Search results

This past Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin sat down for an interview in which he yet again made clear that, despite the insistence of pro-diplomacy voices in the West, he was not ready to negotiate an end to the Ukraine war, because Kyiv's uncertain battlefield prospects meant Russia could secure further advances by continuing the war. "It would be ridiculous for us to start negotiating with Ukraine just because it's running out of ammunition," Putin told interviewer Dmitry Kiselyov, according to one particularly viral and widely cited tweet by Wall Street Journal chief foreign affairs correspondent Yaroslav Trofimov. Except that's not what Putin said. In fact, by reading the full text and seeing the quote in context instead of as a selectively edited soundbite, it's clear he was putting out the exact opposite message: "For us to hold negotiations now just because they are running out of ammunition would be ridiculous. Nevertheless, we are open to a serious discussion, and we are eager to resolve all conflicts, especially this one, by peaceful means."What is true is that Putin once more restated the more stringent conditions for peace talks he adopted last year, namely that Moscow will not give up the four regions it officially annexed in September 2022 and that, given the state of the battlefield, Ukraine will have to accept the loss of this territory. "Are we ready to negotiate? We sure are," he said. "But we are definitely not ready for talks that are based on some kind of 'wishful thinking' which comes after the use of psychotropic drugs, but we are ready for talks based on the realities that have developed, as they say in such cases, on the ground."This didn't stop the truncated version of the first quote from being spread far and wide on social media and being held up, often by reporters at top newspapers like Trofimov and other authoritative voices, as definitive proof that negotiations to end the war were impossible and that prolonged war is the only option. "Republican leadership of the House cutting off military supplies to Ukraine has made Putin drop his pretense about desiring peace talks. He wants it all," was Trofimov's summary of the interview. "Putin indicated he won't discuss surrendering territory annexed from Ukraine and appeared confident Russia's army could advance further," the Financial Times Moscow bureau chief Max Seddon reported, before offering the clipped quote as evidence. "Russia spreads rumors about negotiations. Uncritical people write naive articles. US cuts off aid to Ukraine. Putin says — thanks, with your help I'll win the war [and] destroy Ukraine," wrote historian Timothy Snyder, citing Trofminov's summary. "War criminal Putin doesn't want to negotiate, only to rape, murder & pilage innocent Ukrainians," tweeted Belgian MEP Guy Verhofstadt. "The only way this war ends is if we step up and give Ukrainians what they ask for. Those in the West calling for negotiations serve this monster."Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) used it to claim the GOP's hold-up of military aid was "fueling Putin's aggression and the Russian war effort." Identical arguments — that the truncated quote showed Putin's talk of negotiations was a smokescreen, and that the only way to get to a peaceful end to the war is to double down on a military solution — were, and still are today, being spread by a wide variety of prominent, influential and often hawkish voices, largely piggybacking off Trofimov and Seddon's misrepresentation of the remarks. It's not been much better outside of social media. Putin's comments about negotiations were left entirely out of Western media reports on his interview at Reuters, the Associated Press, PBS and Voice of America. Only CNBC included the comments with the full quote; CNN also reported that "Putin said Russia would be willing to negotiate," though citing only his remark about "realities on the ground." Others double down on using the shortened quote for a misleading framing, such as this Washington Examiner headline, or this Telegraph report. The latter went beyond merely the headline and opened by telling readers that Putin "has ruled out opening peace talks with Ukraine," before putting together a composite quote from the interview that deliberately skipped over his remark that Moscow was open to talks and eager to resolve the conflicts diplomatically.Why is this important? Hawks would charge that simply daring to correct the record here is a sign of suspicious pro-Putin sympathies. But willingness to negotiate has nothing to do with moral virtue: the violently repressive Saudi government, which recently went on an execution spree, also eventually negotiated an end to its horrific war on Yemen despite the horror it had unleashed on the country. More recently, Hamas has shown a willingness to negotiate throughout the Israeli assault on Gaza, talks that bore fruit back in November with a ceasefire and hostage swap, none of which absolves it for the atrocities of October 7 or renders its members model citizens. Just as in those cases, one does not need to trust in Putin here, an authoritarian and practiced politician, to proceed with talks. Peace negotiations are, by their very nature, carried out between parties without ample reserves of faith in and goodwill towards each other, and part of any talks involves devising a mechanism with acceptable security guarantees for each party that removes the need to rely on mere trust. The surest way to verify if someone is serious about such negotiations is to actually try them. The fact that Putin insists he's open to negotiations, albeit with major territorial concessions from the Ukrainian side, should be encouraging news for anyone who genuinely cares about Ukraine. The RAND Institute argued in January last year that the economic and social damage caused by a longer war outweighed the possible benefits of military reconquest of lost territory. Indeed, the effects of prolonging the war in search of a morally satisfying military victory have been devastating for the country: tens of thousands killed and wounded, widespread destruction of infrastructure, a demographic crisis, and massive debt that will leave the country vulnerable to rapacious creditors. Many thousands of Ukrainians are desperately dodging conscription to avoid dying in the war, with a plurality of 48 percent of Ukrainian men admitting they are not prepared to fight. These remarks by Putin are only the latest signal that Moscow is ready to enter talks. Putin similarly told Tucker Carlson in February several times that Russia was "ready" to negotiate. More importantly, three separate reports in the New York Times, Bloomberg and Reuters have revealed behind-the-scenes overtures by Moscow, reportedly as early as last September, to Washington for peace talks, which the Biden administration has so far not acted on. We can't know for sure if Putin's remarks are serious until they're tested in negotiations. But that doesn't give journalists and commentators free rein to mislead the public that they don't exist, all for the purpose of undermining the possibility of peacefully ending a war that more and more Ukrainians don't want to fight in.

For a conflict discussed in starkly moralistic terms, the ways the Ukraine war is talked about by its most enthusiastic Western supporters can be remarkably cynical about the human carnage involved. "Aiding Ukraine, giving the money to Ukraine is the cheapest possible way for the U.S. to enhance its security," Zanny Minton Beddoes, editor-in-chief of the Economist, recently told the Daily Show's Jon Stewart. "The fighting is being done by the Ukrainians, they're the people who are being killed." This view is not unique to Beddoes. It's been widely expressed by those most in favor of an open-ended, prolonged war and most against the kind of peace negotiations that would shorten it. "Four months into this thing, I like the structural path we're on here. As long as we help Ukraine with the weapons they need and the economic support, they will fight to the last person," said Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) early into the war, accidentally voicing what the war's critics have often said about the war — that the U.S. will fight it "to the last Ukrainian." Later, Graham called it the "best money we've ever spent." "It is a relatively modest amount that we are contributing without being asked to risk life and limb," Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told the Associated Press last year. "The Ukrainians are willing to fight the fight for us if the West will give them the provisions. It's a pretty good deal." "I call that a bargain," North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum has said about the war funding, pointing to the damage Ukrainian forces had inflicted on the Russian military. "No Americans are getting killed in Ukraine. We're rebuilding our industrial base. The Ukrainians are destroying the army of one of our biggest rivals. I have a hard time finding anything wrong with that," U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) remarked.Americans "should be satisfied that we're getting our money's worth on our Ukraine investment," wrote Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), because "for less than 3 percent of our nation's military budget, we've enabled Ukraine to degrade Russia's military strength by half," and "all without a single American service woman or man injured or lost." But politicians aren't the only armchair warriors who look at the enormous death and destruction suffered by Ukraine by prolonging the war as akin to a brilliant business decision. Hawkish think tanks have made similar arguments. "When viewed from a bang-per-buck perspective, U.S. and Western support for Ukraine is an incredibly cost-effective investment," Timothy Garten Ashe wrote for the weapons maker-funded Center for European Policy Analysis. "Support for Ukraine remains a bargain for American national security," wrote Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Europe and Eurasia Peter Rough. "For about 5 percent of total U.S. defense spending over the past 20 months, Ukraine has badly degraded Russia, one of the United States' top adversaries, without shedding a single drop of American blood." And major U.S. newspapers have likewise published similar perspectives. "We have a determined partner in Ukraine that is willing to bear the consequences of war so that we do not have to do so ourselves in the future," former top George W. Bush officials Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates celebrated in the pages of the Washington Post. "For all the aid we've given Ukraine, we are the true beneficiaries in the relationship, and they the true benefactors," wrote Bret Stephens at the New York Times, pointing to the fact that NATO is paying in only money, while "Ukrainians are counting their costs in lives and limbs lost." What's distasteful about this is not just the flippant way it treats the unimaginable scale of loss of life, permanent disability and emerging long-term crises being experienced by Ukrainians — as mere abacus beads to be moved around in a cost-benefit analysis centered on the United States and its NATO allies. It's also the fact that, far from being "willing," "determined" and ready to "fight to the last person," many Ukrainians have demonstrated that they do not want to risk their lives in this war — a share of the population that is getting larger and more vocal the longer the war has gone on. Since the start of the war, when many fleeing Ukrainian men were stopped at the border and ordered to return to potentially fight, thousands of Ukrainians have defied the government's ban on men aged between 18 and 60 leaving the country — to the point of spending large sums of money and even risking their lives to get out. Many hunkered down in their homes to dodge enlistment officers, while tens of thousands signed a petition opposing increasingly aggressive conscription practices. Early last year, Ukraine's parliament upped the punishment for desertion, which soldiers have this year admitted is still a growing problem. By November 2023, the BBC determined that a total of nearly 20,000 Ukrainian men had fled the country to avoid being drafted, while the State Border Service revealed a month later that more than 16,500 had been stopped from leaving. At one point, the country's law enforcement uncovered a massive scheme across nearly a dozen regions that gave out falsified medical certificates declaring someone unfit for military service in return for as much as $10,000. This phenomenon has only intensified as Kyiv has dramatically expanded its conscription plans to make up its disadvantage in manpower, including proposals for lowering the draft age and creating a central database of potential recruits, all while resorting to more aggressive drafting tactics and recruiting increasingly older and less healthy men. These plans have engendered massive opposition, with protests by soldiers' families that have taken place around the country since last year calling for a cap on the length of military service continuing and intensifying; earlier this month. One hundred women blocked a road and mistakenly attacked another woman due to rumors of draft officials coming to take the village's men away. "I don't see the 500,000 more people ready to die," admitted a former Ukrainian government minister and current army captain last November. It increasingly appears that many of those who are most enthusiastic to keep the war going and avoid a negotiated end aren't, as we keep being told, the Ukrainians who are most likely to be killed or wounded in the fighting. Instead they are politicians and commentators far, far away from the front line in other countries who view its attendant death and destruction as akin to a board game — or, in their words, as a "good deal," a "bargain," and a satisfying "investment" for their own countries.In other words, it looks increasingly like all too many other U.S.-led wars.

The chickens continue to come home to roost over
Bossier City's profligacy of the past three decades as its agenda of government
as economic development machine through interventions into the local economy with
taxpayer dollars cascade from failure to failure.

