Joe Biden must put house in order before taking action against Russia

The alarms are growing louder about the Ukraine crisis — and questions are becoming sharper as to how the issue will reverberate through domestic politics of United States. It is feared that a full-scale invasion of Russia would pitch the US President Joe Biden into new turmoil. 

The failure to prevent such a move would be regarded as a diplomatic failure by the White House. It would be another foreign policy misstep to add to the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan last year.

But Republicans are divided on Ukraine, with some the most pro-Trump elements of the GOP voicing isolationist sentiments. Their views complicate the GOP’s traditional hawkish image.

Biden has ruled out involving US troops directly in a ground war in Ukraine, even in the event of a Russian invasion. He faces the challenge of keeping NATO allies on the same page if Russian President Vladimir Putin mounts some kind of aggressive operation that stops short of a traditional, full-scale military assault.

In alluding to this conundrum at a recent press conference, Biden appeared to suggest that Putin could get away with a “minor incursion” — a statement that infuriated the Ukrainians, and which the White House tried to clean up, with limited success.

At a Pentagon briefing on Friday, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Gen. Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that Putin had assembled all he needed for a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The Russians are now estimated to have more than 100,000 troops adjacent to the border.

Milley told reporters that “you’d have to go back quite a while to the Cold War days to see something of this magnitude.”

The comment echoed Biden’s remark last week that a Russian invasion would “change the world” and would, in practical terms, be “the largest invasion since World War Two.”

But one pressing political question is whether Biden will play a political price at home for a failure of diplomacy if Putin presses ahead.

Robert Wilkie, a former Secretary of Veterans Affairs and, before that, an Under Secretary of Defense during the Trump administration, faulted the Biden administration, saying, “we haven’t been playing the long game while Putin has.”

Wilkie, who was also Assistant Secretary of Defense under President George W. Bush and is now a visiting fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, argued that there were longer-term moves the administration could make to constrain Putin, such as “opening up an avenue for Finland and Sweden to come into the NATO family” to help change the overall dynamic in Europe.

But he also noted there were real difficulties, not least Russia’s increasing closeness with China, which he argued made sanctions less likely to be effective. 

“Unlike in the past, Putin has a banker now — and that’s Beijing,” he said.

Liberal voices are of course more supportive of Biden’s position, arguing that he has played his hand as well as he could, including making clear to Putin that there will be severe consequences for an invasion.

“The US does have a number of tools that it can use that would be really painful for the Kremlin and potentially catastrophic for Russia overall,” said Max Bergmann, a senior fellow and the Director for Europe and Russia at the liberal Center for American Progress.

Bergmann added, “We should not think of this as a way to find a silver bullet that will cause Vladimir Putin to not invade or to say ‘uncle.’” He argued Putin had painted himself into a corner with his troop build-up and would have to go ahead with some form of action at risk of losing face.

Russia denies it has any intention of invading Ukraine, assurances that are dismissed in Washington because of the troop movements. The Kremlin wants a formal commitment that Ukraine, which is not a NATO member, will never be allowed to join the alliance. But that kind of guarantee is a non-starter with the US and other western nations.

Paul Gosar has contended, “We have no dog in the Ukraine fight.” A recent story from Axios noted the influence of Fox News broadcaster Tucker Carlson, who has been openly skeptical about the need for the US to get involved on Ukraine’s side. The website also noted a number of GOP candidates who have sounded similar themes.

Those positions sit very uneasily with the GOP’s traditional hawkish image. They also draw scorn from liberal foreign policy experts, who accuse Trump Republicans of giving comfort to an adversary.

“Protest is fine, disagreement on policy is fine, but active support for Putin’s expansionist policies, including the potential invasion of another democracy, give confidence to Putin that he has effectively undermined the American president at home,” said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of State during the Obama administration.

Some polling shows the peculiar contours of US public opinion in relation to Ukraine. An Economist/YouGov poll released lately, for example, indicated more Republican voters than Democratic voters consider Putin a “strong leader.” 

Asked whether it was more important for Washington to “take a strong stand” on Ukraine or “maintain good relations with Russia,” voters of both parties went for the first option. But Republicans did so by a slimmer net margin than their Democratic counterparts.

There is, too, the fact that American voters have a raft of other, more immediate topics to worry about, with COVID-19 and inflation prime among them.

