Posted on by Nathan Riley

Who Won? Israel or Iran?

July 4th was a significant news day. Finally, there was hard news about who won the Israel-Iran War.

Seymour Hersch, who has a distinguished record writing about the U.S. military, had just made an extraordinary journalistic  prediction. On the Friday before Israel attacked Iran, that is, the day before the attack began, Hersch, in his Substack post, predicted the start of the war.

On July 4th, Hersch answered the question, “Did Israel and the U.S. destroy Iran’s nuclear preparations?” According to this veteran journalist, the Iranians moved their “more than 450 pounds of the enriched gas… [to] at another vital Iranian nuclear site at Isfahan…[that] was pulverized by Tomahawk missiles fired by a U.S. submarine.” Trying to safely store its enriched uranium, Iran mistakenly moved it to a site that was “pulverized.” In Hersch’s view, the Iranian attempt at safeguarding its enriched uranium failed completely.

Most of Hersch’s article discussed the Defense Department’s leaks reaching the opposite conclusion. It hinted that Iran’s enriched uranium remained a threat. Not so, Hersch wrote. The United States and Israel denied their military success. They were inflating the Iranian threat.

Also on July 4th, the Financial Times looked back on the war and reached this conclusion: “Saudi Arabia sticks with Iran after Israel war.” The Saudis and Iran follow different branches of Islam. This led Saudi Arabia to lean towards the United States, but this changed in 2023 after China brokered normal relations with Iran. The war did not disturb these changes.

On Sunday, the New York Times concluded that China and Russia did not rush “to aid Iran during its war with Israel or when U.S. forces bombed Iranian nuclear sites.” According to the Times interpretation, Iran did not receive the support it should expect from an ally.

 The Times was not exploring an equally obvious conclusion. China and Russia refused to escalate a hot war between the U.S., Israel, and Iran. If this interpretation wasn’t brought to the public’s attention, it certainly registered with keen international observers. The Times article embraced the idea that China and Russia should have joined the war if they were true allies of Iran. That is hardly obvious. Their choice to diffuse tensions is clearly reasonable and arguably in Iran’s best interest. Had the war gotten hotter, the damage to Iran would have been greater.

The current issue of Bulletin of Atomic Scientists sketches the extensive damage done to Iran. Water supplies, the petroleum industry, and shopping centers were attacked. It seems likely that the Gulf states, China, and Russia will help Iran rebuild.

China, Russia, and North Korea, in all probability, will help Iran replace missiles and drones destroyed in the war. Tehran did not beat Israel, but its government was uplifted by demonstrations of support from Iranian citizens. Israel remains the most powerful nation in the region, but Iran demonstrated its ability to damage Israel.

Israel couldn’t deliver a death blow. Iran was fighting until the end and caused extensive damage, demonstrating that Israel’s vaunted missile shield could be penetrated.

Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA analyst, prepared a map showing 17 sites in Israel that suffered extensive damage. Israel was as happy as Iran that the fighting stopped after 12 days. Israel has an edge over Iran, but it is no longer the undisputed military power in West Asia.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Trump the Statesman?

Does Make America Great Again mean Make Trump Great?

Trump ended the Iranian Israeli war quickly and one expects the warring nations sighed with relief. “During the conflict, Israeli cities sustained several hits from Iranian ballistic missiles, and Iranian military targets were subjected to widespread bombing. Neither side wanted the war to go on much longer, at least at that intensity, and both were eager for a way out that they could portray as a victory,” reported the Wall Street Journal.

Iran and Israel will return to their hostile coexistence. Such tension is frequent in international relations: the U.S. and U.S.S.R, South and North Korea, Cuba and the U.S. Even if you do not love each other, war isn’t necessary.

It is a stateman’s obligation to stifle war between hostile nations. A responsibility frequently lacking in the U.S. Congress, where war hawks play an important role supporting Israel’s use of force against Palestine and Iran.

Unlike President Biden, Trump recognizes that promoting peace and avoiding wars enhances U.S. influence.

After the 12-day war tested Trump’s loyalty to Israel, he said to hell with it and simply told Iran and Israel stop. In the process he stopped the spread of nuclear weapons by bombing Iranian facilities.

It is unknown if this no-war objective will remain a fixture of U.S. policy, but it should be. Joe Biden picked sides backing Ukraine against Russia and Israel against Palestine. He associated the U.S. with bloody crimes against humanity and did not stop fighting. Trump faces political headwinds if he tries the “stop fighting” mantra on Russia and the Ukraine. While Iran and Israel could both claim victory, such an ending has not surfaced in the Ukrainian and Russian war. There is no evidence that Trump is willing to accept a reality where Russia wins and Ukraine must cooperate with Russia.

