NATO 2024 Summit: Rampant Hypocrisy

 By Bob Travica

The NATO 75^th annual summit occurred on July 9-11, 2024 in Washington D.C., USA. The war in Ukraine, which has been running since February 2022, dominated the agenda. The war in Gaza, which started in October 2023, wasn’t on the agenda. Around 11,000 civilians died in Ukraine, and at least three times that number in Gaza. The former started with Russia’s response to NATO’s advancement to its borders, and the latter began with Israel’s reaction to small-scale attacks on Israel proper by fighters from Gaza (two million strong Palestinian territory within Israel, which Israel sealed from the land and sea). Russia’s war is against Ukraine’s policies of endangering Russia’s borders, while Israel’s war is against the entire Gaza population (not just the Hamas government’s military) whom most Israelis deem a lower race and terrorists. Russia wants a neutral Ukraine, whereas Israel wants an ethnically cleansed Gaza for Israeli settlers. There are accusations of Israel being an apartheid state by many, including free-thinking Israelis, as well as genocide allegations. But these alarming characteristics of the Gaza war didn’t compel NATO to put it on the agenda. Neither did the similarities between these two wars.

[ “NATO calls out the U.S., as the decisive enabler of Israel’s war on Gaza, to cease all material and political support to Israel’s war effort.” 

The NATO declaration could've read like this, had Gaza been on the agenda,         but it was not. ]

Both the Ukrainian and Israeli governments are backed by the Western powers, most notably the U.S. Both get Western weaponry, surveillance on the battlefield, military training, etc. Neither war would be possible to sustain for longer without the support of NATO countries. Therefore, they could make an impact on the Gaza war should they wish so. Moreover, both wars destabilize large geographical and geopolitical spaces, pose significant security threats, and violate the values alleged by NATO (peace, freedom, stability, democracy, rule of law). Still, NATO remained mute on the Gaza problem as there’s no single cite of “Gaza” or “Israel” in the summit’s declaration (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_227678.htm). Abundant shouting and rambling about Ukraine happened beside the elephant in the room with the inscription “Gaza”. The aging military alliance chose to celebrate its jubilee in furnishings of smoke and mirrors, covered by hellish-red domes.

Peons on the Eastern Flank

No observer has paid attention to the racial dimension in the Ukrainian war. Russia is the largest Slavic nation (144 million), and Ukraine is the third (38 million). In between lies Poland (40 million) which plays a major role in NATO’s eastward expansion and support to the Kyiv government. In this war, the West succeeded in turning the second and third-largest Slavic nations against the largest one. This is important because there are differences in decision-making stemming from cultural differences between Slavs and Western races (Germanic and Latin).

Roughly speaking, an elevated emotionality outweighing rational reasoning pushes Slavs toward extreme decisions. Specifically, Ukrainian officials don’t balk at the prospect of dragging the world into an all-out war in order to beat Russia; in fact, they invite this! Getting Ukraine into NATO at wartime, would mean that 32 NATO countries would have to come to rescue, no matter that this would most likely cause a devastating nuclear war that would first wipe out Ukraine itself. This standpoint isn’t just irrational but it borders with an intelligence insufficiency.

Enter Poland. It shows eagerness to fight Russians by all means, for example as being the top dog in the American push toward an integrated NATO missile defense system. Throughout its history, Poland had been sandwiched between Russia, Prussia, and Austria, and parts of it were chopped off. So, Poles’ animosity toward the conquering powers was coming in tides. It was turned against Germany which started WWII by attacking and occupying Poland (1939-1945). As Germany lost the war, sympathy turned toward Russians/Soviets who defeated Germans. Poland’s capital was promoted into the formal center of the military alliance of the Eastern block of communist countries: In 1949, the Warsaw Pact was established in response to the formation of NATO. But the period until the disbanding of the Eastern Block germinated an animosity against the former liberators, who over time came to be viewed as occupiers. Since the 1990s, the Polish tide of animosity targeted Russia, while the West (including Germany) was embraced across the board (economy, geopolitics, popular culture, military strategy). A desire for “revenge” against Russia became the backdrop to Poland’s foreign policy and is visible to the naked eye in Poland.

Note that Poland holds grudges against Ukraine due to some territorial disputes and still vivid memories of atrocities that Ukrainian Nazis, serving under the German flag, committed against Poles in WWII. But it appears willing to neglect this temporarily for the sake of the larger vengeful cause. Similarly to Ukraine, it appears that Poland is awaiting the U.S. cavalry to come and deal justice by killing the big bad bear. To the extent that Poland would be targeted by Russia’s nuclear arsenal early on in a war between NATO and Russia, Poland’s decisions aren’t less irrational than Ukraine’s. (Or they may be an effect of film-binging westerns after decades of deprivation.)

Ave, Caesar, Morituri Te Salutant

What about Russia? It certainly fits the Slavic emotional pack: the culture of protecting the grand motherland has been meticulously nurtured across generations of Russians. Even Stalin, a Georgian by nationality, understood that when his propaganda machinery crunched slogans of defending the Russian motherland against Germans in WWII rather than the Soviet Union or communism. There’s no better way to consolidate the Russian nation into a formidable fighting force than with the help of a real foreign threat; Mongols, Swedes, French, and Germans know a thing or two about this. The more NATO presses against Russia’s borders, the more it plays into the hands it tries to cut off.

Cold-blooded decision-makers in NATO’s decision rooms know how to account for nationalistic sentiments in decision-making. In the familiar divide and conquer approach, such a sentiment is an instant yeast for fomenting problems and providing self-serving solutions for them. Eager ears and willing bodies of executioners are ready, awaiting marching orders. Those ready to die are greeting you, Cezar! Cezar of our days, the aged Yankee, who’s six years older than NATO, demonstrated at the NATO summit how he still draws fatal Cold Warrish energy from sending young men to die on the battlefield.