That could mean that another blow to American prestige in the shape of a Russian invasion would hurt Biden anew. Or, it could mean that US voters simply don’t care all that much what happens in Kyiv.

Right now, it’s waiting game that is becoming tenser by the day. The most likely time for a Russian invasion is in the next few weeks, as the ground freezes and makes troop movements easier.

 “I think [Putin] is going to do it,” said Bergmann. “Once you put this in motion, it can be hard to unwind it without losing face and credibility…He could just leave forces where they are. But, yeah, I would be nervous.”

Hamas commander accused of spying for Israel escapes from Gaza prison

According to a report by The Jerusalem Post, a former commander of Hamas military wing who was accused of spying for Israel has escaped from a maximum security prison in the Gaza Strip. The fugitive, Abed al-Karim Abu Odeh, 35, was arrested by Hamas in 2019 on suspicion of mapping underground tunnels with a tracking device he allegedly received from his Israeli accomplice.  

It was not clear how Abu Odeh, who was being held in the Ansar Prison in the Gaza Strip, managed to escape. The rare escape is seen by many Palestinians as a serious embarrassment for Hamas.

Hamas has arrested a number of suspects on suspicion of helping Abu Odeh according to a Palestinian journalist in the Gaza Strip.

Hamas officials described Abu Odeh as an extremely dangerous security prisoner and offered a reward for information leading to his capture.

The officials said they did not rule out the possibility that Abu Odeh, who was a top commander of the Hamas military wing, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, would try to cross the border into Israel.

Hamas set up checkpoints and deployed dozens of security officers in several parts of the Gaza Strip, especially near the border with Israel, in an attempt to prevent Abu Odeh from leaving the coastal enclave.

Hamas also issued a warning to fishermen in the Gaza Strip against helping Abu Odeh.

Eyad al-Bozm, spokesperson for the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Interior, said that Abu Odeh escaped from prison on Saturday morning. “The Hamas security forces are taking measures to re-apprehend him,” he added without elaborating.

On Saturday night, Hamas security officers raided the home of Abu Odeh and arrested a number of his family members, according to sources in the Gaza Strip.

Bennett and Iran animosity

Naftali Bennett, Prime Minister of Israel, has said that the theory of “killing Iran with 1000 knife wounds is similar to what happened to the former Soviet Union”. Doesn’t he sound delusional?

In an interview with the Israeli Ynet daily, Bennett said, “… but Iran itself, which is the root of evil, is safe. Here is a cold war going on, we are changing this equation, we are trying to weaken Iran in all dimensions economically, socially and security-wise. We act more and do not give up.”

The notion of comparing Iran to the Soviet Union, and the current status of the Islamic Republic with the 1985-1989 of the Soviet Union shows how far Bennett is from the ground reality.

What is going on in Tehran is that the country is by no means isolated. The Belt and Road Initiative put forward by China and Iran’s active participation in the initiative, 25-year Iran-China cooperation document, the soon-to-be-signed 20-year cooperation document with Russia, and so many more examples clarify Iran’s position as a regional and even trans-regional power. 

In some rather insulting remarks, the Israeli prime minister said, “I look at Iran as an ongoing campaign. Iran has been an octopus for decades, its arms encircling the falcons in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, and the falcons fall into its trap and bleed. We have dramatically increased the range of attacks as well as the type of attacks and the quality of the targets. This creates a problem for Iran.”

The delusional Bennett seems to have forgotten how its Iron Dumb was penetrated in the 12-day war against Gaza. The fact that Bennett thinks he has created problems for Iran is a true reflection of a pathological liar who wants to mend his reputation after only seven months in office. 

In response to a question about “a thousand knife wounds” strategy that the Tel Aviv regime dreams of implementing, Bennett said, “A thousand blows is not like that.

Remember the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union? Did the Americans attack the Russians? No, but they were able to crush them wisely.”

He continued, “We must act without interruption until they leave here. What are you doing here? What do you think you are doing In Syria? What do you think you are doing at our borders?”

Someone needs to ask Bennett the same questions. What is Israel doing in West Asia? Where is this regime’s status in the economic, political and sociological equations of the region? 

The regime with a dark history of trespassing, colonizing and occupying other people’s lands is in no place to talk about a rich civilization like Iran who has been present in the region for more than 2500 years. 