But one thing is clear, Biden didn’t try to stop fighting, he picked sides, and the wars continued.

In West Asia, Trump stayed close to Israel but intervened only on the international principle of nuclear nonproliferation and then flatly told Iran and Israel stop fighting. An action that could lead to Israel backing off its hopes for a greater Israel and pave the way for coexistence between Muslin and Jew.

To take this position, the President acted alone without consulting Congress. According to the Wall Street Journal, a pro-Trump publication, he created “a new American foreign-policy doctrine focused on clearly defining national interests, aggressively negotiating to achieve them and the use of overwhelming force if necessary.”

A problem remains: Trump acted alone like a king. As the WSJ reported, “U.S. officials who would normally play a role during such a crisis were also left out of the loop, administration officials said, a sign of how narrow is the circle of advisers Trump trusts.”

It is possible, even common, to blast this President as a dictator, but one alternative receiving little consideration is for the Democrats to change their policy and support Trump’s posture. The Democrats could become the party of peace by avoiding dividing the world into liberal Democracies and authoritarian nations. The United States should be a party of world order and reject the misguided belief that it will only back countries who have governments approved by Americans.

Many nations reject U.S. political institutions but avoiding wars with them and between them is the path of wisdom and statesmanship. With one party backing the primacy of peace it becomes possible to reduce the threat that Trump becomes dictator.

Trump is hardly consistent, and his accomplishment in the West Asian war could easily be a one-off. But it is important that those of us who believe war is the evil and peace must be the object of policy to recognize that what Trump did reflects this principle.

This is not to say Trump is a good President or to ignore his attacks on immigrants, his requirement that people wanting medical care to seek employment, or his battle against an anti-racist program like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). Trump is not the President trying to create harmony and fairness in the United States.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Will Ukrainian War End Like The Civil War?

I certainly don’t know when the Ukrainian war will end. The ignominious end of the 30-day ceasefire proposal reminds us that the Iron Curtain still separates the West and Russia. It is not going away.

But we do know how one war ended. In the United States, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, never surrendered. The fighting stopped when General Ulysses Grant and General Robert E. Lee agreed on terms of surrender.

In September 1864, General Sherman captured Atlanta. Republican spirits soared, and Lincoln became the first President since Andrew Jackson elected to a second term.

After Atlanta, Jefferson Davis left Richmond, Virginia and rallied the South with promises of victory, claiming “I see no chance for Sherman to escape from a defeat or a disgraceful retreat,” (McPherson, James M.. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (Oxford History of the United States Book 6) (p. 807). Oxford University Press). The world, of course, saw the occupation of Atlanta as proof that the Union was close to victory. But the war wouldn’t end for nearly eight months.

Confederate politicians insisted that victory was possible. General Sherman agreed the war wasn’t close to ending: “We cannot change the hearts of those people of the South, but we can make war so terrible . . . [and] make them so sick of war that generations would pass away before they would again appeal to it” (p. 809).

After his famous march through Georgia, Sherman attacked South Carolina, the state that ignited the war. Until late 1864, the war had left the Palmetto State untouched. With a vengeance, the North attacked. The state’s long, Atlantic-Ocean coastline made it the last place for the South to receive supplies. The Navy stopped that. The fort protecting South Carolina’s port was captured, and traders were driven off. Town after town was burned. Livestock captured and fed Sherman’s army. Homes were looted for supplies. The state could no longer supply the thousands in General Lee’s divisions.

From there, Sherman’s army marched through North Carolina towards Virginia, preparing to join General Grant in attacking Lee and his army. The long journey was an engineering marvel. Roads under water during the wet winter were restored, bridges built, and the South’s hopes that these natural obstacles would stop Sherman were dashed.

So the war continued.

In Lincoln’s December 1864 annual message to Congress, he rejoiced in the victories but cautioned that the South would only end the war with a demonstration of its hopelessness. However obvious the South’s defeat appeared, it continued to fight.

“In this climate of opinion another movement for peace negotiations flared up and then fizzled out,” Professor James McPherson commented in his extraordinary history.  Lincoln met the Southern delegation and told them bluntly that peace would happen when the Confederacy recognized the restoration of the National authority throughout all the States, no receding on the Slavery question, and the disbanding of all forces hostile to the government (p. 822). The Southern peace feelers failed.

Lee’s army crumbled. Every night a hundred or more soldiers deserted. Soldiers were in bare feet. Men and horses were weak from hunger. When Southerners attacked, the North won. It captured the soldiers and drove Lee’s men back.