Recently, headlines
about how the city has squandered wealth and opportunity have focused on the
duplicative Walter O. Bigby Carriageway and provision of expensive recreation
for a tiny minority of city residents or for non-residents while discouraging other
residents from using these facilities. But while these come from relatively
recent poor decisions, there are some huge expenses with little payoff in the
past often forgotten.

At over
$65 million in cost, the Brookshire
Grocery Arena has turned into a perennial money-loser. Since its opening in
2000, it had only three years where it turned a profit, the last in 2006. Its
total losses through 2022 have been a startling $9.655 million. And while some
of its desperate boosters (echoing arguments made about the millions of dollars
going into city park facilities restricted to out-of-towner use) claim it can
make that up through taxes paid by visitors to arena events, it's laughable
that non-residents to arena events during their trips could have bought in the
city goods worth $386.2 million, the break-even point.

Almost two decades ago, the city built at its own
expense a parking garage for the oft-troubled Louisiana Boardwalk Outlets that
struggles to maintain occupancy and especially with tenants that can contribute
significantly to the tax base (as reflected in the name change that added "Outlets"
as upscale tenants have fled resulting in a different strategy to lease the
one-third empty property). Politicians back then crowed about how a commercial boom
that would attract out-of-town visitors would cause city coffers to overflow,
as justification for their gift. Originally built for $160 million, its latest
sale in 2022 netted just $30.5 million. That means, on an
inflation-adjusted basis, the garage – which at $21.5 million should have been
built by the developer, not essentially as a gift by the city – cost $3 million
more than the worth of the entire property today. (The nearby property built
first but technically not connected to the Boardwalk, Bass Pro Shops, has it
own parking lot.)

A few years later, in conjunction with the state
and parish the city went in with the Cyber Innovation Center that
gradually would expand from it into the National Cyber Research Park. The city
threw in $35 million then a few million more since, and as part of that talked
about as many as 10,000
high-paying jobs coming to the area as a result of the CIC presence.
Instead, only a fraction of that number work near it, and the economic impact
of the entire arrangement has come overwhelmingly from the nearby NCRP tenants,
who except for infrastructure used their own resources to install their presences.
As with the arena, the CIC never has come close to paying itself off, and its presence
only peripherally has had anything to do with attracting NCRP business.

All three of these were examples of government venture
capitalism, in building something that non-government entities should have pursued
but didn't because the costs exceeded the benefits. Still, elected officials
let themselves get sucked into these bad deals, and Bossier Citians have paid
for it ever since: in the huge initial outlays, the interest costs, and
supplemental costs that far outstrip tax collections attributable to these. But
rather than admit defeat, the city continues to allow citizens to lose money on
these.

Yet it has decided to throw in the towel on a much
smaller similar item. Late last year, the city announced it wanted to dispose
of its two alternative fuel stations, and at the Bossier City Council's Feb. 13 meeting at the
request of Republican Councilor Brian Hammons
an update was delivered about this. City Attorney Richard Ray said an appraisal
on these has been completed, but also expressed doubts about whether the
properties even could be sold at appraised values.

Those values likely will come in under $4.4
million. That represents the amount the city anticipated drawing from its Riverboat
Capital Projects Fund in 2010 and 2011 to build the pair of compressed natural
gas stations. Web records available don't lay out a precise cost or how much
was added over the years.

That story is a rinse and repeat of the government-as-economic-engine
ideology that has been a mainstay of the two graybeards who have been on the
Council from the time of the building of the arena, Democrat Bubba Williams
and no party Jeff Darby,
plus Republican David
Montgomery who joined just after the arena opened. With the Haynesville
Shale booming, the city
argued this would lead to lower fuel expenditures as well as be more
environmentally-friendly, even though conversions and new vehicles cost roughly
$7,000 more per vehicle than running with conventional gasoline.

Naturally, the bet didn't pan out and after paying
extra for dozens of such vehicles since the first station began operating in
2010, they've been cycled back out of the city fleet, making the stations obsolete
for the purposes of the city. Nor does it appear that this made a positive contribution
to city finances. Since then, the stations have a bookkeeping profit of
$160,000, with the first nine years in positive territory seven of them. But since
2017 they've recorded a deficit every year through 2022 with the three largest
in 2020-22.

That may well understate the case. The city's
annual Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report doesn't distinguish whether the sales and purchases
include compressed natural gas delivered into city vehicles. The $843,389 sales
figure of 2022 implies $2,311 average daily sales, or at an average of $2.49 a
gallon (in Louisiana
in Jan., 2022) coming out to 928 gallons sold a day or just over 50 vehicles
a day filling their tanks. That seems like a high number if only non-city vehicles,
and in accounting terms it would be much more difficult to parse out those
numbers, so commingled in all of that likely are city fuel costs. Throw in the
several hundred thousands of extra dollars spent on CNG-capable vehicles and although
normally CNG prices are lower it burns through quicker so fuel price
differentials over the years would matter, but probably it ended up with the
CNG vehicles costing more to operate over their lifespans.

So, the experiment probably cost extra taxpayer
dollars, but that's par for the course for Bossier City ever since the casinos
showed up. At least there's some belated recognition to cut losses in this
case, with selling that should extend to the white elephants the arena and CIC,
although with the parking garage there needs to be monetization if possible. It's
just another example of how Bossier City has mismanaged itself out of hundreds
of millions of dollars over the past quarter-century, if presenting a smaller lesson,
and the pity of it is the likes of Darby, Montgomery, and Williams who have presided
over this decline still remain in office, unrepentant and who likely would make
the same mistakes all over again if voters will let them.

At the height of the "unipolar moment" of the 1990s and 2000s, a popular school of thought argued that the U.S. could use its unchecked power to do good on the world stage. When peace proved elusive after the fall of the Soviet Union, the world saw exceptionally deadly warfare and attempted ethnic cleansing erupt in Karabakh, the Congo, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia. If there was one power that could do anything about this, it was the United States.The primary ideologue of this push for humanitarian interventionism would become Samantha Power. A journalist and author of the influential book A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, Power argued that the U.S. and other liberal nation states should use military force to halt crimes against humanity in other countries. Nation-states have a responsibility to protect their citizens, and if they are found not be doing this, other states may then step in to do so should the situation continue to deteriorate. This principle was called "Responsibility to Protect," or "R2P," and it became so influential that it was adopted into the United Nations Charter in 2005.Two decades later, the concept has been shown to be both hypocritical and dangerous. As Israel bombs Gaza to dust, world elites have shown no interest in living up to their apparent responsibility to protect civilians. Contrast this with the response to Russia's war in Ukraine, in which commentators called for direct intervention to save innocent Ukrainians. And actual examples of R2P have led to disaster, as civilians in Libya can attest. Fortunately, there's a simple answer to this hellish problem: abandoning R2P once and for all.Who's protecting who?Power's line of argument masked the darker history of so-called humanitarian interventions. Both the Romans and Spanish, more than 1000 years apart, argued that their bloody conquests in Carthage and Central America would help the world by ending the practice of human sacrifice. In the 19th century, the colonial states of western Europe began to see their maritime expansion abroad not simply in terms of wealth and power acquisition but as an inevitable stage of human moral development. France and Britain in particular dove into Africa with the justification of putting an end to tribal wars and extirpating the slave trade. With economic and technological shifts, the same empires who had once expanded with shackles in hand now came, so they said, as liberators. Yet the result of this "liberation" was little more than violence and famine.Unfortunately, the lessons of this sordid history didn't stick. Barack Obama would end up recruiting Power for multiple roles in his administration. While Obama ran explicitly against the disastrous foreign policy of George W Bush in 2008, subsequent events related to the "Arab Spring" would see him continue if not expand these same policies, launching an overt regime change war in Libya (and a covert one in Syria) while intensifying U.S. operations in Yemen.It was in the Libya war that Power would see her dream fulfilled, when R2P was explicitly invoked to protect Libyan civilians in rebel-held areas from retaliation by the government of Muamar Gaddafi. This operation resulted in widespread state failure, a collapse of central authority, a massive refugee crisis, a resurgence of extremism in that country, and, most gallingly of all, the return of slave markets along the North African coast. It turned out that there are worse things out there than oppressive governments.R2P's reputation took a hit and receded from the discourse, at least until Russia's invasion of Ukraine gave it life once more. Some members of the press called for no-fly zones over the country, and politicians in NATO states debated if such ideas were feasible. Ultimately, they decided that it was not, given Russia's conventional capabilities, particularly in the field of anti-aircraft weaponry. There was also the inconvenient fact of Moscow having nuclear deterrence. Any attempts to create a safe area for Ukrainians using NATO military forces risked a level of escalation deemed unpalatable by most in the alliance. This clearly showed that R2P was only ever really meant to be used by great powers against smaller countries that could not defend themselves. It never had any utility against more robust foes. Interestingly, Moscow had picked up on the trick and justified its invasion of Ukraine using explicitly R2P-flavored rhetoric about protecting lives in the Donbass.The Gaza challengeThe current Gaza War is, by all the standards usually cited by humanitarian interventionists, a perfect case for invoking R2P. Rhetoric from some actors inside the Israeli state suggests that some form of population displacement is at least being considered. The incredible population density of the Gaza Strip means civilians bear the brunt of the violence. Lack of access to medicine and food exacerbates all of these problems.Samantha Power is the current head of USAID in the Biden administration. One cannot help but wonder what she thinks of the war currently unfolding in Gaza while she coordinates food shipments through Egypt's Sinai that are often held up at border checkpoints. For one so adamant that the U.S. must intervene whenever war disproportionately hits a civilian populace, she has been strangely silent.Meanwhile, Yemen's Houthis explicitly cite their own version of R2P to justify their attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. This shows the true future of R2P, if it is to have any — one of selective applications by great powers that muddy the waters around their wars in an attempt to gain media approval from within their alliance networks. As the world's balance of power inevitably moves into its more normal state of multipolarity, governments further undermine claims of ethical conduct in foreign policy, as states now have constant incentive to claim that their foes have a monopoly on human rights abuses. Inevitably, this will lead to all such claims being met with greater and greater skepticism by the global public, regardless of their factuality.Far from the centers of great power rivalries, the utility of R2P seems to be declining, as crises such as Myanmar and Sudan are assiduously ignored by the countries expected to be intervening, likely out of fear of being sucked into another Syria or Iraq and giving one's foes more opportunities to indirectly strike at stretched-thin tripwire forces.It is a trite observation to point out that great powers have different moral standards for their allies and their enemies, but R2P is a foreign policy doctrine entirely based on moralist claims. Not being able to live up to its own principles when a humanitarian crisis is unleashed by an allied country such as Israel is the last nail in the coffin for a thoroughly failed idea. We can only hope that a silver lining of this difficult moment in history is that we never have to hear about the Responsibility to Protect again.