And so, the NATO summit dropped the topic of the devastating war in Gaza, since the master said so. However, it poked China for being “a decisive enabler of Russia’s war against Ukraine through its so-called ‘no limits’ partnership and its large-scale support for Russia’s defence industrial base.” NATO even dared to call out China “to cease all material and political support to Russia’s war effort.” Had Gaza been on the Summit’s agenda, the NATO declaration could also read something like this: “NATO calls out the U.S., as the decisive enabler of Israel’s war on Gaza, to cease all material and political support to Israel’s war effort.”

The key conclusion of NATO’s summit is the promise to Ukraine that it’s on an “irreversible path” to future NATO membership. Ukraine is dissatisfied as there is no clear timetable for this promise, which is actually 20 years old. In fact, there has always been a timetable: Keep fighting against Russia until you reach the line where you fall dead (“deadline”, as ordinary people call it). Too cynical? No, just realistic: Only while being outside NATO can Ukraine be manipulated as an obedient fighting peon to keep straining and weakening Russia. Therefore, the US/NATO will keep fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian. 

As for the Kyiv regime, it can only hope that NATO will continue footing the war bill indefinitely or get tricked somehow to finally engage fully in the war. In any case, such a decimated Ukraine would eventually not be militarily worthy for inclusion in NATO. As for the democratic, economic, and security reforms required again for the membership, the road can even be much longer. It is no secret that Ukraine shares the destiny of the corrupted countries in East Europe, characterized by a strange mix of state, business, and organized crime structures. Therefore, the deadline for joining NATO is practically - never! It would be beneficial for Ukrainians, who awfully suffer, that their government start thinking realistically and cutting losses before these become unbearable. 

The 75^th NATO summit confirmed its historical roots – it’s an instrument of the American empire for holding Europe in a semi-colonial status. The degree of servitude Euro members exhibited by dropping the Gaza topic proves this. Israel is in Europe's backyard and wars in the Middle East endanger Europe's security. The summit also confirmed a newer principle set with the cessation of the Cold War, when NATO transformed into a hot war-mongering alliance. Isn’t this 75^th anniversary also the 25^th anniversary of NATO’s first war of aggression on a sovereign country, FR Yugoslavia? That’s when champions of the New World Order trampled over the international law and global security guaranteed by the United Nations, and imposed an “order” based on “rules” (the champions’ arbitrary decisions). At that point, the history wheel was turned back to the Middle Ages because the master could sue you, and the master could judge and sentence you.

Vivere mori! Live and die much faster with NATO as a custodian of international security.

Gazan Theater of Absurd: Executioner Playing Victim

By Bob Travica

I wouldn't change any point I made in my previous blog on Israel's invasion of Gaza weeks ago (1). Some things have changed though - both for better and for worse. As for the better, Israel's assessment of killed Israelis (used as the pretext for the aggression) was lowered by 200 down to 1,200; there was a temporary ceasefire with a release of around 100 hostages from Gaza and around 240 Palestinians from Israel's jails; and global humanity has spoken in favor of ceasefire, via mass protests and UN resolutions.

But there has been bad news too: the number of killed in Gaza went from 11,000 to over 18,000 (70% children and women), and Israel's relentless air campaign moved to the South of Gaza, which is packed with Gazans previously pushed from the North; everything collapsed in Gaza – the health system, infrastructure, and economy. Fighting guerilla-style fighters with an overwhelming military power, Israel's military is systematically turning Gaza into an unlivable rubble, torturing and massacring 2.3 million people. While apparently with no wider international support for this old-style colonial onslaught, Israel still has the support of the U.S., which keeps blocking ceasefire demands in the UN, and the EU, less decisive in support but still aboard. This is also bad news as well as is the survival of Israel's right-wing government: it is responsible for not preventing the October 7 massacre in Israel, cares not about hostages and human life on either side, tramples moderate Israelis,  and adamantly imposes an ethnic cleansing strategy on Gaza.

I finished my previous blog by citing a 2009 statement by Tel Aviv professor of social psychology Bar-Tal: "An analysis of the present situation indicates that except for a small minority, which is capable of looking at the past with an open mind, the general public is not interested in knowing what Israel did in Gaza for many years, why Hamas came to power in democratic elections; how many people were killed in Gaza from the disengagement (in 2005)…" (2)

In the present blog, I'll continue from this point.

Superiority of Eternal Victims

Bar-Tal's comment echoes today's situation. The minority he referred to is alive but less visible. Mainstream media rarely cover this side of happenings. However, social media transfer clips of Orthodox Jewish priests protesting against Israel's aggression in Gaza (3). There are videos of police beatings of anti-war protesters in Tel Aviv. Former Israeli soldiers are speaking against the war and some prominent public speakers are in agreement. However, reasonable Israelis with moderate political views are still marginalized. And so the question remains: Why is the general Israeli public not interested in knowing what Israel did and does now in Gaza? How come they can be blind and deaf to the unprecedented slaughter their military is committing upon their Arab civilian neighbors? Anytime Israeli officials or ordinary people are confronted with such horrific facts via social media, they resort to recalling the October 7 massacre, emphasizing graphic details as if the Gaza slaughter still pales against the magnitude of the crimes of Hamas/Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The well-known journalist and public speaker Gideon Levy provides an answer. He's argued for years that Israelis succumbed to "euthanasia of consciousness" over the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. This is caused by deep beliefs that Jews are (1) chosen people, (2) the greatest and the only victim, and (3) superior to other people. (4) These three beliefs could be understood as being central to Israel's culture, defining the relationship between local Jews and a broad social environment and their place in history. Taking this as the lens, it may be possible to understand the attitudes and practices of Israelis who deviate from the moderate minority mentioned above. I recommend watching Levy's speeches for examples, and here are mine.