Finally, on April 9th, Lee recognized that surrender was the only option. He met with General Grant. His troops were fed, surrendered their arms, and were guaranteed that they would not be tried for treason. They began the long march home. The war was over. Jefferson Davis was not involved in this event, nor was Abraham Lincoln.

It’s entirely possible, even probable, that negotiations will not end the war in Ukraine. Unlike the South, Ukraine is guaranteed funds and supplies. But the country is war torn. Russia is far larger, and despite sporadic attacks, the nation hasn’t suffered the destruction inflicted on Ukraine. The Ukrainians will decide when they want the fighting to stop, and there is no sign that this will happen in the foreseeable future.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Is Trump a Tyrant?

Trump is making everybody nervous. His latest proposal for a 30-day ceasefire threatens his plans to establish normal relations with Russia.

Russia will only accept a ceasefire if Ukraine demobilizes its armed forces. Putin won’t allow Ukraine to rearm during a ceasefire, and so far he is winning this war. At the same time, Putin would look really bad if he rejected this idea. So Trump is making everybody nervous. Is he destroying the progress he’s made towards normal relations with Russia? Or is he making nice to the vast majority in the United States who damn Russia for invading Ukraine?

His other claim to progress in foreign affairs is the ceasefire between Palestine and Israel continues. But everybody is worried that war will resume any week now. Given the intense hatred between Israel and Palestine, this tension will remain normal.

The two wars conducted when Joe Biden was President horrified me and made me an unenthusiastic Democrat. Trump is doing so badly that he is restoring my enthusiasm for the Democrats.

His attacks on DEI, a desirable Democratic program, have inescapable racist overtones and anti-LGBTQ messages. His promises to dismiss and humiliate women make Trump indefensible. To nobody’s surprise, the President makes rational discussion impossible.

Diversity is a necessary ingredient of Democracy. It makes the pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian Americans members of the same community. In this sense, it serves the goal of inclusion—we should all get along. Equity offers all persons in the United States an opportunity to choose their own path.

Trump tears down computer sites offering applications for student loans, making it difficult, if not impossible, for families to pay for higher education. Computer information about filing a complaint is quelled.

It is absurd and embarrassing that in the 21st century the United States is closing its Department of Education. All governments have education offices, and the United States looks screwy to close its department.

Clear signals are being sent that it is okay to hire whites and create obstacles to blacks and Spanish-speaking people. Turning the Civil Rights gains of the 1960’s into partisan programs supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans is a sop to those who accept the weak arguments that blacks and Spanish-speaking people take jobs away from whites. The objective should be finding jobs for everybody.

It is foolish to blame diversity, equity, and inclusion for making wages fall behind rising prices. The public has to make this clear to the political leadership. Prosperity is not full employment; prosperity is full employment if wages keep up with prices.

Trump’s pleasure at squashing DEI programs is too often embarrassing. On March 7th, the Enola Gay was removed from the Defense Department’s website. The word “gay” is a no-no, and Defense Department Secretary Hegseth has banned it from its website. Unhappily, Enola Gay doesn’t mean two guys holding hands; it is the name of the airplane that dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima in 1945. Like the censors, who try to squelch sexual scenes, banning words leads to foolish embarrassment that makes, in this case, the Defense Department look stupid.

Add it all up, and Trump appears to be volunteering for the role of tyrant. He is tilting at programs that make free speech and divergent political views feasible. He gets furious when his order doesn’t happen. Most adults accept that they only get their way some of the time. It is unclear if Trump has accepted this reality.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Can Diplomacy Bring Peace To Ukraine?

The need for creating Freedom Democrats has never been greater. As this blog is being written, Trump continues his effort to negotiate with Russia on a wide range of issues: nuclear weapons, European boundaries, and creating normal relations between Russia and the United States.

While Trump’s plans for Europe and Russia might end the Cold War relic of deep-seeded Russian-U.S. hostility, the Middle East is deeply troubled. Today (Tuesday, March 4, 2025), a conference of Arab nations starts. On Sunday, Israel cut off aid to the Palestinians as part of a plan to crush Hamas.

The agenda of the Cairo conference was the reconstruction of Gaza. It begins by removing the rubble and unexploded ordinances in the first stage. The next stage would be a massive housing and infrastructure construction program. On the one hand, Israel’s shutoff of aid and demand that Hamas collapse put one set of pressures on the Cairo conference. A second piece of bad news was that the leaders of two of the most powerful Gulf nations— Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (Edit: Haaretz reported that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were in fact at the meeting and of course the United States, for the very first time, opened face-to-face discussions with Hamas)—would be no-shows at the Cairo summit. Their absence sowed doubts about unified Arab support for Egypt’s plan. Dark clouds cast an ominous shadow over the Arab conference in Cairo. The ceasefire is in peril.