In the past week, a pair of major stories have blown the doors off the dominant narrative about the Ukraine war, opening the possibility that a ceasefire — or even a peace deal — may be more achievable than previously thought.
The first comes from Politico, which reported Wednesday that American and European officials are "quietly shifting their focus from supporting Ukraine's goal of total victory over Russia to improving its position in an eventual negotiation to end the war."
The U.S. and Europe, according to Politico's sources, have already started to push Ukraine to shift toward defensive operations following a failed counteroffensive earlier this year — a shift that would focus on giving Kyiv a strong hand at the negotiating table.
The report suggests that President Joe Biden's recent comments about Ukraine having won "an enormous victory already" could be the first step in an effort to shift the narrative around eventual concessions. If the reporting is true, then the West is far more open to accepting the idea of territorial concessions in Ukraine than previously thought.
But, as Politico notes, a move toward a pro-negotiation posture will face substantial political difficulties given the Biden administration's previous insistence that it will defend Ukraine "as long as it takes" to achieve Kyiv's key aim of removing Russian troops from the entirety of Ukraine, including Crimea.
And, despite public pronouncements from the Kremlin that it's ready for talks, Ukraine and its strongest Western backers have long argued that they see no hope for negotiation until Russian President Vladimir Putin is removed from power. His goal, they argue, is nothing short of the full subjugation of Ukraine, and a negotiated peace would represent Chamberlain-style appeasement.
That brings us to the second story, which the New York Times (somewhat inexplicably) published on the Saturday before Christmas. Putin, the Times reports, has been signaling since at least September that he is ready for a ceasefire along the current lines in Ukraine.
A "senior international official" told the Times that Putin's public comments about the war are mostly bluster and that the Russian leader has shown consistent interest in pausing the war on current lines. A former Russian official confirmed that the Kremlin is content to stop the fighting as it currently stands but added that Putin is "not willing to retreat one meter."
Moscow's willingness to enter a ceasefire agreement is based on its view that average Russians, despite supporting the war effort in principle, would happily accept a "victory" that falls short of some of the Kremlin's professed aims, the Times reported.
Notably, this openness to talks is nothing new. According to the Times, Putin first signaled his interest in a ceasefire back in the fall of 2022, when a Ukrainian counteroffensive swept Russian troops back to the lines that have more or less held since. The revelation suggests that the Biden administration's long standing argument that there is no partner for peace in Moscow is, at best, misleading.
It also raises questions about what Mark Milley, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, knew when he argued in December 2022 that the war would likely not end in a decisive military victory for either side and that the time appeared ripe for a negotiated peace. Was this a clever response to Putin's overtures? The possibility is hard to ignore.
Taken together, these stories suggest that an opportunity is opening to pursue talks, whether quietly or in a more public forum, to bring this brutal war to an end after nearly two years of fighting. They are also a reminder of a common theme in modern war: No matter how long or hard you fight, you almost never achieve all of your stated goals.
Of course, neither of these stories bears on the thinking of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who has his own domestic issues to deal with and promises to keep. Of particular importance is his commitment to joining NATO, a move that Putin had sought to block by invading in the first place.
And, while Russians may be ready for an end to the war, the Ukrainian public has made clear its opposition to losing any territory. Russia's invasion has left Ukrainians so frustrated that they've even decided to move Christmas from January 7, the Russian Orthodox date, to December 25.
Just a few days ago, a majority of Ukrainians celebrated their first Christmas in December. "It's historical justice," a Ukrainian soldier told AP News. "We need to move forward not only with the world but also with the traditions of our country and overcome the imperial remnants we had."
In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:
— The blockade of Poland-Ukraine border crossings by Polish truckers could finally be coming to an end, according to Reuters, which reported Wednesday that Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk is making progress in his efforts to settle the dispute. The main issue is the truckers' demand that the European Union reinstitute a system of permits for Ukrainian trucks entering European territory that was suspended due to Russia's invasion and blockade of Black Sea ports. Though the current regulations will likely stay in force until at least June, the recent election of Tusk — a former president of the European Council — has reportedly facilitated talks to end the blockade, which some officials now say could be over before the new year.
— Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar met with Putin on Wednesday during a multi-day trip to Moscow, with talks focused on building a multipolar world order, according to the New York Times. Jaishankar's visit highlights India's unique place in international politics as a powerful state with strong ties to both Russia and the West. The Ukraine war was also reportedly on the agenda, though it is unclear if the diplomat broached the possibility of peace talks.
— Russia threatened a harsh response if the West follows through on its plans to seize Russian Central Bank assets stored in the United States, according to the Guardian. Among the options for retaliation are seizures of Western assets under Russian control or even a full breakdown in relations between Washington and Moscow.
— The Kremlin lashed out at U.S. claims that Russia rejected a prisoner swap, arguing that talks are "extremely delicate" and that a resolution to the issue could be "hampered by being actively discussed in public," according to Reuters. The comments confirm that talks are ongoing to secure the release of ex-Marine Paul Whelan and Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, both of whom the U.S. government considers wrongfully detained. The U.S. envoy for hostage negotiations told PBS that the U.S. is in frequent contact with both men and their families, adding that he hopes to "get them both at the same time."
U.S. State Department news:The State Department did not hold a press briefing this week.

Zwei Tage vor Weihnachten haben alle Länder den Entwurf zur Startchancen-Vereinbarung erhalten. Jetzt geht es für die Kultusminister darum, bildungspolitisch Farbe zu bekennen.





ES KOMMT NICHT OFT VOR, dass BMBF und vier Kultusministerien gemeinsam ein Schreiben an die übrigen zwölf Länder verschicken lassen, aber am Freitag, zwei Tage vor Weihnachten, ist genau das
passiert. Die Verhandlungsführer von Bund und Ländern, die seit Oktober die Bund-Länder-Vereinbarung zum geplanten Startchancen-Programm ausarbeiten sollten, meldeten Vollzug. Der Vertragsentwurf
steht, er ist geeint zwischen den Staatssekretären von Hamburg, Rheinland-Pfalz (für die SPD-Seite), Nordrhein-Westfalen und Schleswig-Holstein (für die Unions-Seite) und ihrer BMBF-Kollegin
Sabine Döring. 



 



Was bedeutet, dass die übrigen zwölf Kultusministerien einiges zu lesen haben in den nächsten Wochen. Doch haben sie dafür auch die nötige Zeit. Beigefügt war dem demonstrativ im Namen
von allen fünf Staatssekretären versandten KMK-Rundschreiben am Freitag nicht nur der Vereinbarungstext, sondern auch ein Zeitplan, wie man von der Einigung der fünf auf die
Einigung aller 16 Länder mit dem Bund kommen will. 



 



Man hat gelernt aus der verunglückten Präsentation der Startchancen-Eckpunkte, bei der den
übrigen Ländern nur wenige Stunden blieben, um zum Ergebnis der Verhandlungsgruppe "Ja" zu sagen – was zu reichlich Verstimmungen geführt hatte. Erst am 8. Januar sollen sich die vier
länderseitigen Verhandlungsführer bei einer Sonder-Amtschefkonferenz mit ihren Kollegen zusammensetzen, es folgen eine Sitzung der Arbeitsebene und dann sogar noch ein zweitägiger Workshop im
Berliner KMK-Sekretariat. 



 



"Die Ergebnisse der PISA-Studie haben überdeutlich gezeigt, dass der Handlungsdruck noch nie so groß war wie jetzt", sagte Bundesbildungsministerin Bettina Stark-Watzinger (FDP) am Freitag. "Wir
brauchen dringend eine bildungspolitische Trendwende, die gerade bei den Grundkompetenzen ansetzt."



 



"Belastbar und vorzeigbar" sei der Entwurf,
findet Hamburgs Senator Ties Rabe



 



Hamburgs SPD-Senator Ties Rabe sagte, er halte das Ergebnis der Verhandlungsgruppe, zu der sein Staatsrat Rainer Schulz gehörte, für "belastbar und gut vermittelbar", aber es sei eben erst ein
Ergebnis der Verhandlungsgruppe von SPD und CDU-Ländern, "jetzt kommt es darauf an, die Unterstützung aller Länder zu gewinnen."



 



Das freilich bleibt eine Herausforderung. Schon bevor die Verhandlungs-AG die Unterlagen verschickt hatte, verkündete Wilfried Kühner, Amtschef in Sachsens Kultusministerium bei
Bildung.Table: „Wenn über das Startchancen-Programm entschieden wird und es gibt keine klare Zusage des Bundes zum Digitalpakt, wird Sachsen nicht zustimmen können.“



 



Kühner ist einer der Verhandlungsführer bei den parallel laufenden Gesprächen zur Fortsetzung des Digitalpakts, die laufen Teilnehmern zufolge inzwischen inhaltlich gut. Doch besteht trotz des
Bekenntnisses von Bettina Stark-Watzinger, den Digitalpakt II zu wollen, völlige Unklarheit über die
Finanzierung. Bundesfinanzminister Christian Lindner (ebenfalls FDP) mauert mit Rückendeckung von Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz (SPD) – was alle Länder ärgert, doch ließen die
Unions-Kultusminister diesen Ärger zuletzt deutlich lauter raus: Sie müssen keine Rücksicht auf Ampel-Befindlichkeiten nehmen.



 



Doch während auch die Mehrheit der CDU-Länder wohl am Ende ohne Verknüpfung mit einer Digitalpakt-Zusage zustimmen würde, meinen mit Sachsen und Bayern mindestens zwei Länder ihr Entweder-Oder
bitterernst. Weil es für den Startchancen-Vereinbarung aber die Zustimmung aller Länder braucht, könnte es Ende Januar, wenn die Kultusminister laut Zeitplan die Fassung unterzeichnen sollen, zu
einer absurden Situation kommen: Das Programm fiele durch, obwohl alle mit dem Startchancen-Verhandlungsergebnis zufrieden sind – weil zwei Länder wegen des Digitalpakt-Konflikts "Nein"
sagen. 



 



Bei der Kofinanzierung können
sich die Länder Vieles anrechnen lassen



 



Konfliktverschärfend war, dass Stark-Watzinger neulich in der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Sonntagszeitung sagte, sie wünsche sich eine Grundgesetz-Änderung, "die eine Zusammenarbeit zwischen
dem Bund und einem Teil der Bundesländer erlaubt". Eine "Koalition der Willigen" schwebe ihr vor, sagte die BMBF-Chefin ohne konkreten Bezug zu den Startchancen, aber doch deutlich in Richtung
der unwilligen Länder Bayern und Sachsen gemünzt.



 



Inhaltlich kann sich der Entwurf der Startchancen-Vereinbarung sehen lassen, zumal die letzte große Kuh, die Frage der Kofinanzierung durch die Länder, vom Eis geholt wurde. Ja, die
Länder müssen eine Milliarde pro Jahr auf die Bundesmilliarde drauflegen und damit 50 Prozent des Programms bestreiten, wie es die Bundesregierung einseitig zum Grundprinzip für alle künftigen
Bund-Länder-Programme erklärt hatte. "Es gibt Länder, für die kommt das aufgrund ihrer Haushaltssituation schlicht nicht in Betracht", hatte zuletzt Schleswig-Holsteins CDU-Bildungsministerin
Karin Prien gewarnt.



