remains one of the most powerful nuclear states. Moreover, it has a certain advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. In this context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences never seen in history.” Asked recently, if an open clash could erupt between Russia and NATO, Putin replied: "Everything is possible in today's world. It's clear to everyone that it will put us a step away from full-scale World War III." 

Those of us who lived through the Cold War remember the fear of megaton nuclear bombs.  Nuclear deterrence depends upon a leader's rational perceptions and decisions that the use of nuclear weapons would ensure mutual destruction of our planet, and that both America and Russia have not only first strike capabilities but also second-strike capabilities for massive nuclear retaliation posthumously.

What is more, the admonition that an invasion of “one inch of NATO territory” will ignite a world war is a disturbing declaration. President Biden “evokes a Gestalt [the whole is greater than its parts] in which an absolute boundary is emphasized, given its certain arbitrary delineation.”7 Though some world leaders might contend that warfare can be a necessary and noble endeavor, as in the case of World War II, perhaps the greatest menace to the world today is when leaders create a scenario where World War III can become inevitable.

-Glen Brown 

Notes:

1. Wright, Quincy. A Study of War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. p. 114.

2. James, William. “The Moral Equivalent of War.” War and Morality. Ed. Richard A. Wasserstrom. California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1970. p. 8.

3. Walzer, Michael. “Moral Judgment in Time of War.” War and Morality. Ed. Richard A. Wasserstrom. California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1970. p. 54.

4. Ford, John C. “The Morality of Obliteration Bombing.” War and Morality. Ed. Richard A. Wasserstrom. California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1970. p. 17.

5. Wright, Quincy. A Study of War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. p. 190.

6. Wright, Quincy. op. cit. pp. 200, 203.

7. Erikson, Eric H. “Wholeness and Totality.” War: Studies from Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology. Eds. Leon Bramson and George W. Goethals. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1968. p. 128.