While Trump preserves the U.S.’s historic ties to Israel, he remains steadfast in his still inchoate plan for peaceful relations with Russia, even if it shatters European unity.

A new group of Republicans are insisting that the proper relationship with Russia is “let’s talk.” Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, used to call Putin “a gangster;” now he supports Trump’s plan. Another Republican who is changing his position is South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. Senator Mike Lee from Utah is backing this dovish turn, as is Congressmember Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky. Rand Paul, a Kentucky senator, is gleefully supporting this shift in U.S. policy.

This change among U.S. leaders means they are abandoning the good guy (democracy) bad guy (authoritarian) view of international relations.

Under the Joe Biden administration theory, Ukraine is defending its sovereignty and its right to be a democracy. Russia’s 2022 invasion was lawless aggression by a nation eager to control Europe. Support of Ukraine was making Europe safe for democracy. Russia was never provoked; its dictator was hostile to freedom loving Europe. This Hollywood good guy vs. bad guy worldview is suspect.

The subtext—who is the most powerful nation?—is also being revised. The previous administration believed that Russia overestimated its power and could not stop the good guys (us) from spreading liberal democracy. The CIA and its related agency USAID had demonstrated their real power by ousting Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. He wanted cooperation with Russia. In this U.S. view, Russia was too weak to withstand a challenge from the democratic forces united in NATO. Like a Hollywood movie the good guys would win.

Freedom Democrats should encourage Democratic leaders to support this Trump’s shift towards diplomacy with Russia.

A basic cause of the Ukrainian war is Russia’s conviction that Ukraine is an existential threat. They are not crazy. Ukraine is the second-largest country in Europe after Russia. Kyiv’s army is the sixth largest in the world. Its drone fleet is the world’s largest. Anyone looking at a map would see that a hostile Ukraine endangers the city of Moscow. Many Ukrainians hate Russia. One manifestation of this hostility was Ukrainian moves to ban the teaching of Russian. Russia complains that many members of the Ukrainian government are Nazis.

A reminder, there is no entity that enforces international rules. In this situation of near anarchy, this decision that an existential threat exists is decided by one nation in a dispute. Russia believes it is threatened, and it makes the decision.

A bit of history, Russia did more than that. After a friendly Ukrainian government was undermined, Russia invaded in 2014 and captured Crimea and Black Sea ports open all year around. Russia drew a red line, demonstrating it was serious when it said an existential threat existed and proved it by occupying Ukrainian territory.

What happened next is stupidity. A rational response would be okay guys, let us sit down and figure out how we can all get along. The pugnacious response would be to train Ukrainian troops, supply weapons, and provide funds. Even have it join NATO. The good guys would spread democracy and contain the weak Russian dictator and his authoritarian government. This view made war likely.

Eight years later Ukraine got its answer, Russia invaded. An existential threat existed to Russian power and to the Ukrainian government’s survival. The United States and friends imposed sanctions and shutdown diplomatic discussions. The U.S. believed that Russia was isolated and would bend to NATOs power.

Unhappily for the administration and the “friends” of democracy, Russia had allies. North Korea and China supplied funds and weapons. India continued its decades old policy of not taking sides and bought Russian oil that used to go to Europe. Russia was not isolated; it had new allies. Nations that faced Washington’s hostility made common cause with Russia.

Negotiations faltered after the invasion. The Russian generals who failed the test of leading under conditions of real combat were replaced. Russia increased the size of its armed forces, who became battle hardened, perhaps making them the best soldiers in today’s world. Certainly, U.S. troops are not battle tested. Ukraine, the U.S. proxy does the actual fighting. Ukraine lost territory and there is no sign that bombing Russia is intimidating this great power or placing President Putin in a difficult situation.

Far from bringing peace and supporting democracy in Ukraine, the pugnacious response has brought war and made the nation lose territory.

Being a democratic nation does NOT make the U.S. the good guy. It allied with Israel and gave them the means to wage savage war against the Palestinians, stripping Joe Biden and America of its good guy reputation and giving credence to Russian fear of an existential threat from NATO.

Washington’s claim that it was on the side of peace looked hollow with its history of “forever” wars and the combat in West Asia and Ukraine.

Trump’s belief that normal relations with Russia was the best policy looks reasonable and was one of his campaign messages.