 



Jetzt lautet die Lösung, dass die Länder sich bei der Kofinanzierung alles Geld anrechnen lassen, das sie ohnehin schon im Sinne der Programmzwecke, also für die Unterstützung benachteiligter
Schulen, aufwenden. Was in den meisten Fällen bedeuten dürfte, dass sie höchstens teilweise frisches Geld in die Hand nehmen müssen – selbst dort, wo es anders als in Hamburg oder
Schleswig-Holstein noch keine Startchancen-Vorläuferprogramme gibt. Was die Länder allerdings nicht dürfen: Geld, das sie an anderer, nicht vergleichbarer Stelle ins Schulsystem stecken, für
die Startchancen umwidmen. Es muss also eine echte Ländermilliarde für benachteiligte Schüler werden. 



 



Ansonsten steht im Vereinbarungsentwurf alles zu Programmablauf, Programminhalten, Förderbedingungen, Mittelverteilung oder Finanzströmen, was von Bedeutung ist – und größtenteils schon in den
Eckpunkten beschrieben wurde. Zusammen mit den verschiedenen Besprechungsrunden und dem Workshop im Januar scheint es immer noch ambitioniert, aber gut möglich, dass die Fachebenen der 16
Kultusministerien alle Details miteinander durchsprechen, unter Beteiligung von Juristen und Haushaltsexperten offene Fragen klären und zu einem Ergebnis kommen, woraufhin in der Woche ab 22.
Januar Länder und BMBF noch letzte Hand an den Vertragstext legen wollen.



 



Am Ende ist es keine Sachfrage mehr,
sondern eine politische Entscheidung



 



Nur geht es am Ende gar nicht mehr um eine Sachfrage, sondern um eine politische Entscheidung. Und diese politische Entscheidung ist keine, die in erster Linie von der Parteizugehörigkeit
der jeweiligen Kultusminister abhängt, sondern von zwei Fragen: Welches Land bekommt wieviel raus bei den Startchancen, und welches Risiko ist man bereit, im Ringen um den Digitalpakt mit dem
Bund noch einzugehen?



 



Dabei fällt auf, dass Bayern und Sachsen ausgerechnet diejenigen Länder sind, die relativ wenig sozial benachteiligte Schüler haben – also subjektiv weniger auf das Startchancen-Geld angewiesen
sind. Aber genau wie alle anderen Länder wollen sie unbedingt, dass die Bundesförderung beim Digitalpakt weitergeht. Nur weil sie der Meinung sind, dass für sie weniger auf dem Spiel steht bei
den Startchancen, fühlen sie sich stark genug, ein Entweder-Oder, ein Junktim, aus beiden Paktverhandlungen zu machen. 



 



Nur: Ist das klug? Was, wenn der Bund, der seine Haushaltskrise nicht einmal halb überwunden hat, trotzdem bis Ende Januar keine verbindliche Digitalpakt-Zusage macht? Platzt dann
Startchancen-Vereinbarung, könnte es das gewesen sein – und die Länder am Ende mit keinem der beiden Programme dastehen. Wie wollte man das verkaufen vor den enormen öffentlichen Erwartungen an
einen bildungspolitischen Ruck nach den miesen Pisa-Ergebnissen? Es wäre eine weitere Blamage für den
Föderalismus – gefördert von eben jenen Ländern, die besonders auf ihre Bildungshoheit pochen.



 



Mit der Faust in der Tasche



und dem Spatzen in der Hand



 



Das sind die Argumente, die die meisten Länder, auch unionsregierte, wohl zum Unterschreiben bringen werden. Man könnte sagen: mit der Faust in der Tasche und dem Spatzen in der Hand. Und auch
Bayern und Sachen sollten es am Ende tun, aus eigener bildungspolitischer Verantwortung, aber auch aus Solidarität mit den Bundesländern, die stärker auf die Startchancen angewiesen sind.



 



Und das BMBF? Sollte sich nicht die Hände reiben, wenn Bayern und Sachsen, was zu hoffen ist, bis Ende Januar die Kurve kriegen. Sondern als Verpflichtung begreifen, noch härter für den
Digitalpakt II zu streiten. Es wäre bildungspolitisch fast schon eine Katastrophe, vor allem für viele klammen Kommunen, wenn der Bund sich entgegen der Zusage im Ampel-Koalitionsvertrag aus der
Finanzierung der digitalen Bildung zurückzöge. Es wäre eine Blamage für Bundesbildungsministerin Stark-Watzinger und ein zukunftspolitischer Offenbarungseid nicht nur für Finanzminister Lindner.
Sondern das Zeichen, dass Bundeskanzler Scholz alle Plädoyers seiner Parteichefin Saskia Esken für mehr Bildungsinvestitionen herzlich egal
sind. 



 



Was zeigt: Nicht nur die Länder haben in Sachen Digitalpakt viel zu verlieren, sondern der Bund auch. Weshalb die Botschaft klar ist: Zeit zum Unterschreiben bei den Startchancen.




Kostenfreien Newsletter abonnieren




In eigener Sache: Blog-Finanzierung














Wie dieser Blog finanziell aufgestellt ist, warum er Ihre Unterstützung braucht – und welche Artikel im November am meisten gelesen
wurden. 



 



Mehr lesen...

With opinion polls showing Donald Trump ahead of Joe Biden in the 2024 race, Washington policymakers are contemplating the possibility of another Trump administration.No doubt there would be dramatic changes in U.S. foreign policy. Including, it appears, in Washington's approach to North Korea.As Politico reported: "Donald Trump is considering a plan to let the Democratic People's Republic of Korea keep its nuclear weapons and offer its regime financial incentives to stop making new bombs, according to three people briefed on his thinking." This would overturn decades of international insistence that the North eschew nuclear weapons, commonly called CVID: complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement/denuclearization. Until now, questioning this policy triggered wild wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments among Korea-watchers.The conventional wisdom is that Washington must stand firm — until the end of time, or beyond, if necessary — despite the growing North Korean nuclear arsenal. Pyongyang has enough fissile material to make at least 45-55 weapons, and perhaps twice that number, though estimates vary widely. Moreover, the DPRK continues to add nukes. One controversial study warned that the North could amass as many as 242 weapons in the next few years, which would place it ahead of Israel, Pakistan, India, and the United Kingdom.Virtually no one believes that Pyongyang will denuclearize. Only South Africa, with just six weapons (and another being constructed), has eliminated an existing arsenal. Almost certainly disarming the DPRK would require either defeat or collapse of the Kim dynasty. Regarding North Korea, fantasy has seemingly become policy.However, it appears that Trump is prepared to overturn conventional wisdom when it comes to Pyongyang — again. After threatening war in 2017, he turned to summitry with Kim Jong-un, a switch widely denounced in Washington. Distrust of Trump as a negotiator was pervasive, with the greatest fear that he would succeed and agree to something other than CVID. After the 2019 Hanoi summit collapsed without a deal, Kim appears to have decided that Trump was unwilling to agree to sanctions relief without a commitment to full denuclearization. The former then ended his dialogue with the US (and South Korea).Biden continues to insist on CVID, instructing the DPRK not to conduct another nuclear test. Despite his proposals for contact, which at times came perilously close to begging, Kim has refused to talk. Rather, the latter is expanding North Korea's nuclear capability, testing ballistic missiles, launching satellites, developing submarine-launched and tactical weapons, and threatening first use of nukes. These efforts may now be aided by Russia, which is relying on the North to provide artillery shells and perhaps more for the Ukraine war.The future looks no better. Last year after the Supreme People's Assembly enshrined the North's nuclear status in law, Kim declared that "As long as nuclear weapons exist on Earth, and imperialism and the anti-North Korean maneuvers of the US and its followers remain, our road to strengthening our nuclear force will never end." This policy, he added, is "irreversible." He is likely strengthening his nuclear deterrent to prepare for talks with Washington — presumably offering to trade nuclear limits for sanctions relief.Policymakers almost uniformly reject this course since arms control won't deliver denuclearization, Washington's preferred outcome. However, the result still would be better, likely far better, than Pyongyang continuing to augment its stockpile and replacing Pakistan as a global Nukes 'R Us. However, that doesn't matter to critics.Some simply insist that the North cannot have nuclear weapons. Of course, it shouldn't have them, but successive U.S. presidents repeating that point have left North Korea as an undisputed nuclear state. Another argument is that dropping CVID would undermine the nonproliferation regime. However, the DPRK's possession of nuclear weapons, not America's recognition of that reality, poses the real nonproliferation challenge. Another claim is that the Republic of Korea and Japan would doubt Washington's commitment to denuclearization of the North. But Washington's attitude matters little if North Korea rejects that objective. Alliance cooperation does not require blinkered dogmatic futility.For some analysts the greatest fear is that acknowledging the North's nuclear status would fuel ROK support for an independent nuclear deterrent. Again, pretending that the DPRK does not possess nuclear weapons does not make them disappear. Washington's hapless CVID policy will not comfort South Koreans worried about nuclear threats from the North and Washington's willingness to respond militarily.Indeed, the latter poses the biggest problem for today's Ostrich policy. Since everyone knows Pyongyang is expanding its arsenal and means of delivery, the critical question is what to do in response. South Koreans might accept the pretense that CVID is a serious objective so long as Washington is willing to risk the American homeland and potentially millions of American lives to defend the South in the event of war.Alas, the "Washington Declaration," which grew out of South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol's visit to the US, engaged in magical thinking. Announced the two governments: "The ROK has full confidence in U.S. extended deterrence commitments and recognizes the importance, necessity, and benefit of its enduring reliance on the U.S. nuclear deterrent." Wonderful rhetoric, and hardly surprising, given how well the two presidents got along. However, the more and more sophisticated North Korea's armaments, the less credible this policy becomes.The DPRK is not going to launch a first strike on America. Indeed, absent U.S. security guarantees to and troops in the South, Pyongyang would pay little more attention to Washington than to Brussels or, frankly, to New Delhi or Sydney. However, the U.S. is prepared to strike the North, and in the event of war almost certainly would attempt to overthrow the Kim dynasty. Hence, Pyongyang's desire for an expansive deterrent — a mix of tactical and strategic weapons, with the latter distributed among submarine- and land-based missiles, the latter sporting multiple warheads. What American president then would be so reckless and irrational to put South Korea before the U.S.? Defending the ROK, a country well able to protect itself, is not worth risking millions of Americans' lives.In short, no amount of presidential karaoke is likely to preserve confidence in extended deterrence once Pyongyang credibly threatens the U.S. homeland. The best way to at least moderate the North Korean nuclear threat would be to abandon the CVID campaign and instead promote arms control, meaningful and verifiable limits on the DPRK's program in exchange for sanctions relief. And to do so sooner rather than later. At least, setting realistic objectives would be more likely to yield success. And if diplomacy restrained the North, Washington could resurrect CVID in future negotiations. Perhaps North Korean policy, leadership, or regime will eventually change. Donald Trump's foreign policy mistakes were many, but on the North's nuclear challenge he has been farsighted compared to most foreign policy analysts. That continues with his reported willingness to deal with the DPRK as it is, not how everyone wishes it were. North Korea is a nuclear state. It is time to confront that reality.