Regardless of the fact that Israel is not able to confront Iran at all, Bennett seemingly has taken some time off of repairing an Iron Dome full of holes. 

Struggling with a cyberspace that is full of holes, leaks of the military forces with their ID numbers on the internet, a war minister with a housekeeper who turned out to be a spy and so many other crises in only seven months, Bennett can’t keep quiet, and seems to be giving interviews which are full of lies. 

US creating hype to justify action against Russia

The Pentagon on Friday called on Russia to stand down on Ukraine as tensions rise over the threat of a Russian military invasion. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in a briefing with reporters said Moscow has for months been deploying forces along Ukraine’s border at a “consistent and steady pace,” which has been supported by Russian naval activity in the northern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. 

“We don't believe that President Putin has made a final decision to use these forces against Ukraine,” Austin said. “He clearly now has that capability.”  

Russia has amassed at least 100,000 troops near the Ukrainian border, and the United States has warned in recent weeks that Putin could attack at any moment. President Biden has warned Putin that such an attack would be met with severe economic consequences for Moscow. 

The Kremlin has denied any intention of seeking to invade Ukraine, but weeks of diplomatic dialogue aimed at diffusing the conflict has largely proven unsuccessful. As diplomatic talks continue, NATO has moved to bolster its security forces along the eastern flank, as Ukraine shares borders with four alliance members. 

Austin and Gen. Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stressed that there was no reason for armed conflict.

“It's the policy of the United States government to continue to support an independent Ukraine and their goals. And we are continuing our efforts to enhance their ability to protect themselves,” Milley said. 

“We strongly encourage Russia to stand down and to pursue a resolution through diplomacy,” he continued. “Armed force should always be the last resort. Success here is through dialogue.” 

The US has called for a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to address Russia’s behavior and the build-up of Russian troops on Ukraine’s border. 

A senior administration official on Friday told reporters the US wants to get UN members on the record.

“It basically boils down to the question of whether there should be a path of war, or whether there should be a path of diplomacy,” the official told reporters in a briefing.

“I think the expectation is that members of the Security Council will be weighing in on this question and supportive of a diplomatic approach.”

The official said that no concrete measures or a joint statement are expected to come out of the council meeting. Russia, as one of five permanent members of the council, holds power to veto such measures in the council. The other permanent members are United States, France, United Kingdom and China.

As US lawmakers scramble to iron out a sanctions package against Russia ahead of a potential invasion, the head of Ukraine’s parliament sent a letter to several US senators outlining specific demands for what those sanctions should look like. 

Ruslan Stefanchuk, chairman of Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada legislature, thanked the senators for supporting Ukraine, and stressed the importance of already adopted laws to support Ukraine in combating Russian aggression, according to a statement from the parliament.

According to Axios, which first obtained the letter, the request was sent to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, Robert Menendez and James Risch, the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations panel. The letter was also sent to Rob Portman, Jeanne Shaheen, Chris Murphy, John Cornyn, Lindsey Graham and Ben Cardin.  

The senators have lately taken part in a meeting over Zoom to try to figure out the details for legislation on sanctioning Russia. 

Poor becoming poorer in India

In India taxation policy is pro-rich, depriving the poor majority of even the basics to improve their lives. The poor became poorer, while the rich got richer in India during 2021, says a survey by Oxfam International.

Indian billionaires increased their wealth by 39% in 2021 and are getting richer at a much faster pace, but the poor saw their annual income drop by 53% and are still struggling to earn a minimum wage and access quality education and health care, the report revealed.

Titled “Inequality Kills: India Supplement 2022,” the report said that the richest 98 Indians own the same wealth as the bottom 555 million people.

Donate to UCA News with a small contribution of your choice Indian billionaires grew from 102 in 2020 to 142 in 2021 even though the country witnessed yet another year of pandemic.

 This was also the year when the share of the bottom 50% of the population in national wealth was a mere 6%. The combined wealth of the richest 100 Indians on the Forbes list stands at more than half a trillion US dollars. There were only three women among the 100 richest Indians.

India had the third-highest number of billionaires in the world, just behind China and the United States. It now has more billionaires than France, Sweden and Switzerland combined.