At the moment, some observers in the West agonize over the realization that half of the air bombs dropped on Gaza are "dumb" munitions designed to destroy indiscriminately whatever they hit. Why does Israel do that - wonder various commentators? The answer may be simple: Check Belief #3 above. The current government looks at Arabs/Palestinians as a lower race, sub-human, or as PM Netanyahu labels it "children of dark" who endanger "children of light" (Jews/Israelis). In my previous blog, I cited other derogatory, racist terms with which Israeli officials shower over the public. The superior people sentenced the inferior people to torture, purge, and annihilation, so the volume of casualties is irrelevant. An unpleasant reminiscence of what Jews experienced under Nazis in WWII.

In the U.S., some university administrators have been accused of tolerating anti-Semitism on university campuses; some were forced to resign by invisible players. Careful analysis of each act of students' political activism is undoubtedly needed to separate concern for basic humanity and civilian life from hate of Jews. But just listening to representatives of Jewish organizations reveals a belief that any opposition to what the official Israel is doing equals anti-Semitism. Why so? See Belief #2. Jews are always the victim, even when they victimize others.

A case in point: the UN is regularly accused by Israeli and Jewish officials for not condemning sufficiently October 7 crimes and for not initiating war crimes/genocidal proceedings over the terror inflicted on Israeli women, among other things. In a recent interview, an Israeli official asks herself why the UN acts that way and offers an answer: "Because those women are Jewish!" Again, the victim mentality surfaces as an instant explanation that preempts the space for odd details, analysis, and all that wasting of time.

I've argued from the start of this war that Israel's government has never had the liberation of hostages as a key goal. I reasoned that the invasion of Gaza was a way of covering up incompetence and mistakes that led to the security catastrophe on October 7. Instead of being sacked, Netanyahu becomes an irreplaceable war chief as long as the war runs. Then, the hostage release via negotiations happened and exposed the official swearing in the military solution to the hostage problem as a spin. The military hasn't liberated hostages, but killed three just recently, and who knows how many in total on October 7 and in Gaza tunnels. Therefore, hostages have never been a priority, and the Israelis with euthanized consciousness may not even blame the government for that. According to cultural belief #2, Jews always fall victim, and hostages are just one instance of such a destiny.

Chosen People

Belief #1, being God-chosen people, draws roots in the ancient Jewish religion: Jews are the people to whom God revealed himself and made a binding promise (covenant) with that they lead the world to the ultimate establishment of divine sovereignty over all humankind. The chosen people get rewards and punishment from God, and endure in the exclusive godly mission, waiting for the arrival of God's messiah and realization of absolute divine sovereignty. (5)

This belief may have helped Jews to survive in the diaspora under difficult and sometimes genocidal conditions; as well, it could have pushed capable individuals toward exceptional achievements of universal value. But it acquires a darker side when melted with political agendas. In particular, that of Zionism, a political movement that originated in the 19^th century in Europe, aiming at gathering Jews back in the ancestral land - today's  Israel/Palestine. Zionism unraveled a delicate balance between Jews and Arabs in the region.

After long Turkish rule was replaced by British control over Palestine, Jews from Europe poured in; in 25 years, their massive immigration changed the proportion of Jews to Arabs from 1:4 to 1:2 (6). Brits accommodated Zionists' strategy to get Jewish financial support for the U.K. effort in World War I (1914-1918); their rule in Palestine was filled with Jewish-Arab conflicts. Subsequently, Zionism was baked into the foundations of the modern Israel state and shaped its history. It triumphed right away with the expulsion of 700,000 Arabs from their homes in 1948 (nakba). Aggressive Zionism peaked again with the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 by an Israeli settler, because Rabin worked toward the two-state solution (creating separate states for Jews and Arabs). Zionism has carried out Illegal Israeli settlements onward, but it took a hit with the government-arranged migration of Israelis from Gaza in 2005.

Last year, right-wing parties entered the government in coalition with Netanyahu's Likud party. Newly appointed National Security Minister Ben-Gvir, and Minister of Finance/Minister in the Defense Ministry Smotrich don't hide that Gaza is to be ethnically cleansed by expelling Palestinians to Sinai in Egypt and grabbing the land there for Israeli settlers. Smotrich heads the Religious Zionism Party which claims the entire region for Israel, based on an alleged religious mission (7). Orthodox Jewish priests consider the whole construct to be rubbish (3).

At the time being, however, Israeli extremists do manipulate the chosen people belief and claim the redemption of Gaza. The Israeli public is taken hostage by the extremist government, which stirs up pain and anger toward bloodthirsty revenge. Consequently, the chosen people are shocked at the world's denial of Israel's self-proclaimed right to do whatever it wants with Gaza, and can rationalize this only through the mantra "We are always the greatest and only victim!"

Follow the Money: Qatar, Hamas, and Chosen People

How come Qatar emerged as the key negotiator (alongside Egypt) in the hostage exchange? (Note: Palestinians in Israel's jails are also hostages since they've been jailed by the Israeli occupational force, and Israel has used them in bargaining for releases of captured Israelis in the past.) Qatar has been providing financial aid to Gaza for quite some time. It took over the support role and its money has covered civic and military needs in Gaza. This was done with the full awareness of Israeli authorities.

The eye-opening investigative reporting by the New York Times exposes the strategy of the Netanyahu governments to play Hamas against Fatah, the key political forces among Palestinians, with the chief goal of disabling the two-state solution (8). Palestinians are made to keep head-butting for power, while settlers grab more land in the West Bank and the Zionist agenda gradually comes to a full fruition. To these ends, Netanyahu's Israel assisted in the money transfer to Gaza, although some Israeli politicians and security officials objected. The more the chaos - the better, that's part of the old playbook for all aspiring autocrats. These developments have been missed by Western politicians and "experts" who fire at Iran as the main culprit behind the October 7 tragedy. (Note that Iran is a Shia theocracy that props the militant organization Hezbollah, while Hamas is a nationalist organization with no religious agenda; key Hamas leaders reside in Qatar.)