It's that time of year, and despite all the budgetary drama unfolding on Capitol Hill, lawmakers have already finished most of their holiday shopping for their favorite children: Pentagon contractors. Through cryptic "program increases" to the defense budget appropriations for fiscal year 2024, most with no listed author and little to no justification, Congress has added more than $25 billion to the Pentagon's procurement and research accounts for fiscal year 2024. Based on the continuing resolution that Congress passed in November, Congress has until February 2 to either pass another stopgap measure, or pass a final Pentagon spending bill, at which point we should be able to see which program increases make the cut. If history is any indication, almost all of them will be in the final bill.In the meantime, a new database created by Taxpayers for Common Sense reveals each of these program increases, whether they fund projects that weren't funded at all in the Pentagon's budget request, and whether they fund projects requested in Unfunded Priorities Lists (UPLs), extra-budgetary wish lists that Congress requires military service branch and combatant command leaders to submit to Congress each year.The numbersLawmakers on the House Appropriations Committees got to work early, adding 479 program increases for a combined $9.5 billion. When their Senate counterparts got to work, they included 636 program increases in their bill worth nearly $15 billion — so all in all 1,115 program increases. Broken down by bill section, there were 172 increases for procurement between the House and Senate at a cost of $14 billion, and 943 for research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) at a cost of $10.5 billion. When the House version of the Defense Appropriations bill came to the floor, lawmakers added 11 more program increases for procurement, and another 90 for RDT&E, for a combined $1.1 billion.While these kinds of adds are nothing new, their numbers do seem to be growing, particularly in the RDT&E category. In fact, the number of RDT&E top-ups has grown by 72% in the past four years, from 600 for FY2021, to 776 for FY2022, to 996 for FY2023, up to 1,033 for FY2024. More troubling still is that 1,010 of the total 1,216 increases, or $14.5 billion of the $25.7 billion lawmakers have added to these accounts, are for projects the Pentagon didn't fund at all in its budget request.Are they earmarks?According to Congress, these increases aren't earmarks, but in practice, they often serve the same purpose and are not subject to transparency reforms traditional earmarks have faced since 2007.Traditional earmarks, rebranded by Congress as "congressionally directed funding" or "community project funding," support projects that fund a specific entity for a specific purpose in a specific place. This made them a favored tool for lawmakers to funnel taxpayer dollars into their district or state. But these earmarks come with rules, requiring members to put their names on them, and in the House's case, requiring members to list their earmarks on their websites. Program increases are not bound by these rules. They have no name attached (apart from amendments, which list their sponsors) and generally lack any accompanying justification. In the Senate Appropriations Committee report on the Pentagon spending bill, a section on "funding increases" stipulates that "funding increases shall be competitively awarded, or provided to programs that have received competitive awards in the past." So Congress seems to differentiate these increases from earmarks on the basis that they're competitively awarded, unlike traditional earmarks. In practice, that rationale breaks down.Next-gen earmarksOne program increase allocates $2 million for "urban subterranean mapping technology," a fancy name for tunnel detection. This increase has appeared in every Pentagon spending bill since FY2020, for a total of $17 million over five years, but there's almost no publicly available information about this project. That is other than Sen. Joe Manchin's (D-W.Va.) regular celebrations of funding for West Virginia-based Marshall University to research urban subterranean mapping technology in press release after press release after press release after press release, all of which were published before the funds they celebrate were formally awarded.Some adds are even more blatantly noncompetitive. In the House, someone added $7 million for "Omniblast water sensor technology." If that sounds weirdly specific, it's because it is. The Omniblast water sensor is a trademarked product, owned by a company called Advanced Materials and Devices (AMAD), Inc. It goes without saying that program increases for patented products can only be fulfilled by the patent owners, so AMAD Inc. is more than a shoe-in for any "competitive" award process. And while AMAD Inc. was awarded a contract for "a wearable underwater blast sensor" in 2022, it was the only bidder, suggesting a not so competitive process in the past.As to whether this funding, like an earmark, is meant to serve the political interests of a specific lawmaker, we can't know for sure without knowing the author. But AMAD Inc. is based in Reno, Nevada, in the district of Rep. Mark Amodei's (R-Nev.), who sits on the House Appropriations Committee. While AMAD Inc. hasn't made any political contributions to Rep. Amodei's campaigns, it did spend $150,000 on lobbying in 2022, and $120,000 on lobbying in the first three quarters of 2023, expenses paid to a lobbying firm called Cornerstone Government Affairs. Cornerstone donated $3,000 to Rep. Amodei so far in the 2024 election cycle, its first time contributing to any of his campaigns.Unjustified adds, unjustifiable secrecyAsked about these program increases, a Senate Appropriations Committee staffer pointed to the unfunded priorities they fund as a justification. But there are two problems with that argument. One is that Unfunded Priorities Lists (UPLs) are just that: unfunded, meaning the Pentagon didn't find them important enough to include in its $826 billion request. Almost by definition, items on these UPLs are non-priorities for the Pentagon. The second problem is that UPLs only accounted for about $1.9 billion of the $25.7 billion lawmakers added to the Pentagon's request for procurement and RDT&E. The staffer also argued that the Pentagon sometimes "relies upon congressional increases to keep production lines open or to sustain readiness of the military." This tack obfuscates the fact that for a lot of the funds Congress adds, it subtracts funds from elsewhere in the Pentagon budget. While the offsets for the committee adds are as opaque as their authors, the offsets listed in amendments overwhelmingly raid the Pentagon's Operations and Maintenance account. That's Congress' prerogative, but lawmakers can't raid O&M to pay for procurement and research adds and then say with a straight face that those adds are about supporting military readiness.All this isn't to say that none of these projects are worth funding. There's more than 1,200 of them, so surely some are. But with the lack of transparency for who requests and approves them, whether the funds are competitively awarded, and whether they align with any cogent national security strategy, who's to say? If lawmakers think cramming another $25 billion for procurement and research into a $826 billion budget of an agency that just failed its sixth audit is worthwhile, they should at least let us know who's adding what and to what end.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to deny the war in Ukraine could have been ended mere months into the Russian invasion — and that the U.S. and U.K. governments worked to prevent this from happening. The latest piece of corroboration comes courtesy David Arakhamia, the parliamentary leader of Zelensky's "Servant of the People" party who led the Ukrainian delegation in peace talks with Moscow. Arakhamia told journalist Natalia Moseichuk in a recent televised interview that "Russia's goal was to push us to take neutrality," meaning to commit to not joining NATO, and that "they were ready to end the war if we accept neutrality."There were several reasons the negotiations ultimately collapsed, he said, including the need to change the Ukrainian constitution (which had been amended in February 2019 to enshrine the country's NATO aspirations), and the fact that Johnson had come to Kyiv to inform Ukrainian officials the West wouldn't sign any agreement with Moscow, instead urging: "let's just fight."Arakhamia also said that Kyiv's lack of trust in the Russian side to fulfill its end of the bargain meant that the peace deal "could only be done if there were security guarantees" — suggesting, obliquely, that negotiations could have borne fruit had they received the backing and involvement of NATO states. Western governments' provision of security guarantees for Ukraine have long been part of the discussion for how to ensure the sustainability of a post-war peace deal, and in fact, Arakhmia himself disclosed in the same interview that "the Western allies advised us not to agree to ephemeral security guarantees."The interview corroborates claims first reported in May 2022 by the broadly Western-aligned Ukrainska Pravda outlet — which reported that Boris Johnson told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky the West wouldn't support any peace deal regardless of what Ukraine wanted, and they preferred to keep taking the fight to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who was less powerful than they had thought. Johnson had himself confirmed, albeit not in so many words, in a phone call to French President Emmanuel Macron that he had urged Zelensky against peace.All of it lends further weight to multiple accounts over the course of the past 21 months that have claimed Ukraine and Russia were on the brink of peace, but were blocked by NATO states eager for a prolonged war that would weaken Russia and possibly destabilize it.Former U.S. national security official Fiona Hill reported the two sides had reached a tentative peace deal the same month of Johnson's surprise visit to Kyiv, while former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, and several Turkish officials — all of whom were involved at various times in the talks — have said that NATO officials stopped or undermined negotiations. Multiple U.S. reports documented a divide in NATO, with the United States and U.K. reportedly heading a faction of states who preferred a longer war than a sooner peace. Historian Niall Ferguson reported overhearing an unnamed U.S. official say in March 2022 that "the only end game now is the end of Putin regime [sic]."What's particularly notable is how dramatically these disclosures contrast with the overwhelming thrust of two years' worth of mainstream discourse on, and analysis of, this war. Until recently, both NATO officials and commentators across the political spectrum insisted that negotiations with Moscow were impossible and that the war could only be ended by pursuing victory on the battlefield, usually by pursuing Kyiv's maximalist aims of reconquering all of the territory it had lost since 2014. (According to reports, the tentative agreement reached last April would have seen Ukraine exchange neutrality for a Russian withdrawal to its pre-February 2022 borders). Voices who called for a diplomatic resolution were ignored or viciously smeared, as was anyone who said that Ukraine's possible entry into NATO was at the heart of the conflict, and that adopting neutrality could help end the war. There is now a mountain of evidence backing both of these claims. In fact, Arakhamia's interview further drove home the point about NATO membership. "They actually hoped until nearly the last moment that they could press us into signing this agreement, adopting neutrality," he said in the interview. "That was essentially the main point. Everything else was cosmetic and political embellishments about 'denazification,' the Russian-speaking population, blah blah blah." There are several key takeaways here. One is that Americans, and indeed all Western publics, should be far more skeptical in future of claims from officials and commentators that diplomatic solutions to conflicts and negotiations with adversarial governments are impossible or ineffective, and that military solutions are the only answer. Indeed, we've seen virtually the same arguments deployed against peace talks between Israel and Hamas — a conflict that recently saw a successful temporary ceasefire and hostage exchange — just as we saw them deployed in previous conflicts that likewise ended with successful negotiations. Another is the carnage that could have been prevented. It was only a few months after negotiations were scuttled that Zelensky admitted Ukraine was losing between 60 and 100 soldiers every day. By August this year, U.S. estimates of Ukrainian casualties, which are an official state secret, stood at nearly 200,000, including 70,000 killed. Amputations among Ukrainians have already reached a comparable scale to that suffered by Germans and Britons over World War One, in a fraction of the time. Besides this death toll, the prolonging of the war has meant profound economic, demographic, and even territorial losses for Ukraine. Finally, the effort to prevent peace talks from bearing fruit put not just more Ukrainians in danger, but the entire world. After assuring the U.S. public in February that they needn't fear nuclear war with Russia, by September, President Joe Biden was privately warning that the world was the closest it had been to "Armageddon" in sixty years. The nineteen months that followed the failure of Russian-Ukrainian peace talks saw several near-misses that could have turned the war into one between Russia and NATO, one that would likely escalate to a nuclear confrontation.The decision not to seriously pursue a viable diplomatic solution to the war in Ukraine has been a disaster for that country and its inhabitants. The only mild consolation is that it could offer a vital lesson for the United States and other NATO states to apply to and prevent future conflicts — if we dare learn it, that is.Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn't cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraft so that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2024. Happy Holidays!