In 2020, India’s top 10% held close to 45% of the country’s national wealth. The Oxfam report once again confirmed that while India is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, it is also one of the most unequal countries with inequality continuing to rise sharply for the last three decades.

Since 2015, more and more of India’s wealth has gone to its richest one percent. Globally, too, wealth increased during 2021 to make the world’s billionaire elite richer when common people struggled against the pandemic for the second consecutive year.

“The massive gap between rich and poor will continue to increase to unimaginable proportions if the elected representatives of people in parliament do not take their job seriously,” said A.C. Michael, convener of the United Christian Forum.

This deliberate inequality was bound to continue, said Michael, a former member of Delhi Minorities Commission. “Sadly, they, elected representatives, are more busy dividing people on the basis of religion for their political gains instead of addressing the more pressing issues that could better the lives of people,” he added.

Professor Himanshu Jain of Jawaharlal Nehru University said what is particularly worrying in India’s case is that “economic inequality is being added to a society that is already fractured along the lines of caste, religion, region and gender.”

This surge in the wealth of the country’s top 100 billionaires comes at a time when India’s unemployment rate was as high as 15% in urban areas and the healthcare system was on the brink of collapse.

Unfortunately, not only has the taxation policy been pro-rich but it has also deprived India’s states of important fiscal resources — both particularly damaging in the context of the Covid-19 crisis.

The pandemic revealed how dependent Indian states are on the federal government for technical expertise and financial support despite a federal structure supported by India’s constitution.

In spite of health being a state subject, the state continued to retain more resources in non-divisible pools rather than devolving them to manage the pandemic.

The Oxfam report recommended that the government revisit its primary sources of revenue generation, adopting more progressive methods of taxation and assessing its structural issues that permit such wealth accumulation by the rich.

Additionally, the government should also redirect revenue towards health, education and social security, treating them as universal rights and as a means of reducing inequality, thereby avoiding the privatization model for these sectors.

Oxfam also called on the government to recognize the unequal lives that Indian citizens live by measuring them and legislating to protect their interests.

Courtesy: South Asia Journal

Tehran-Baku ink MoU for constructing bridge over Astarachay River

Iran and Azerbaijan have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for cooperation in constructing a bridge over the Astarachay River. The MoU was signed by Iranian Deputy Transport and Urban Development Minister Kheirollah Khademi and Azerbaijan’s Deputy Minister of Digital Development and Transport Rahman Hummatov in Baku.

As reported by IRNA, the project for the construction of the mentioned bridge was commenced in a ceremony attended by Iranian Transport Minister Rostam Qasemi and Azeri Deputy Prime Minister Shahin Mustafayev.

Qasemi, who is also the head of the two countries’ Joint Economic Committee, traveled to Azerbaijan with a delegatio to visit the country’s economic areas and explore avenues of mutual cooperation.

Iran and Azerbaijan had earlier announced the total investment made in the project to be 4.7 million euros.

The construction of Astarachay Bridge is going to be a positive step in completing the North-South Corridor and is expected to open a new gate for the development of all-out relations between the two neighbors.

Speaking at the ceremony, Mustafayev said the construction of the bridge is scheduled to be completed by the end of the current year.

"The president and the government of the Republic of Azerbaijan attach special importance to the development of relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the presidents of Iran and Azerbaijan expressed interest in further developing relations between the two countries in a cordial meeting in Ashgabat," the official said.

Azerbaijan and Iran have established deep relations in various areas including trade, economy, energy, customs, and investment, he said: "There are good opportunities between the two countries to implement joint projects in these fields."

Mustafayev further mentioned the upward trend of trade between the two countries and said, “Despite the Coronavirus pandemic in the last two years, the trade turnover of Iran and the Republic of Azerbaijan in the first 11 months of 2021 increased by 30% as compared to the previous year and the amount of road transport also increased by 62.5%.”

“During this period, the transportation and transit of goods between the two countries have not stopped for a single day,” he stressed.

Qasemi for his part called Azerbaijan the closest neighbor to Iran and said, "We hope that after the meeting of the presidents of the two countries, relations between the two nations will develop as much as possible."

He pointed to the development of relations with neighbors as one of the priorities of the Iranian government and, referring to Iran's participation in the implementation of projects in Azerbaijan’s liberated territories in Karabakh, said, "Cooperation between the two countries in this area can accelerate the reconstruction of these regions.”