At this point, we are back to the belief of being chosen people. Its political manipulation currently produces unconvincing public narratives in the form of war propaganda and international PR. Israeli authorities expect the world to believe that a few guns, air pipes, and everyday objects found in tunnels under Gaza City hospitals "prove" that these were used as Hamas military facilities. Then, the enemy is a "coward hiding behind human shields" (instead of confronting face-to-face Israeli airplanes, tanks, and cannons with infantry arms). All the while, the Israeli military "tries to minimize harm to civilians in Gaza" by warning civilians before air attacks (provided the frightened, exhausted Gazans are tuned to a proper communication channel and can evacuate swiftly themselves and their livelihood)...

In general, these lame pitches are to be taken at face value because they come from the chosen people's army called Israel Defense Force (perhaps so because all its operations are by default "defensive", as the overused refrain goes - "Israel has the right to defend itself").  The world must condone all Israel does because it's fighting on behalf of humanity against sub-humans. It's humans vs. Morlocks, stupid! (as H.G. Wells presaged in the novel "Time Machine").

To avoid any misunderstanding, my intent hasn’t been to put Israeli cultural beliefs at the surgical table. The patient in need of surgery is the distortion of these for extremist political purposes. Paradoxically, Zionism may be shooting itself in the foot. As the world condemns the invasion of Gaza, the ugly face of Zionist racism is exposed. By getting Israel ostracized, Zionist policies could weaken precisely what they are trying to strengthen – the Jewish statehood. That process as well as the ongoing criminal war on Gaza can be stopped with a change of Israel's government that survives just owing to this war.

 

(1) Travica: https://cogito-bob.blogspot.com/2023/11/move-south-and-get-out-ethnic-cleansing.html

(2) Bar-Tal: https://tinyurl.com/jdnutrbs

(3) Rabbi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FNtMV2i8-8

(4) Levy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EtNFXL_ykg

(5) Britannica: http://bit.ly/3GK7KBd

(6) British survey: https://www.loc.gov/rr/amed/pdf/palestine1/Arabs-of-Palestine-British-Survey.pdf

(7) Jewish Library: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/religious-zionism  

(8) New York Times: https://bit.ly/3TvzalD

Move South and Get Out! - Ethnic Cleansing of Gaza

By Bob Travica

On October 7, 2023, the military wing of Hamas committed crimes against Israeli citizens. That's a horrible tragedy. A day after, the Israeli government declared war on Gaza where the Hamas party is in power. We still don't know the real proportion of the October 7^th tragedy nor how it happened. How is it possible that Hamas' long preps escaped Israel's advanced surveillance system? How did long-range rockets get into the sealed Gaza ghetto before the Israeli noses? How come the military and security forces were so asleep on October 7^th? How many Israelis died at the hands of Israeli forces that day, which hit both the militants and their hostages in kibbutzim?

Three weeks later, we are witnessing an unprecedented onslaught of the Israeli military on Gaza, a tiny land strip of 360 square km, that is home to 2.3 million Palestinians. In three weeks of the war, Israel's war machine killed 9,000 civilians, nearly as much as in 20 months of the Ukraine war (1).

The Background

Gaza is practically a ghetto within the state of Israel. Israel created it via concrete walls, barbed wire fences, watchtowers, reflectors, motion sensors, and remotely controlled weaponry. There is a North exit into Israel, a South goods-only exit also to Israel, and one nearby to Egypt. Institutionally, the Gaza Strip is the result of the unsuccessful implementation of the 1947 UN resolution of partitioning the land between Palestinians and Jews after colonial rule ceased. Historically, Gaza was part of the territory called Palestine since the Roman Empire era. Beforehand, Jews originated there and called it the Land of Israel. Arabs settled in the 7^th century and controlled it until Ottoman Turks took over and ruled for five centuries. The Zionist movement was established in Europe in the 19^th century with the mission of reestablishing Israel. That happened in 1948. Jews became "Israelis," and Arabs "Palestinians." The percentage split between Israelis and Palestinians was 30:70 in the combined population of 2.7 million.

The eviction of Palestinians to neighboring countries began right away. There were wars between Israel and its neighbors (Egypt, Syria, Jordan), in which it prevailed and enlarged the territory controlled. In the short 1967 war, Israel occupied Golan Heights, Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, previously controlled by the neighbors (Egypt ruled Gaza). Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem became Palestinian territories under Israel's occupation. In 2005, Israeli forces unilaterally pulled out of Gaza and sealed its borders (so-called "disengagement"). Insecurity and violence continued. There were Palestinian uprisings, suicide attacks in the streets of Israel, firearm battles… There were Israeli raids into Gaza, with thousands killed.

Since 1948, many negotiations, diplomatic maneuvering, declarations, and treaties unfolded. In 1974, the UN reaffirmed the 1947 resolution on land partitioning known as the "two-state solution," reasserting Palestinians' right to self-determination. While some progress was made in stabilizing relations between Israel and its neighbors, no effective resolution to Palestinian statehood has ever been reached. Israel has never accepted the condition of the "two-state solution" to pull out of the territories occupied in 1967, and the nationalists never accepted the idea of an independent Palestinian state as a neighbor.

Today, the Palestinian Territories consist of Gaza and the West Bank, both nested within Israel, numbering 5 million people; over 4 million Palestinians live in neighboring countries, including refugee camps. The Israeli Jewish population has grown 10-fold since 1948, owing to Jewish immigrants from abroad. According to the UN, the West Bank is the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel; this fact doesn't deter Jews from settling there with the support of right-wing forces, such as the nationalist Likud Party now led by Benjamin Netanyahu. "We have nowhere else to go" became the mantra of Jewish immigrants, which expressed both honest patriotism and a neo-colonialist mentality.

Hamas entered the scene in 1987 – a radical party competing with the older Fatah party and defeating it in the 2006 Gaza elections. The U.S. and its allies denied Hamas' legitimacy, branding it a terrorist organization. Still, Hamas established civil and military governance, although it hasn't been the sole force in Gaza. Palestinian political and military players range from the political left to the right. For example, Hamas is not jihadist while Palestinian Islamic Jihad is. 