The situation along the Lebanese-Israeli front continues to escalate as Hezbollah and the Israeli military intensify cross-border operations. Despite the escalation, the Lebanese Shiite movement's strategy appears unchanged — to force Israel to divert substantial military forces from its Gaza offensive against Hamas without provoking a full-blown war with the Jewish state. Against this backdrop, Hezbollah's stance ironically appears to align with the Biden administration's goal of preventing a wider conflict as Israel continues its campaign against the Palestinian movement in Gaza.A new phase of escalation on the Lebanese-Israeli frontTensions between Hezbollah and Israel have peaked following an Israeli airstrike that targeted a civilian car in south Lebanon. The November 5 attack, which Human Rights Watch denounced as "an apparent war crime," led to the death of a woman and her three grandchildren, prompting retaliation from Hezbollah that led to the death of one Israeli civilian near the northern town of Kiryat Shmona. That incident marked the first time the Lebanese movement appeared to deliberately target Israeli civilians in this latest round of cross-border fighting.The situation has sharply escalated since then, with Israel bombing a hospital in the southern Lebanese town of Mays Aljabal, leaving one person wounded. Hezbollah meanwhile carried out a -border missile attack that left over 20 people wounded, including at least seven Israeli soldiers.The Lebanese Shiite movement's leader Hasan Nasrallah meanwhile announced that Hezbollah has upped the tempo and tactics of its cross-border operations. In his second address since the beginning of the war in Gaza, Nasrallah declared last Saturday that the Shiite movement has raised the level of its military action "in terms of the number of operations, targets and the type of weapons." This, he explained, included the use for the first time of "Burkan" missiles which have a higher explosive impact, in addition to suicide drones.Nasrallah stops short of declaring warImportantly Hezbollah's leader, while announcing the escalation at the tactical and tempo levels, did not declare a change to the movement's overall strategy since the beginning of the conflict in Gaza. This strategy, as explained by Nasrallah himself in his previous speech, aims to overstretch the Israeli army by forcing it to divert military resources towards the Lebanese front, thereby preventing Israel from using its full military power to destroy Hamas. Discussing the overall situation on the Lebanese-Israeli front, he stated that "this front would remain active."Nasrallah's apparent reluctance to open a major new front with Israel is consistent with his general strategy of not initiating conflict. Following the July 2006 war, he famously stated that he would not have authorized the capture of two Israeli soldiers, which initiated the conflict, had he known it would lead to war on Lebanon itself.Sources close to the Lebanese movement emphasize that preventing a new Israeli war on Lebanon is a major factor in its approach to the current conflict in Gaza."Hezbollah will not drag Lebanon into a destructive war unless Israel imposes such a war," explained one source close to Hezbollah who spoke on condition of anonymity. According to a second source who also enjoys close ties to Hezbollah's leadership, the movement's posture proves it places a high priority on Lebanon's national interests. "Hezbollah is behaving as a Lebanese rational actor that attaches great importance to Lebanese national interests," he stressed.This argument serves to counter the image of Hezbollah as a proxy of Iran. Both Lebanese and foreign critics of the movement depict it in such a manner, but the movement itself rejects this characterization, insisting instead that Tehran plays a mere supportive role.While Hezbollah has previously hinted that a Hamas defeat would be a red line that would provoke a more aggressive approach against Israel, Nasrallah appeared to pin his hopes on growing international pressures to prevent such a scenario. "We see thousands of people in Washington, New York, London and Paris protesting against Israel" he stated, adding that support by Western governments for Israel's ongoing war in Gaza was declining.The Lebanese Shiite movement also appears aware of the danger of Israel dragging the United States into a broader regional conflict. According to the first source, Hezbollah, as things stand, will not engage in any actions that would be understood as a declaration of war that would permit Israel to fulfill its longstanding dream of forcing the United States into a larger war against Israel's regional enemies. "There are American military assets and aircraft carriers deployed in the region" he emphasized, warning that this "increases the danger of Israel dragging the U.S. into a regional war."Israel escalates its threats against LebanonSenior Israeli officials meanwhile have threatened Lebanon with a Gaza-like scenario. Following Nasrallah's latest speech, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant warned that Hezbollah was playing a dangerous game that could elicit a devastating response."What we can do in Gaza, we can also do in Beirut," he asserted during a tour of the Israeli northern front.Such statements, in addition to Israeli military action on the Lebanese front, appear to have sparked new fears in Washington. According to media reports released immediately following Gallant's remarks, U.S. Secretary of Défense Lloyd Austin expressed his concerns regarding Israeli escalation against Lebanon during a phone conversation with his Israeli counterpart.Concerns over broader escalation reflect the Biden administration's policy of preventing a widening of the conflict in Gaza to Lebanon and elsewhere in the region. Biden's senior adviser for energy and infrastructure Amos Hochstein recently visited Beirut where he held talks with high-ranking officials that focused on preventing a spillover of the conflict into Lebanon.Austin is better placed than most in the current American administration in understanding the potentially catastrophic repercussions of full-scale war on the Lebanese-Israeli front. Having served as both head of U.S. forces in Iraq and the region more broadly as head of U.S. Central Command, the Pentagon chief is no doubt well acquainted with the significant clout Hezbollah enjoys with regional players like the Houthis in Yemen and Shiite armed groups in Iraq.Nasrallah himself alluded to this, stating that operations targeting U.S. military assets and personnel launched from Iraq and Yemen would stop if Washington pressured Israel into halting its offensive in Gaza. "If you Americans want to stop these operations, you must stop the war in Gaza," he declared.Viewed against this backdrop, Hezbollah's leader was effectively sending a message to Washington offering to rein in his allies in Yemen and Iraq if the Biden administration would do the same with its Israeli ally.The U.S. administration also appears to fear being dragged by Israel into a broader regional war. According to Joshua Landis, the head of Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma and a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute, concerns regarding escalation on the Lebanese front stem from fears that Israel may seek to ignite the situation there as international pressures increase for a cease-fire."Biden has compromised the U.S. position through his outright support for Israel's objectives," he said in an interview with RS, adding that "Austin and other senior officials may be concerned that Israel will take this as a green light to widen the conflict which would endanger U.S. troops." Some U.S. bases in Syria and Iraq have come under increased rocket and missile fire from pro-Iranian Iraqi Shi'a militias since the launch of Israel's offensive in Gaza and elsewhere in the region.

The long-anticipated move by leftist MP Sahra Wagenknecht to form a new left-populist party opens the prospect of a more active debate within Germany on the policy course taken by the now highly unpopular coalition of Social Democrats, Greens and liberal Free Democrats (FDP).The potential appeal of this new party will depend largely on whether voters agree that the policy of supporting Ukraine is responsible for Germany's economic downturn.Party ConfigurationThe German political scene has evolved in recent decades away from the alternation in power of the center right Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and the center left Social Democrats (SPD), often with the FDP in coalition with one or the other of these, to present a spectrum of parties including the center left Green party, the far-left Die Linke (the Left) party and the right-wing nationalist Alternative for Germany (AfD).With the lone exception of AfD, these parties all broadly support Ukraine's war effort, until Ukraine itself is ready to seek a negotiated settlement. CDU/CSU support now stands at 29.4%. The AfD comes second with 21.2%. Support for the three governing parties together has fallen to 35.6%. The AfD's spectacular rise in polls seems to many analysts to suggest a generalized dissatisfaction with the status quo, and not necessarily the sudden conversion of many Germans to far-right extremist views. Wagenknecht has called this a "representation gap," one that her party would seek to exploit. The long-anticipated announcement on October 23 of the launch of a new party led by Die Linke MP Sahra Wagenknecht makes the course of German politics much less predictable. Even more than the AfD, the new party foregrounds its opposition to the prevailing stance on the war in Ukraine. Antiwar politics and the "representation gap"A majority of Die Linke's Bundestag delegation has backed tough sanctions against Russia, while still opposing weapons exports to Ukraine. Tensions within the parliamentary delegation grew as Wagenknecht, in public and in the Bundestag, assailed the sanctions policy and called for the opening of negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. The party has hovered since the last election just below the 5% threshold of support needed to win representation in the Bundestag. The breaking away of Wagenknecht and her nine colleagues from the Die Linke faction reduces that party to a parliamentary group, rather than a faction, affecting its funding and other prerogatives in the Bundestag.Wagenknecht and the nine other Die Linke MPs who have joined her effort to form the new party have provisionally named it the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance. They plan to have the party officially formed and ready to contest the European Parliament elections of June 2024 and three state elections in Saxony, Thuringia, and Brandenburg (all in the former East Germany) later next year. This timing seems well chosen: European Parliament elections are typically favorable to smaller parties, and many voters in the eastern states are, for various reasons, favorable to the Wagenknecht initiative. A snap poll reported on October 31 found that 14% of voters could imagine themselves voting for the new party. This would immediately place it in fourth place, behind the CDU/CSU, AfD, and the SPD, and ahead of the Green party. The new party's impact would be felt mostly on the AfD, but would attract support from all parties other than the Greens and Die Linke itself. Wagenknecht's stated aim is to fill a "representation gap," which means her party will seek to represent those German voters who do not support further arming of Ukraine and who favor efforts to settle the conflict through diplomacy. Evidence of the existence of this gap is the spectacular rise of AfD which began just after Russia's invasion in February of 2022 (when AfD support stood at 9.5%) and more recent polls placing AfD support above 20% since mid 2023. As of March of this year, about 30% of Germans found the arming of Ukraine to have been excessive, and a small majority — 52% — said diplomatic efforts to end the conflict had not been adequate. More recently, a majority (52%) opposed providing Taurus missiles to Ukraine.Wagenknecht's anti-war popularityWagenknecht has been an MP since 2009 and was co-leader of Die Linke in the Bundestag from 2015 to 2019. Born in East Germany, she became active after 1989 in the post-communist Party of Democratic Socialism, initially heading its leftmost, avowedly communist wing. The PDS merged with disaffected leftists of the west German SPD in 2007 and became Die Linke, which for some time enjoyed some electoral success, including in western Germany. Former SPD leader and finance minister, Oskar Lafontaine, was co-founder of Die Linke and is Wagenknecht's husband.Because of her frequent appearances on political talk shows, Wagenknecht is fairly well known to the German public. Often the lone dissenter against the prevailing posture on Ukraine, her arguments are always persuasive, articulate and above all dispassionate. She is a controversial figure, but one that remains among the most popular German politicians. A recent poll showed her finishing third behind Defense Minister Pistorius and CSU leader Markus Söder in national approval ratings.Ukraine War positions: AfD and WagenknechtAlthough AfD's published program states that there can be no viable security order in Europe that excludes Russia, this issue is not often emphasized in their appeal to voters. By contrast, Sahra Wagenknecht's notoriety is entirely wedded to her very public antiwar stance. In February 2023, Wagenknecht joined Alice Schwarzer, a leading anti-war activist and editor of the feminist journal EMMA, to put forward a Manifest für Frieden (Manifesto for Peace) and inviting signatures online.The antiwar demonstration in Berlin on February 25, led by Wagenknecht and Schwarzer, attracted participation by about 10,000 people, but did not produce the momentum that the organizers might have hoped for.Wagenknecht has called herself a "conservative leftist," faulting Die Linke with having built its support base among younger, urban progressive voters while allegedly neglecting voters of the working class. This dispute has taken the form of a contest between an identity vs a class basis of leftist politics. Wagenknecht argues for the refocus of the left on defense of the interests of the German working class. She has sounded some caution about what she sees as excessive openness to flows of migrants.What does it mean?The launch of organizational efforts to form Wagenknecht's new party opens the prospect of a more active debate within Germany on the policy course taken by the weak governing coalition. Wagenknecht has stated that she and her party will not cooperate with AfD. The AfD made a very strong showing in recent state elections in the prosperous western states of Hesse and Bavaria, suggesting that its own potential is not confined to eastern Germany. By filling a tempting "gap" in German politics, the Wagenknecht alliance could endeavor to to curb the rise of AfD.