Freedom Democrats should find ways to end the proxy war between NATO and Russia. Just because Trump supports it, does not make it a bad idea.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Normal Relations With Russia?

I am not pro Trump, but early indications offer convincing evidence that he is not a clown. His upheaval suggests he wants to change history and put the United States on a new path.

His policies may have their roots in isolationism. I am not a student of U.S. foreign policy, so I have no opinion on this subject, but from the start of this administration Trump challenged U.S. power centers.

The shutdown of the U.S. Agency for International Development dealt a hammer blow to a CIA operation. To be sure, the agency feeds starving children and stops the spread of disease. Its humanitarian work is praiseworthy, but it is also linked to soft power, a U.S. tactic.

USAID is tied to political demonstrations to oust foreign governments. Leaders were deposed in Tunisia, Yemen and Libya. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak left office in 2011. In 2014 U.S. Foreign policy mavens dreamed that if China crushed the Hong Kong Umbrella Revolution, it would revive the “unfortunate” memories of the massacre in Tiananmen Square. The most extravagant dreamers hoped sympathy demonstrations would leapfrog across China creating general instability.

At the other end of the globe, Ukraine’s Maidan Revolution started in 2013, and by 2014 a new pro-European Union government would become a NATO proxy.  The pro-Russian government was ejected.

The sharp economic contraction following breakup of the Soviet Union, brought USAID into Ukraine in 1992 and by 2022 in addition to programs supporting health and education, 80% of Ukrainian media outlets relied on grants, mostly indirectly, from American sources like USAID. Ukrainian political commentary is funded by U.S. dollars.

Trump’s hostility to USAID is an attack on the deep state, and one of his first actions. A promise made a promise kept. His new Defense Secretary slammed the Military Industrial Complex by insisting on an 8% budget cut.

Musk’s DOGE search for corruption and waste made it difficult for members of Congress to object. DOGE’s demands for personal details is not directed at you or me, but it is certain to make members of Congress cautious. At a U.N. security council vote the United States split with its European allies by refusing to blame Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. This was too much for a few Republican Congressmembers. Senator John Curtis, Republican of Utah, went on social media and said he was “deeply troubled by the vote,” which had “put us on the same side as Russia and North Korea.”

No Democratic leader would have taken on deep state institutions in this public fashion.

In West Asia, Trump’s personal envoy, Steve Witkoff, pushed Netanyahu into accepting a cease fire. Trump, his Vice-President, and new Defense Secretary challenged the Biden narrative that the Ukrainian invasion was unprovoked aggression by Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.

Trump will not make Russia an ally, but he will recognize that when Putin came to power Russia was broke and unable to guard its nuclear weapons. 35 years later Russia fought a war with a U.S. proxy, did not run out of weapons, and seized 20% of the disputed territory. Russia has reemerged as a great power, and President Trump is insisting that normal relations be established with Moscow. Putin is no longer an unspeakable dictator. He is President Putin.

It was revealed that under Biden the U.S. had virtually shut down the Russian Embassy in Washingon and ended diplomatic discussions, a mistake Trump quickly corrected. Putin insisted that Zelensky, the Ukrainian President, be excluded from negotiation and Trump refused to turn the Russian condition into a roadblock.

Biden had insisted Ukraine had stopped the Russian military; Trump said Ukraine had all but lost and could not act like a winner.  

Peace discussions over Eastern Europe were only one dramatic change in U.S. policy, the destruction of Gaza ended with Palestinians free to move in their own country and Hamas celebrated as heroes. Hostages were released. The ceasefire is holding, but its future is up in the air.

Trump’s preposterous suggestion that all Palestinians be removed prompted an Arab alliance and the drafting of a $20B plan to start the reconstruction of Gaza. The resumption of war is possible, even likely, but so far the ceasefire has cooled the fighting.

European nations are hesitantly considering negotiations with Russia as the U.S. President relaxes tensions with Moscow.

In a matter of weeks Trump has placed U.S. foreign policy on a new footing and opened the possibility of normal relations with Russia. Trump is not a clown, and he is challenging the deep state institutions that prospered during the Ukraine war while Russia was treated as an enemy.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Is The World Heading Towards Catastrophe?

The nightmare of Trump joining Putin in damning Ukrainian President Zelensky signals the end of NATO and the unraveling of a world order, bringing a proliferation of atomic weapons as nations seek protection. Wars will break out all over the world. Concerns like these animate international affairs.

Israel with U.S. support will attack Iran while invading Palestine to remove its population. Russia will come to the aid of Iran, its ally. Taiwan watching the epidemic of violence will seek China’s protection. U.S. troops will converge on this trouble spot deserting South Korea. Japan will be on its own and rearm. Violence will break out with China at its Philippine border, bringing Australia into this international maelstrom.