Enter Iran, a regional player with a long history, and with a unique ethnicity and branch of Islam. Its involvement in regional affairs arises from contemporary ideological and longer-term political ambitions, which are carried out partly by militant agents. Iran has targeted Israel since its turning into a Shia theocracy in 1979, and it funds radicalized Palestinians (military Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad). And the list of interested regional parties doesn't end here; lately, Qatar and Turkey have got aboard by supporting Hamas. 

Finally, more distant "friends" complete the picture - great powers interested in energy resources, weaponry markets for their exports, and military positioning in the strategic geographical space. The prominent ones are the U.S. and Russia/USSR. They back regional players (the US backs Israel, Russia supports Egypt and Syria). Friends request favors that hurt the other side's friends, thus the plot gets even trickier.

Looking at this history, Palestinians appear sandwiched between Israel and their neighbors (Egypt, Jordan, and Syria). Israel is hostile: it doesn't tolerate Palestinians and denies them statehood. Neighbors appear friendly but attach strings: aid is mixed with nudging radicalized Palestinians to punch Israel. Small improvements in the Middle East conundrum are short-lived and pale before the failures in solving the Palestinian issue and the continuous radicalization across the board.

Unpacking Spins

The reporting of Western liberal media is a bit better than in some other conflicts. For example, owing to the BBC, we see pictures of civilian suffering, and get reports of Gaza's authorities. Commentators don't refrain from using critical language in the context of the Israeli military's actions. Still, twisted language is persistently fed to the public and media, creating a biased picture of reality. Here are some examples of such spins unpacked.

As opposed to what we've been told, it is not just the "Hamas terrorists" that resist Israel's onslaught, but a broader coalition of fighters defending Gaza. The blanket label "Hamas" is consistently used to label Israel's enemy even when Palestinian Islamic Jihad commits acts that the Israeli government or media report. This spin may have the purpose of averting the rage of jihadists since Hamas is not part of that camp.

We keep hearing that "Israel has every right and obligation to defend itself." However, Israel formally declared war on Gaza and attacked, so it acted as the aggressor on the Palestinian territory. And the aggressor is apparently aggressive: the world witnesses how it demolishes Gaza, killing indiscriminately babies, children, and adult civilians, and destroying homes, hospitals, schools, infrastructure, everything… So, a true language would be: Israel has every right to attack and destroy with no obligation to anyone or anything.

The Israeli government declares that one strategic goal is "to dismantle Hamas" and "not to target civilians." However, the two tenets are impossible to accomplish in urban warfare within a small place like Gaza. This fact is glanced over by "Hamas uses people as human shields." So, the logical conclusion is that taking on civilians is necessary to get to Hamas (and other defenders). Therefore, the concern for civilians is baloney. 

Consistently with this, the invading aggressor "warns" Gazans to move south allegedly for their safety. To move with no possessions, food supplies, basic sanitation, shelter to count on… Actually, the aggressor just clears the way so it can move faster in its conquest, while Israel's warplanes bombard the south nevertheless. Israeli officials add insult to injury by "explaining" cynically why they shut down Gaza's infrastructure, 'Hamas controls electricity, gasoline, food, so it should release these resources to Gazans – not Israel!'

Since the declaration of "dismantling Hamas and not targeting civilians" doesn't hold water, what is the Israeli military doing really? Obviously, it slaughters Gazans and executes a criminal strategy aiming at ethnic cleansing. In the process, Gazans are severely punished, and Gaza is destroyed and made unlivable. Surviving Palestinians are to be pushed out of Gaza and Israel, probably to Egypt,  as envisioned in a leaked government document (2) and statements of some Israeli politicians. The Netanyahu nationalist government is engaged in a merciless revenge and criminal land-grab. Period.

But what about avenging the claimed 1,400 deaths and rescuing 240 hostages, as claimed? The revenge appears bottomless until the destruction and ethnic cleansing are completed. So, Israel's actions are totally disproportional to the cause of war. Indeed, this is the revenge-and-rescue spin with the purpose of whitewashing the government's failure in defending the country on October 7. The government gaslights the shocked citizenry by putting all the blame on Hamas and turning Israelis into busy, vengeful warriors. Catastrophic mistakes and incompetence are disguised by calls for retaliation and saving hostages.

"Saving hostages" is actually just another spin. The actions of the Israeli government show absolutely no care for hostages. Caring would've been demonstrated by continuing negotiations for the hostages' release in exchange for Palestinians jailed in Israel, rather than pouring 10,000 air strikes in three weeks, that endanger the hostages and enrage the kidnappers. We still need to learn how many hostages died at Israelis' hands. (3)

Duplicity Unmasked

What do powerful Western allies advise Israel? Publicly, we hear claims that the Israeli authorities are urged to avoid civilian casualties. But Israel's response has been only to increase the mayhem; 9,000 civilians were murdered in three weeks of the invasion. Israel doesn't budge: even when cautiously warned of violating laws of war, it continues terrorizing civilians from the air and on the ground. So, it follows that Israel disobeys the U.S. and other allies? Wow! But does this make any sense? Support of the U.S. is crucial for Israel (political backing internationally, military aid, deterring Hezbollah and Iran, and engaging in a broader war should it erupt).

Because it makes no sense that Israel would risk weakening/losing this support, we may assume that, behind closed doors, the U.S. officials advise something different than what they say publicly and the media is readily parroting. All the American shuffle diplomacy amounts merely to defending Israel and endeavoring to pacify the interested parties by pretending to be concerned with Palestinian civilians. The U.S. has gotten used to civilian "collateral damage" in its many wars, hasn't it? To the extent that the effects of Israel's war against Gaza qualify as war crimes or genocide, Israel's allies are accountable as well. Undoubtedly, they will use their political influence to ward off such accountability at the time of reckoning.