Qasemi noted that the development of transport and transit in the region is in the interest of both countries, and said that the two countries’ Joint Economic Committee could help deepen economic relations between them, as well as provide the necessary facilities for businessmen and entrepreneurs.

Khademi termed the construction of the Astarachay Bridge as an effective step in completing the north-south corridor and said, "The construction of this bridge will lead to economic, tourism, industrial and transportation development of the two countries due to the cultural, social and religious commonalities of the two neighboring countries."

“The Astarachay border bridge will lead to the development of transit trade between the two countries, which, in parallel with the existing railway bridge, will lead to the comprehensive development of the region,” he said.

Crisis in Belarus and role being played by Russia, European Union and United States

After the presidential election in Belarus on August 9, 2020, mass demonstrations broke out spontaneously throughout the country. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets protesting against widespread election fraud. 

These protests soon met with sustained, brutal suppression. The masses were eventually driven from the streets, yet the resistance against the Belarusian dictatorship persists to this day.

It is clear that Alyaksandr Lukashenka lost the popular legitimacy he had enjoyed for many, if not most, of the last 26 years. Why did this Belarusian revolution fail to succeed? The responses of Russia, the European Union, and the United States to the 2020–21 protest movement had a decisive impact on the pro-democracy uprising in Belarus and will continue to be crucial for how the situation in Belarus unfolds in the future.

The 2020–21 Belarusian protest movement to date can be divided into three main phases: violent repressions; temporary cease-fire; and regime retaliation. The next phase of the Belarusian crisis will be one of power transition. This transition will likely happen after the constitutional referendum scheduled for February 27, 2022. The current draft of the new Belarusian constitution proposes several crucial changes for the political system in Belarus.

First, the amendments aim to weaken the powers of the Belarusian parliament and to strengthen the role of the All-Belarusian People's Assembly (ABPA). This body which under the present constitution does not have governing status would be endowed with wide-ranging powers and would consist of 1,200 delegates loyal to the regime. The ABPA would have the power to approve Belarus’s foreign and security policy, propose changes to the constitution, draft laws, select judges of the top courts, and have other functions. The acting president would automatically become a member of the ABPA and potentially serve as its chair, if elected by the other delegates. By strengthening the powers of the ABPA, Lukashenka is trying to create an alternative center of power which would allow him to stay in the Belarusian political arena even if he decides to step down as a president.

Second, the constitutional amendments envisage the president’s immunity from prosecution and prohibit anyone who temporarily left the country in the last 20 years from running for presidency. This provision directly targets members of Belarusian political opposition who were forced to live into exile to avoid repressions. This amendment deprives the Belarusian opposition of the opportunity to challenge the ruling regime directly inside Belarus, and provides additional guarantees for the safety of Lukashenka and his entourage. 

Finally, the new constitutional provisions also grant the president immunity from prosecution and introduce a limit of two five-year presidential terms in office. However, since these restrictions would only apply going forward, Lukashenka could potentially stay in power until 2035.

Lukashenka has not yet declared whether he will step down after the referendum. The current political instability in the region, including the January protests in Kazakhstan and the escalating tensions between Russian and Ukraine, increase the chances that Lukashenka will stay in power after the referendum.

In either case, the West will not cease pressure on the Belarusian regime and will continue to support those fighting for democratic reforms there. For its part, Russia will continue to use the vulnerability of Lukashenka and his close entourage to increase its political, economic, and military presence in Belarus.

Russia, the EU and the US have all played an important role in the evolution of the 2020–21 Belarusian post-electoral crises. The Belarusian mass protests failed to succeed in August 2020, thanks both to Russia’s significant support of the Lukashenka regime and a lack of quick and comprehensive response from the EU and the US.

However, the Ryanair incident in May 2021 catalyzed increased Western action against the Lukashenka regime. It resulted in greater coordination between the EU and the US and led to the passage of several packages of targeted sanctions. Hard sanctions are likely to continue to serve as the baseline policy towards the Lukashenka regime in the near future for the EU and the US, while Russia will likely continue exerting its influence in pursuit of greater political, economic, and military integration with Belarus.  Lukashenka’s regime has a potential to maintain political control in the country in the short-term perspective. However, in the long run it will have to face the irreversible transformations happening in the Belarusian society and step on a path of political transition.