In West Asia, forcing Palestinians out of their homeland will inflame tensions between Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Turkey will protect its interest in Syria. Europe will unite and form an armed service to protect itself from Russian expansion.

In an optimistic view, there is no necessity for these trouble spots to bring armed conflict.

On Friday Feb 21, in Saudi Arabia a $20 billion Egyptian plan to redevelop Gaza under the supervision of the U.S. will be discussed by a working group preparing for an Arab summit in March. “The Arab proposal, mostly based on an Egyptian plan, involves forming a national Palestinian committee to govern Gaza without Hamas involvement and international participation in reconstruction without displacing Palestinians abroad.” The Arabs believe their 20-billion-dollar contribution will entice Trump while Israel will get a sweetener. Its firms will receive contracts. The Arabs want to prevent the expulsion of Palestinians, a human rights nightmare trumpeted by Netanyahu and Trump. Last week’s genocidal removal of the Palestinians could end with a reasonable solution and the rebirth of Gaza. Israel lowered tensions by publicly considering allowing Palestinians to emigrate voluntarily.

South Korea is getting a new President who may want the U.S. armed forces to leave. Japan may be thrilled and seek the end of U.S. supervision. What looked like a catastrophe might seem like a new beginning for Japan and South Korea. Japan and China share a mutual security interest; they depend on freedom of the seas. Food, fuel and other necessities must be delivered by ship. A pullback of U.S. forces would encourage the two nations to enter into cooperation agreements.

A calamity is not inevitable.

Everybody recognizes that forcing Zelensky out will have international repercussions. It’s possible to oust Zelensky without accepting the controversial view that Ukraine provoked the crisis. During Trump’s first term, Zelensky cooperated with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in making the argument that Trump was pro-Russian. The first impeachment of Trump revolved around the Ukraine and Zelensky sided with the Democrats. This political history demands a Trump reprisal against Zelensky.

But the bottom line remains, Putin is winning the war and is under no obligation to make concessions.

As is normal, the future is laced with possibilities, and we may hope that human wit will avoid disaster.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Trump’s negotiating style Part 2

Trump has broken with the Democrats and their devotion to Ukraine. In a perceptive piece, Peter Baker writes “President Trump made clear that the days of isolating Russia are over and suggested that Ukraine was to blame for being invaded.”

Blame is an odd word for the harsh realities of internation relations. In Baker’s reporting the U.S. has in recent years adopted the view that Ukraine is the victim of Russian aggression. It’s a world of good guys and bad guys. Zelinsky is standing up for freedom and self-determination. Putin, “the dictator,” is the invader. Trump’s radical change: accepting Putin’s right to impose Russia’s will on the smaller good guys. A right often exercised by the United States.

Baker is surely right. Millions of Europeans and Americans accept the view that Russia is the invader and also accept the view that the callous Trump doesn’t care.

Trump has started peace negotiations on Ukraine and accepted the Russian agenda that excludes Zelinsky. Baker describes it as a scandal. My view is international relations are not for the faint of heart. A small country like Ukraine shouldn’t pick a fight with a great power like Russia. In fairness to Ukraine, Russia’s great power status was only recently confirmed. But a huge number of Ukrainians understood that provoking Russia was a disaster and fled the country after demonstrations (with CIA help?) ousted the pro-Russian government in 2014.

The war that turned hot in 2022 after the Russian invasion has basically shattered Ukraine while Russia’s industrial base has grown to supply their soldiers and improve their fighting force. It’s an unfair world, but Baker is wrong. The United States are not good guys; they are practitioners of great power politics.

While the Times and many Americans view Russia as the bully and Ukraine as the victim, American weapons and money supported Israel’s campaign against the Palestinians. A campaign so violent that it has provoked an investigation by the International Criminal Court into allegations that Israel is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The rosy view of the U.S. as good guys is propaganda. Even if Ukraine did not cooperate with the CIA and rearm, it still should have seen the necessity of ignoring provocations and preserving a working relationship with their bigger neighbor: Russia. Perhaps a cooperative Ukraine might have avoided the February 2022 invasion.

Trump recognizes Russia’s great power status. Something that Congress and the Democrats resisted. This has had a dramatic effect on Europe, the United States, and Ukraine. The new administration in Washington believes Putin’s agenda is a workable basis for negotiations. The Russian president believes Zelensky’s leadership is illegal under Ukrainian law. Putin wants elections. Normally a U.S. demand.