Israel doesn't take Palestinians as a party to negotiate with and make deals; they can't be trusted or respected as citizens and owners. Israel plans the future for Palestinians on its own, and ridicules them as "children of darkness" (Netanyahu), human animals (the minister of defense Yoav Gallant), monsters (former minister Galit Distel Atbaryan), barbaric, medieval, rats, snakes, savages... (4) Who talks like this, if not a party that views its counterpart as a lower race? This is called racism in the older vocabulary or "dehumanization" today. It implies that Gazans play no role in strategizing about the future; they must be deprived of any means of self-defense, murdered, or kicked out.

We should pause at this point and think about a broader historical picture. It suggests that history in this case repeats as a paradox. Under zionist governments, Israel has inflicted on Palestinians such policies that are eerily similar to those that Nazis imposed on Jews decades ago in Europe. This time though the tables are turned: racist Israelis terrorize Palestinians. History may be repeating also regarding the Jewish deep belief that "the whole world is against us." Sadly, the apocalyptic carnage inflicted upon Palestinians in Gaza cannot help but turn the world against Israel. One can only be sorry for those Israelis and Jews elsewhere who oppose the Gaza aggression and don’t deserve such blame.

Even much softer criticism than this one enrages warmongers in Israel and right-wingers in the West. They strive to stamp "antisemitism" on any attempt at looking at history or showing concern for the Palestinian plight. The right-wing politicians and media brand millions of protestants around the world demanding a ceasefire in Gaza as "pro-Hamas" and "supporters of terrorists." The former U.S. President Trump promises that, if reelected, he'll gag "antisemitism" and cancel citizenship of politically incorrect immigrants. Right on, a revealing support from the mouth of a white supremacist! People who are blinded by rage, defensiveness, or prejudices can't grasp any of these conclusions. But these do follow the principle of giving the same respect to all the people, Palestinians and Jews alike.

The war in Gaza is a culmination of the Middle Eastern vicious cycle of violence blocking the way for resolving the problem of Palestinian statehood. It's delusional to expect that the "dismantling of Hamas" will prevent the emergence of new militants. On the contrary, the terror and obliteration of Gaza will undoubtedly extend the spiral of radicalization and violence into an unforeseeable future. Perhaps that's exactly what warmongers on both sides want. How else could they survive?

A Tel-Aviv social psychologist Bar-Tal, a researcher of mass psychology in Israel, said: "An analysis of the present situation indicates that with the exception of a small minority, which is capable of looking at the past with an open mind, the general public is not interested in knowing what Israel did in Gaza for many years, why Hamas came to power in democratic elections; how many people were killed in Gaza from the disengagement (in 2005)…" (5). No, this is not a characterization of the present war: the statement is from 2009!

1) https://tinyurl.com/5xz4ty4b

2) https://tinyurl.com/2vu9uhzm

3) https://tinyurl.com/5n7jv9hs

4) https://tinyurl.com/awzt2xxx

5) https://tinyurl.com/jdnutrbs  

  

 War in Ukraine: From Bad to Worse

Bob Travica

Russia's military intervention in Ukraine, which started on February 24, 2022, is horrible and wrong. It's as wrong as any other attack on a sovereign country, including those that NATO committed in the recent past. This verdict is based on the principle of resolving international problems peacefully, which I follow. But what's really happening in this war and what is the context surrounding it – this is much harder to figure out resolutely.

Spinning the War  

For two months, mainstream TV networks and print in Canada and the U.S. have mediated the war in Ukraine to their audiences. The media buzz has been overbearing, filling most of the media time as if nothing else in the world is happening but the war in Ukraine. If average Joe happens to pay any attention, he must be utterly confused with the oversized coverage because he has never heard of Ukraine before. He might make some sense of the word "Russia" that's daily on the lips of angry politicians. What about "Putin," a complimentary word in politicians' rants? For the Canadian average Joe, this word just increases confusion as it sounds like "poutine," a popular sauce.

I rate my own understanding of international affairs at least a notch above the average. But when I ask myself, what have I learned about the war in Ukraine, I feel like a student who's long agonized over study materials but still feels stuck in ignorance. Why did Russia attack? What are its military goals? What is the situation on the ground according to independent sources, not just the Ukrainian government's statements? What's happening at peace negotiations? What are the true figures on war casualties? What political system is really in Ukraine? Are there any significant divisions regarding international relations and other issues? Why retired Ukrainian politicians are televised to deliver fiery statements to Western media? What is the influence of NATO in Ukraine? Who is really Volodymyr Zelensky? What do Ukrainians in different parts of the country think about their government and Russia? What is the historical context surrounding Ukraine-Russia-NATO relationships?

To be sure, I and others are fed with some instant, persistently repeated answers, spinning a human interest story. Briefly, Russia's mad autocrat Putin ordered the Russian army to invade Ukraine for no reason. Nobody knew his military goals but, whatever they were, his army has been failing from the start. The situation on the ground is that Russia's military keeps pounding cities and villages with artillery, air bombardment, and missiles, killing thousands, producing millions of refugees, and committing all kinds of war crimes, including genocide. The Ukrainian military is heroically defending the country and inflicting huge losses on the enemy, under the brave leadership of Ukrainian President Zelensky, who is globally recognized for leading the fight for democracy and against autocracy. This is a part of the media story of the war in Ukraine.

The other part of the media story is interviews with persons introduced as "experts." Most of the time, however, the questions that TV anchors pose are so naïve or pretentious that they insult viewers' intelligence. The same applies to bringing armchair generals before the camera. One of these has asserted that the Russian army will fail in Ukraine as it failed in 1917 (World War I combined with the Bolshevik revolution) and in 1991 (the collapse of the USSR, actually with no war activities). Perhaps this general was absent from the history class about the crucial role of the Red Army in defeating the Nazi's war machine in World War II. Another armchair general predicted that Putin "was done" after two weeks of the war, and predicted a coup in Russia. Yet another retired high officer called for removing Russia from The UN Security Council. The other part of the interview coverage is abundant statements of Ukraine's officials. Their tone is easy to guess.