Western officials are starting to broach the idea of peace talks with Russia as the situation on the ground in Ukraine has devolved into a stalemate, according to a major new report from NBC News.American and European diplomats reportedly used a recent round of talks in Malta to encourage Ukraine to consider what concessions it may be willing to make — a significant shift from the public messaging around the summit, which was largely framed as an opportunity to build support for Ukraine's maximalist peace plan.Officials are now privately referring to the situation on the ground as a stalemate, and some "have privately said Ukraine likely only has until the end of the year or shortly thereafter before more urgent discussions about peace negotiations should begin," the report notes.A State Department spokesperson denied NBC's reporting on Tuesday, reiterating the administration line that "nothing should happen about Ukraine without Ukraine" and saying that the U.S. is "not aware of any conversations with Ukraine about negotiations outside of the peace formula structure that you've already seen a number of engagements take place on."The news comes at a difficult time for Ukraine as the world's attention has largely turned toward Israel and Palestine, where weeks of intense fighting has left Gaza in a humanitarian disaster. The West's differing reactions to the two conflicts have further complicated efforts to bolster Global South support for Ukraine.In the United States, President Joe Biden is now attempting to link $14.3 billion in aid for Israel to an additional $61.4 billion in funding for Ukraine, a move that House Republicans have so far rejected. The chances that there will be a gap in American funding for Kyiv have continued to grow as a potential government shutdown looms later this month.And in Europe, many leaders have begun to move away from full-throated support for Ukraine given the stalling efforts on the battlefield and the economic impact on the continent. Even Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who has staked out a distinctly pro-Ukraine stance since taking office earlier this year, told Russian pranksters posing as African Union officials that "there is a lot of fatigue" in Europe due to the war."We [are] near the moment in which everybody understands that we need a way out," Meloni added.None of this guarantees that Russia is prepared for talks. Some experts argue that Russian President Vladimir Putin sees a chance to wait Ukraine and the West out through a war of attrition, a serious possibility given the extent of Ukrainian losses (the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is now reportedly 43 years old) and the relatively low appetite for future funding among Republicans in the U.S.In fact, Russia appears to have already leaned into this approach with its renewed bombing campaign against Ukrainian energy infrastructure, a move that could cause blackouts across Ukraine during its often brutal winter.If Russian President Vladimir Putin does end up pursuing his advantage, Ukraine's strongest boosters may be kicking themselves for ignoring the advice of more skeptical voices, including former Joint Chiefs head Mark Milley, who said late last year that the winter could provide "a window of opportunity for negotiation.""There has to be a mutual recognition that a military victory is probably, in the true sense of the word is maybe not achievable through military means, and therefore you need to turn to other means," Milley said.As Branko Marcetic recently argued in Compact, the consequences of ignoring Milley's advice may be severe."[J]ust as pro-peace voices had warned, Ukraine is now looking at the worst of both worlds: accepting a far inferior peace deal, while having weathered the tremendous human and economic costs of a prolonged conflict," Marcetic wrote. "Most perversely, [Kyiv] has been put into this position by those who postured as its most ardent supporters, the hawks who thought of the war as a way of humiliating Russia on the cheap."In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:— The European Union executive recommended Wednesday that Ukraine start formal talks to join the bloc as soon as next year if it completes the necessary reforms for membership, marking one step closer to Kyiv joining the EU, according to Reuters. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called the move a "historic step," though it does not completely clear the way for Kyiv, which will still have to convince holdouts in Hungary and now potentially Slovakia that Ukraine should be permitted to join the EU.— The foreign ministers of the Group of 7 (G7) reaffirmed their "steadfast commitment to supporting Ukraine's fight for its independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity" following a series of meetings in Japan on Tuesday and Wednesday, according to Al Jazeera. The group, which was keen to swat down the argument that events in Gaza have pulled their attention away from the war in Ukraine, also held a virtual discussion with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba. G7 members include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union.— Russia formally withdrew Tuesday from a post-Cold War treaty limiting the deployment of conventional weapons in Europe, drawing condemnation from NATO, which will now suspend its participation in the pact, according to Reuters. Moscow, which said the decision was a result of NATO's eastward expansion, had already stopped active participation in the treaty in 2015.— Egypt may give military equipment to Russia after reportedly reversing a decision to sell missiles to Moscow earlier this year, according to the Wall Street Journal. After the missile deal was scuppered, the report says, Russian officials asked Egypt to give back 150 helicopter engines that it had previously sold to Cairo in exchange for forgiving some Egyptian debts and guaranteeing a continued supply of Russian wheat to the country. The report, which cites three people "with knowledge of the incident," says that Egypt has agreed to the terms and the engine shipments could begin next month.— On Thursday, Russia struck a civilian ship in a Black Sea port near Odessa, Ukraine, raising questions about the safety of a new shipping corridor that Kyiv put in place following Moscow's withdrawal from the Black Sea grain deal, according to Reuters. The blast killed one crew member and injured four others. Ukraine played down the incident and said shipping traffic continues "despite Russia's systematic attacks on port infrastructure."U.S. State Department news:In a Tuesday press conference, State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel defended Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's decision to delay elections, arguing that Russia's occupation of large swathes of Ukraine and its continual bombing of civilian targets would make a fair vote impossible. "We also have made clear with our Ukrainian partners our commitment to supporting not just Ukraine in its fight but our commitment to support a careful and constitutional approach to keeping democracy strong in wartime," Patel said.

Can an opera about drone warfare sponsored by a weapons maker ever really be considered "antiwar"? The head of New York's Metropolitan Opera certainly thinks so.Peter Gelb, the Met's general manager, said earlier this year that he feared a growing "misperception" that the new opera "Grounded" fails to provide a nuanced take on the costs of war. If that view took hold, Gelb lamented, "the work would be somehow tainted before anybody ever got a chance to see it."When I first saw Gelb's comment, I admit that I took it to heart. I had helped spin up an online controversy with a piece that slammed "Grounded" as militarist propaganda. My (brief) argument relied on two facts: The show's main sponsor was weapons contractor General Dynamics, and its primary advertisement was teeming with blithe comments about its "hot shot" pilot lead who, after having a baby and being relegated to the role of a drone operator, "tracks terrorists by day and rocks her daughter to sleep by night."The Washington National Opera, which is putting on the show's first production on the Met's behalf, responded by toning down the ad and highlighting that General Dynamics — the maker of main character Jess's beloved F-16 fighter jet — was the sponsor of the season, not just the show, and had no direct input on the production.I couldn't help but wonder if I had unfairly skewered a well-meaning attempt at conveying the horrors of war, so I took Gelb's warning as a challenge and secured a media ticket, promising myself and my editors that I would give the show a fair shake. (If you plan to see the opera, beware of spoilers ahead.)I'll start with the good. The show, which was composed by Jeanine Tesori and written by George Brant, featured massive, high definition LED screens that streamed captivating visuals of the view from a drone's camera and the desert road that Jess drove home from her base near Las Vegas. The vocal performances, to my ear at least, were excellent, led by an outstanding Emily D'Angelo in the role of Jess."Grounded" is at its best when it details the very real and very under-recognized trauma that drone operators experience through their work. When Jess kills a group of militants who were planting an improvised explosive device (IED), her confidence wavers when she sees their charred remains and slowly watches their heat signature disappear from her camera's view — something she never had to do in her fighter pilot days.Jess's worlds gradually collapse upon each other as she tracks a sedan that looks eerily like her own, and the line blurs between her world and the war, with any visible camera liable to set off a bout of paranoia that she is next on the kill list. The performance destroys the myth that drone warfare is more of a video game than real combat, and in so doing gives voice to the pain that drone operators often experience as a result of their service. As the program notes, drone operators are diagnosed with PTSD as frequently as their fighter pilot colleagues.But, in focusing narrowly on the personal struggles of a drone operator, "Grounded" dodges more profound questions about America's endless wars, which continue today in Niger, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and whichever other countries the Pentagon would rather not say it's operating in. (For those keeping score at home, this is the start of the "bad" section.)Like much supposedly "antiwar" work, "Grounded" falls short by restricting its critique to the conduct of war rather than its very nature. As Samuel Moyn has written in these pages, each side of the debate over U.S. military interventions "bicker[s] over how far to go in making ongoing war more humane, against the background of ongoing American militarism — even as questions about whether, where, and how long war is fought are relegated to the margins."In fact, "Grounded" goes further at times by suggesting that Jess's work as a fighter pilot was in some way more moral — or at least less psychologically tortuous — than her days as a drone operator. This suggestion will come as a surprise to the many American pilots who have returned from the frontlines of the Global War on Terror with PTSD, as well as the innocents who were all too often killed in the crossfire.Much like the film "American Sniper," the show urges us to sympathize first and foremost with the person whose finger rests on the trigger. "Grounded" reaches its climax when, after tracking a high-value target for days, Jess is ready to fire on him until his daughter suddenly emerges and runs toward him. Our "hot-shot" friend panics when she sees the girl's face — in implausible HD — and crashes the Reaper instead of taking the shot. The child in the crosshairs only becomes human when compared to Jess's own daughter, who earned a life free from fear of random immolation the old fashioned way: being born in America.These shortcomings are in part explained by the fact that the opera is an adaptation of a one-woman show, which by its nature would focus closely on the emotions of its protagonist. But the operatic version of "Grounded," which is twice as long as its predecessor, still struggles to find a place for the inherent humanity of civilians caught up in far-off killing fields.Even Jess's tragic ending — a court martial that will no doubt lead to a long sentence for destroying an expensive drone — fails to strike a resounding antiwar note. In the end, the show devotes far more energy to showing the eeriness of war than any of its deeper flaws and causes.Some shots of sleek Reaper drones verge on war porn. "Grounded" is peppered with long, fawning descriptions of the drone's cameras and missiles, which seem designed to make the audience salivate over the cutting edge tech that will finally — finally! — make war a moral endeavor.And while the special effects are remarkable, they felt tailored toward another great myth of American militarism: the so-called "revolution in military affairs," which allegedly made it possible to conduct war with made-for-TV precision. We're asked to believe that Jess knows exactly what she is firing at and chooses not to — far less disquieting than the reality, in which drone operators often shoot at vaguely understood targets that all too often contain civilians.In other words, "Grounded" musters an interesting critique of the hagiography of American warfare, but, by spending most of its time describing that idealized view, the show never bothers to imagine an alternative to endless war.Prior to the performance, an ad above the stage thanked General Dynamics for its generous sponsorship of the opera season. As I walked out, I couldn't help but wonder if General Dynamics was thanking them back.