As a result, Zelensky is excluded from the negotiations and will face demands that he resign. This is a concrete result of Trump’s five-week-old administration. 

At a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in Brussels Pete Hegseth, the self-proclaimed warrior, and new Secretary of Defense announced policies that met Russia’s President Vladimir Putin agenda for opening negotiations.

Ukraine would not join NATO, it would cede to Russia provinces conquered during Ukraine’s misguided war against Russia.

Should an international force watch over Ukraine, Hegseth said it would be a “non-NATO Mission.” No countries were named but clearly China, a Russian ally would qualify, ditto for U.S. allies Japan and South Korea. Journalists reported Europe gave the proposal a chilly reception.

Negotiations have started; Hegseth spoke publicly on Wednesday Feb. 12 . Privately Steve Witkoff, Trumps special mediator, was in Moscow. The next day Trump and Putin had a long phone call that Trump called productive.

By Thursday, Hegseth was soothing Congressional critics and U. S. allies. His ideas would be subject to change during negotiations. He wasn’t announcing hard and fast positions. It would be up Trump to decide what “to allow or not allow.”

A possible major event has Putin and Trump holding direct talks in Moscow on May 9 for the celebration of the 80th anniversary of the German surrender to Russia in 1945, when Russia and the United States were allies against Hitler.

The President promised to engage in nuclear talks once “we straighten it all out” in the Middle East and Ukraine. The President is breaking with a costly Biden administration plan to modernize the armed forces. He told reporters, “There’s no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons…We already have so many you can destroy the world 50 times over.”

Talks about peace in Ukraine started on Feb 18 in Saudi Arabia. Ukraine was not invited. The location was odd for Ukrainian peace talks but a sensible one for involving Egypt in a Palestinian peace process.

At this initial meeting Moscow and Washington agreed to expand their embassy staffs. It would have the practical effect of making it easier for each country to obtain accurate information and permit non-binding discussion of tentative plans.

Perhaps another Putin hope was being realized. According to a Moscow statement, “The two sides expressed their mutual willingness to interact on pressing international issues, including the settlement around Ukraine.” Putin is eager to establish a framework for discussing major issues with the United States.

A neutral Ukraine might model itself after Austria. That country’s founding documents provide that “In all future times Austria will not join any military alliances and will not permit the establishment of any foreign military bases on her territory.”

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Through the Looking Glass

June is China Month in Washington D.C.

The G7—once the most prestigious group of nations in the globe, now reduced to an alliance of the U.S. and its allies—met in Italy and issued a communique at the end of its meeting. China didn’t attend, but it was mentioned 28 times.

In a front page New York Times story, clearly at the behest of U.S. diplomatic sources, China is described as a “malign force.” Among its numerous sins, said U.S. officials, is helping Russia build weapons to fight Ukraine and a possible threat to withhold the exotic minerals used in batteries and microchips. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has written two articles about reducing tension between Washington and Beijing.

The U.S. and China navies come dangerously close to each other in the South China Sea. Gone are the days when Apple proudly announced new sales figures from China for its products. Now the U.S. issues stern warnings trying to limit China’s alliance with Russia.

If we had a looking glass that could peer into the future, war between these superpowers is conceivable. China is protecting its borders. Its soldiers and weapons are close at hand. The U.S. is at the other side of the world and depending on its collection of bases in the Pacific for supplies to fight a war. Nonetheless the U.S. confidently assures us it can master the Chinese, who already forced U.S. troops back seventy years ago in Korea.

It is all too conceivable that war could flare up between the world’s two superpowers. This is high risk politics, and the U.S. acts like it is prepared to confront this worst-of-all possible outcomes.

The push for world government is one possible way to prevent these two atomic powers from coming to blows. If we turned the United Nations into the World Government we would have a better chance of resolving these tensions without the death and destruction of war.

Even in the unlikely event that Ukraine beats the Russians their nation is a shadow of its former self. Cities, farmlands, and power plants would have to be rebuilt. The millions of people who fled will need strong reassurances to return and are more likely to prefer the peace and prosperity in their new homes. Restoring Ukraine will take decades.

In Gaza, the destruction is even graver, and there is the strong possibility that Israel has no intention of letting the Palestinians return to their homes. Death, destruction, and possible starvation are the realities that govern Palestine. Furious at the October 7th massacre by Hamas, Israel believes that its weapons can destroy Palestinian militancy. There is widespread skepticism that this final solution will be achieved by the Israeli Defense Forces.