What is the problem with the media story? First, it is totally one-sided. Truth is the first victim in any war since warring sides use propaganda against each other. Because the media's reporting is based primarily on Ukraine's official sources with no independent confirmation, this reporting cannot be trusted. The interviewing also gives voice exclusively to the one-sided interpretation of the war (besides selling awkward ignorance and speculations as expert analysis). Second, the media story is crafted by editors who follow closely the government's moves in international policy and possibly absorb lobbying of PR agencies (someone has to pay for the endless TV time spent on the war agenda). Editors send young reporters to war zones, and these get easily "horrified" by almost anything they see on the ground. Mature reporters cover refugees located in safer places and they interview anti-Russian politicians. The outcome of all this coverage is as biased as expected. This media bias has deeper roots, indeed. When it comes to foreign policy, free media dutifully shoot themselves in the foot. Freedom boundaries are charted in political circles that are supposed to be competent in defining national interests. So, the media become a good soldier that merely toes the line.

In the end, after being heavily exposed to the relentless media story of the war in Ukraine, I have to admit that I really know close to nothing about this war.

Clinching Namesakes 

And there is even a worse part in the media's war agenda. For instance, the BBC organizes a series of town halls with high representatives of Ukraine and surrounding countries, with a thinly veiled purpose of hoarding support for the NATO involvement in Ukraine and enlarging NATO. Then, the media keep echoing the request of Ukraine's officials that NATO establishes a no-fly zone over the country. They ask, where is the red line? How many people have to die before the no-fly zone request is met?

Political leaders of NATO countries reject the no-fly zone request for the time being and assure that the imposed unprecedented sanctions against Russia and lethal military aid poured into Ukraine should suffice in stopping Russia's military. Media people get frustrated. Then, the politicians throw a bone, "if the Russian military deploys chemical weapons, this will change the situation." The media promptly catch the bone and add the chemical weapons prompt to their interviews. The media are crying out, What will finally move the cavalry into a showdown with the aggressor?!

Any narrative draws on prototypical characters. The media have created them as part of its war agenda. The President of Russia Vladimir Putin is the bad guy vilified in the media profusely. Besides being an evil autocrat, he is mentally unstable, neurotically scared of human contact, a pathological liar, and so secretive that nobody knows what's on his mind. Media give voice to commentators who impart that Vladimir Putin intends "to bring back the USSR and to remake a Russian Empire." The media dissect Putin from the Russian people, who are "manipulated" by the state propaganda and censured media. But there are also many people engaged in anti-war protests in Russia and Putin, we are pressured to acknowledge.

In contrast, the media glorifies Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky. He has been made a poster boy of Western values, such as democracy, self-determination, risk-taking, entrepreneurship... He's been lauded as an inspiration for the whole world which, allegedly, does show such admiration. The Zelensky character is angelized, devoid of any possibly unsuitable personal, political, or historical dimensions. The media chooses not to deal with his comedian background, lack of political experience, poor command of English, motivation for getting into politics, the path to power, foreign influence, unpreparedness for war, contradictory moves during the war… Zelensky must be the epitome of a good guy.

The good and the bad guy share the same name, in Ukrainian and Russian renderings. Their name means "the ruler of peace." How ironic! Vladimir is apparently bellicose, while Volodymyr fights a defensive war, aspiring to escalate it. Media endeavor to push the two namesakes into a breathtaking clinch.

Poking the Bear

Relations between Ukraine, Russia, and NATO stand in stark contrast to the simple black-and-white picture forced by politicians and media onto the public in the West. Ukraine gave up the Soviet-era nuclear weapons in 1994 based on the Budapest Agreement for the country's joining the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Cosigned by Russia, the U.S., and the U.K., this agreement guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty and existing borders. The cosigners agreed not to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine but to provide assistance should it be attacked by nuclear weapons by a third party.

It appears that Russia later regretted underwriting the Budapest Agreement as it began violating it in 2014. The historical context matters for understanding possible reasons for this turn. Russia had just descended from the dismembered Soviet Union in which it played a key role. The Russian signatory of the Budapest Agreement, former President Yeltsin, was a vain political persona incapable of responding to contemporary challenges and resisting the pressures of victorious Western powers. Russia was hurting on multiple fronts and its nuclear arsenal was under loose control. When Vladimir Putin took over, Russia began consolidating internally.

In the early Putin era, the West greeted more order in Russia and investments fueled the new, burgeoning market economy. Former American President George W. Bush came close to publicly embracing Putin as a friend. But the consolidation of Russia also implied taking more care of its borders. For centuries, it has been a primary task of Russian leaders to secure the borders of the vast motherland. Grandeur in general is one of the salient traits in Russian culture. Russians believe that saving the grand motherland at any cost is a higher calling. Consider the careful nurturing of the "Great Patriotic War" tradition (fighting against Hitler's Germany in World War II 1941-1945) that is taught in schools, exhibited in the May 9 military parades, and reminded of via pictures of war generals painted on Moscow's subway cars and the facades of its famed Old Arbat street.

This tradition is an extension of the "Patriotic War" cult (fighting Napoleon's France in 1812), which in, turn, has its precursors in Russia's past. Invaders cracked their teeth on Russia. It's delusionary thinking that this patriotic culture can be changed under pressure and quickly. Contrary, history shows that, under pressure, Russia is capable of bleeding to the last drop of blood. Today Russia sees NATO's eastward expansion as a significant security threat, which feeds Russians' traditional patriotism.

The 19th-century German strategist Bismarck characterized Ukraine as a "soft belly of Russia" that is critical for conquering that country. This belly became a pain as Ukraine steadily inched toward NATO after the Budapest Agreement [1]. In 2008, Ukraine "was welcomed" to join NATO. Then, the Maidan coup happened in 2013-14, when the legitimate government was overturned with the significant help of the US whose deep involvement went down to choosing the successor president. Further on, a political ping-pong ensued between Russia and Ukraine.