The Eurasia Group Foundation's latest survey report, titled "Order and Disorder: U.S. Foreign Policy in a Fragmented World," covered a range of issues from sanctions and arms sales to drone strikes and the war in Ukraine, and it contains several notable findings about how Americans perceive different aspects of U.S. global engagement. According to the report, Americans are very open to diplomacy with hostile powers, but they are also supportive of going to war with China to a disturbing degree. One of the chief findings is that Americans are broadly in favor of direct diplomatic engagement with adversaries and even more support negotiations with Iran on the nuclear issue. According to the poll, two-thirds of Americans favor negotiations with adversaries even if they are responsible for human rights abuses, authoritarian governments, or home to terrorist organizations, 77% support continued nuclear talks with Iran, and 58% of Americans also want the U.S. to push for a negotiated settlement to end the war in Ukraine. Support for diplomatic solutions has majority backing of Americans from across the political spectrum, so it is remarkable how little support for those same solutions can be found among our elected representatives and policymakers in Washington.Some of the report's findings are unsurprising. There is a partisan divide over Ukraine policy with Democrats tending to be much more supportive of the administration approach than Republicans and Republicans are the most hawkish when it comes to China. But perhaps one of the most surprising and significant results is the extent to which Americans of all political camps now say that they support direct intervention in a war over Taiwan. Other surveys in recent years have found that roughly 40% of Americans back direct U.S. intervention in the event of a Chinese attack, but the EGF survey found that overall support for intervention is at 60%. That may be the result of rising tensions between China and Taiwan and the ongoing deterioration of relations between the U.S. and China over the past year since former House Speaker Pelosi's ill-advised visit to Taipei last summer. It may be caused by the constant drumbeat of anti-China rhetoric from members of both parties. It could be some combination of all three. Regardless, this represents a significant increase in public support for going to war over Taiwan, and that suggests that the public does not fully grasp how costly and dangerous such a war would be. Support for intervention is relatively soft with most of the supporters saying that they only "somewhat" support sending U.S. forces to help defend Taiwan, but it can't be denied that this is a major shift in U.S. public opinion in the last ten years. It is a measure of how dominant hawkish groupthink on China policy has become if a majority of the public now says that they support waging a major war with a nuclear-armed adversary.The public is split almost exactly in half over whether the U.S. should sell arms to other countries. Fifty-three percent believe that the U.S. should stop selling arms. The finding on arms sales is striking because the question refers only to "selling arms globally" without saying anything about the governments that are purchasing them. Most Democratic and independent respondents say that the U.S. should not continue arms sales, and even 48% of Republicans say the same. While this opposition to arms sales is likely influenced by debates over arming Saudi Arabia and other abusive authoritarian governments, it is important to note that the respondents are rejecting all arms sales no matter where they are going.While Americans are divided over the desirability of arms sales, most are generally fine with U.S. sanctions and for some reason believe them to be an effective policy tool. Just over 60% of Americans overall said that sanctions were "always" or "often" an effective tool, and only 39% said that they were "rarely" or "never" effective. That is somewhat surprising given the repeated failures of sanctions, especially broad sanctions, to achieve stated policy goals and the extensive humanitarian harm that they cause to target populations. Where would so many Americans get the impression that sanctions are an effective tool when they clearly are not? It is hard to say, but perhaps one reason for this view is the constant use of sanctions as the default government response in so many different places. It could be that the public assumes that sanctions must be effective or else they wouldn't be imposed so frequently. When they were prompted by the government's many different reasons for imposing sanctions, perhaps the respondents concluded that the tool must be useful if it is being used to address so many issues. The responses to the question on sanctions were among the most disheartening in the entire survey, because they are so divorced from reality and show no awareness of the terrible track record that economic sanctions have. Independent respondents were least likely to say that sanctions are an effective policy tool, but even here the pro-sanctions view narrowly prevailed. The public's unfounded confidence in the efficacy of sanctions is not a new development, but it is another obstacle to efforts to rein in and possibly end the use of economic warfare. One of the more encouraging results was the narrow majority support for repealing the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). Fifty-four percent say they favor repealing the authorization, with support for repeal being strongest among Democrats (56%) and independents (62%). Two out of five Republicans agree that the authorization should be repealed. It is significant that they did not mention passing a new authorization to replace the old one. Most Americans appear to be done with the "war on terror," and they want to get rid of the authorization that has been used to fight it.Two years after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the public still has a generally negative assessment of the war. Most Americans understandably conclude that the war was a failure, and 30% believe that the war had a failed mission from the start. Another 32% say that the war should have ended following the death of Osama bin Laden. Only 13% believe that the withdrawal hurt U.S. credibility, and that shows that very few people in the country buy the bogus credibility argument that hawks have been selling all these years.The findings in the EGF survey point to some promising areas for policy reform. There seems to be fertile ground for pursuing AUMF repeal and a major overhaul of U.S. arms sales. Unfortunately, there are other policies, including sanctions, that will require a lot more work in terms of educating the public and changing how Americans understand these issues.

 I know that I should not even bother to engage with such things, but I saw someone retweet this from Christopher Rufo on X-Twitter. I think that it is revealing about two fundamental different ways of thinking about diversity and differences in a university. First, as Judith Butler states in the video posted below (11:49), that classes in women and gender studies are filled with debate and discussion. This is something that I think anyone who has been in a classroom would probably agree with. I would argue that it extends that it goes beyond gender studies to other subjects of supposed indoctrination such as critical race theory or even Marxism. Christopher Rufo's response to this is to focus not on what happens in such classrooms, he has probably never been in one, but to cite some supposed fact that faculty in gender and interdisciplinary studies are 100% left. I am not sure what he means by that, or if he is including all interdisciplinary programs, but I am going to assume that the left he is referring to is voting patterns, since that is an obsession of many critiques of higher education. 
One could say if one wanted to be generous that what we have is two different ways of thinking of what difference means. Butler focuses on the differences internal to the classroom, the debates and discussion of issues of gender and sexuality, and Rufo focuses on voting, on what happens outside of the classroom. If one wanted to be generous one could call this a differend, in Jean-François Lyotard's sense, a disagreement about the terms of disagreement itself, about what it means for something to be the same or different. That is too generous, however, it is more like a bait and switch. The right's critique of indoctrination in the classroom often uses activity and speech outside of the classroom as a supposed indicator of internal classroom dynamics. Voter registration of faculty is supposed to be an indicator of what and how people teach. Or, to take another example, a faculty members activity outside the classroom, a tweet or protest, is taken to be an indicator of their bias in the classroom. I have even had this happen to me in which my blog, this one, was offered as evidence of my supposed bias in teaching. Just to be clear, if your argument about faculty bias or indoctrination looks to such evidence as faculty voter registration, tweets, political engagement or other activity outside of the class as evidence then you have not proven what you claim to prove. That does not stop people from using this standard. I even know of faculty who have internalized this standard, who curtail their own political activity so as not to appear biased, to be objective. I have heard of political science professors who refuse to register with a party or donate to candidates for fear of appearing biased. Academic freedom and free speech are confused enough to curtail each. The focus on electoral politics also explains one of the ongoing obsessions of the right wing pundit sphere. There is a whole niche publishing market of books arguing that liberalism, Marxism, postmodernism, critical race theory are all THE SAME. I believe that Christopher Rufo even wrote such a book.  Such a claim is demonstrably false from the perspective of the respective histories, ontologies, and epistemologies of different political ideologies. It does, however, make sense on one level and that is the one thing that all these different politics and philosophies have in common is that they are not likely to vote Republican. All of these shoddy, intellectually dishonest, and often anti-semitic books about the secret history of Cultural Marxism and Critical Race Theory are all attempts to give an intellectual basis to a rather Schmittian distinction of friend versus enemy, to prove that everyone who is against you is actually part of the same conspiracy. That your enemies are enemies of freedom and rationality itself. The focus on voting registration or party affiliation also seems to carry an odd assumption that the political makeup of any activity, any institution, or group, should reflect the overall division of the US. That unless a college major, or discipline, is roughly thirty percent Republican and Democrat, with forty percent unaligned or uninterested in the whole thing, it must be because of indoctrination. It seems odd to suppose that every part of society should function as a microcosm of the society. Would one also assume that all rifle clubs, churches, country clubs, and so on must reflect society at large? Which brings me to the last assumption of this overanalyzed tweet, and that is a causal one. It is assumed that the uniformity of voting or party affiliation, or whatever other paltry measure, of a department of discipline is an effect of what happens in the classroom. That is the supposed indoctrination. As Spinoza argues, however, one of the fundamental aspects of imagination, of what we could call ideology, is confusing effects for causes. I can only speculate here, but I can imagine that maybe the students who sign up for a gender studies course, or women studies, might already have a politics that corresponds with their interest. The same thing could be said for a course on global warming or the history of civil rights or any other issue seen as indoctrination, the students are already educated, already engaged, before they enter the classroom. To put it bluntly, a party that has made ending abortion rights (not to mention in Florida the persecution of gay, lesbian, and trans people) part of its central platform should not be surprised that a women studies or gender studies course has no members in it. All of this obsession with the political make up of different major and disciplines is happening at the same time that one party is openly declaring hostility towards knowledge about science (climate change, Covid), history (slavery), society (gender), and even current events (the 2020 election). I stress open hostility, because the other party, the Democratic Party might declare that climate change is real, but that does not mean it is going to do anything about it--active nihilism versus passive nihilism. Universities seem ill equipped to deal with this assault, maintaining their standard neutrality towards "both sides" of any issue, but this neutrality towards politics on part of the institutions of knowledge is being confronted by a politics that is anything but neutral with respect to knowledge.