We should remember that the problem isn’t a Hamas massacre or an Israeli blockade of humanitarian aid. The problem isn’t separating the good guys from the bad guys by the evil deeds they commit; the problem is war. Using weapons to settle disputes will always bring war crimes. Only if we find an alternate way to resolve disputes can we stop these horrific crimes.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, coming out of the World War II victory, clearly hoped the United Nations would prevent wars from starting. He did not envision subordinating nations to an international peacekeeping force. As we approach the first quarter of the twenty-first century, the need for a world-governing body like the United Nations to control national governments persists. What was a step too far for Roosevelt can happen if Americans unite into a political party supporting this drastic solution.

World government, I believe, is one reason to support Freedom Democrats and to ally ourselves with the fight for the rights of sex workers, drug users, and people who party. We can create new possibilities and move the United States, and hopefully the world, in a peaceful and prosperous direction.  

Posted on by Nathan Riley · 1 Comment

Strategy

Abraham Lincoln, at 33 and on his way to becoming a leader of the Whig Party in Illinois offered this caution to a local temperance society about helping people give up drink. His advice was simple: offer friendship. If you don’t do this but choose “to dictate to his judgment… or to mark him as one to be shunned and despised, he will retreat within himself, close all the avenues to his head and his heart; and though your cause be naked truth itself…you shall be no more be able to pierce him, than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise.” Be gentle, caring, and friendly was Lincoln’s advice.

Freedom Democrats are trying to start a movement by cultivating friendship. The key organizing tool is weekly parties. In my opinion, it should be an opportunity for sex workers, persons who are not highly educated, and those who want to reform government to dance, talk, and become friends.

United in their belief that freedom includes the right to take the currently illegal drugs, trade sex for money, watch and make porn, these people can unite in a common cause. One main hope is that these parties can bring the college professor together with the high school dropout. To be a success, black, brown, and white people must be welcomed and have fun.

The objective is to become players in the Democratic Party, and from this base, to have an impact on government.

Everybody goes to parties and has good times. The key to success is that everybody feels welcome at these weekly events. No special skills are required to throw a party, but since Freedom Democrats are political, the hosts should establish ties with lawyers. It can be expected that while we are enjoying ourselves other people will badmouth us and some will call the cops.

In this way, from the very beginning, the host will establish ties with people knowledgeable about the law. A major objective of Freedom Democrats is to get activists and people with little interest in politics to become acquainted. In this way, Freedom Democrats can grow until they have an impact.

People who party should become friends with coat-and-tie people.

For years, congress has talked endlessly about making marijuana legal, but in the end fear of change has limited progress to baby steps. The same hesitation slows progress among state and local officials. Freedom Democrats are numerous, and the strategy is to create unity so that politicians take notice.

By throwing parties we develop local bases in communities all over the state.

In my opinion, Freedom Democrats should push for new attitudes. Drug users should be able to go to their doctors without interference from government agencies like the DEA. Some people want to give up their habit; others want to be left alone. It is a private matter between the doctor and the drug user. Drug users, like everyone else, should get substances prepared by doctors and scientists that minimize side-effects.

Currently, drug users must buy their drugs from underground suppliers without any of the safeguards that a person has when they take a prescription to a drugstore. Overdose deaths rocketed higher after politicians made the disastrous mistake of telling Oxycontin users that they could no longer get pharmaceutical drugs. It made no more sense than telling overweight people they can no longer buy food. The chance of an Oxycontin user overdosing is limited, while illegal drugs are killing thousands every month. The Oxycontin users should have had the right to go to their doctor and develop a course of treatment. It is obnoxious and stupid for government to simply tell people, “Stop,” denounce the drug, and then expect people to give it up. Some do, but many don’t and buy their drugs from dealers. Government, in its stupidity, created a large market for criminals. Some Freedom Democrats can make it clear that this stupid policy subsidized criminals.

In recent months, wars in Palestine and Ukraine have added to the list of armed conflicts that are a constant feature of this century. Since the German philosopher Immanuel Kant and the United States’ Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delanor Roosevelt have recognized that the best way to hinder war is to start a world government that controls national states.

For this reason, I proposed that the United Nations become such a world government. It is a change that is familiar to American history. The Confederation of 13 colonies that beat the British couldn’t last. The Confederacy was too weak to collect taxes, make it easy to do business between states. Thus, in 1787, after the peace treaty was signed with Great Britain, a group of patriots drafted the Constitution, and the Confederation became history.

I propose that similar agreements be drafted that would control Israel, Russia, China, the United States, and all the other countries in the world. If a dispute develops, these nations would hire lawyers, not troops. I have no idea if this proposal would prove popular in the United States or with Freedom Democrats, but it is a major reason why I want the Freedom Democrats to get organized.