In 2014, Russia took control over the Crimea peninsula, and the eastern areas of Lugansk, and Donetsk. A war in skirmishes ensued in these areas, and two attempts of negotiating their status and peace (Minsk agreements) have failed. NATO intensified training of Ukraine's military, delivering weaponry, amassing troops at Russia's border, and military exercises. Russia tested the air space of some NATO countries, and so on. (See how an American political scientist views these relations [2]). Finally, in 2019 Ukraine amended its Constitution with the goal of joining NATO and the EU.

This evolution of Ukraine-NATO-Russia relations after the Budapest Agreement indicates that Ukraine's role is to poke the Russian bear and test its security strategy.

Troubled Country

Ukraine is a country divided between a Ukrainian and a pro-Russian part. The historical roots of Russia are in today's Ukraine. The Orthodox Church has been the same until recently when the Ukrainian part split off. But there is also a Catholic Church in West Ukraine. Ukrainian and Russian are similar languages. However, in World War II, national extremists from Western Ukraine collaborated with German invaders and committed war crimes against Eastern Ukrainians, Russians, and Poles. The Ukrainian extremism survived even through the seven decades of the Soviet Union. In the 1990s, it morphed into several political and paramilitary organizations and made a push toward the national Parliament. [3, 4]

The Azov Battalion, which has been cited in the context of defending the city of Mariupol, exhibits its Nazi leanings openly. It emerged during the 2014 Crimea crisis and then evolved into a regular regiment of Ukraine's army. (See the study by George Washington University's researcher [5]).  Such ultranationalist tendencies in Ukraine are denied in the Western media and politics, and "disproved" by the fact that President Zelensky is Jewish. Jewish or not, this rookie politician couldn't control who's got admitted into military and police schools, entered politics and business, or climbed the ranks in these domains. Of course, political extremism is Ukraine's internal affair, but it additionally indicates striking divisions in the country.

Ukraine is also a corrupt and criminalized country not much better than Russia. Since 2014, it has been in the upper third on the global index of corruption [6]. Corruption is the key topic in the satirical TV series Servant of the People, which features Zelensky before he's got into politics. The series made him a national celebrity. Then, Zelensky ran for the President's Office on an anti-corruption agenda and won in 2019. The corruption index didn't improve on his watch yet. Just like Russia, Ukraine also has billionaire oligarchs. Many display both business and politics in their biographies. Political posts provide opportunities for pocketing privately the foreign financial aid/investments and earnings from reselling stolen Russian oil and gas transported through Ukraine to West Europe.

Troubled as it is, Ukraine has a government (dissenting voices aside) that keeps the country on the collision path with Russia, a strategy with opaque goals and associations with national interests. Here lies yet another big trouble for Ukraine. 

Sabre Rattling

Western-leaning Ukrainians may see their NATO aspirations as a way of protecting the country's independence and territorial integrity. But the fact is that a country can be in the EU without getting into NATO (six countries in Europe so far). Why such an urge to get into this military alliance whose reason for existence and character are dubious?

After the collapse of East Europe's military block led by the Soviet Union, NATO was supposed to end since its adversary perished. West Europe was ready to establish its new, succeeding security forces. However, this instrument of America's hegemony survived because United Nations assigned NATO navy and air force missions in the Balkans, where the country of Yugoslavia disintegrated violently. NATO was further consolidated through aggressive operations in Bosnia and an air campaign against Serbia and Montenegro (the last remnant of Yugoslavia), which the alliance executed on its 50^th anniversary in 1999. NATO's attack was unprovoked and breached both the international law and its own original charter. NATO started growing just before this attack by incorporating a few countries in East Europe, and then it more than doubled in size by 2020. Outside Europe, NATO was involved in several offensive wars led by the US (Afghanistan, Libya, and partly Iraq). According to one American academic source, 387,072 civilians died in the US-led wars since 2001 [7].

NATO's increased operational presence in Europe, combined with the installation of new missile systems, resembles a disguised continuation of the Cold War against the old adversary, Russia. Current speeches of the American President sound just like that. A descendent from the Cold War era, President Biden simply can't shed off cold warrior feathers even in his advanced age. The die-hard cold warrior found his match in Russia's leader who also was shaped by the Cold War. Nevertheless, NATO poses a threat to Russia which has repeatedly voiced its displeasure with the alliance's enlargement and the prospect of having Ukraine as a large NATO country on its doorstep. Removing such a strategic goal from Ukraine's Constitution and politics could be part of the formula for peaceful coexistence of the two neighbors. The US, the UK, and Canada are not Russia's neighbors, yet these countries lead in tailoring Ukraine's relations with Russia. In effect, the conflict in Ukraine can be seen as a proxy war between Russia and NATO. Still, it is Ukraine that will have to share the border and trade with Russia forever. Bleeding to death on the battlefield is not a winning proposition. Instead of opting for a settlement outside the battlefield, and thus really saving Ukraine, its advisers and helpers are doing exactly the opposite.

NATO countries help Ukraine abundantly with weaponry, military intelligence, advice, and money. Ukraine's government takes it all, indebting future generations both economically and politically. It requests even more – direct military involvement of NATO against Russia. It's still opaque whether this is a genuine idea or is also externally inspired. This is where a serious problem lies with implications far beyond Ukraine's borders. As politicians' war mongering gets in tune with the media's spin on this war, the exposed spectators are being persuaded that a larger war is inevitable as a way of ending the currently limited war. Indeed, some Ukrainian officials appear to cheer that the Third World War has already started.

This lack of self-restraint, which all the war-mongering parties show, is as appalling as Russia's attack on Ukraine. If Russia felt threatened by NATO and intended to secure its border with Ukraine, it should have sought protection in a different way rather than by this conventional, massive military operation with highly destructive weaponry and urban warfare. Starting a war in the middle of Europe and possibly internationalizing it does create a highly risky path leading to a catastrophic nuclear war. That wouldn't be good for either side or for Europe as a whole. The responsibility of all the players in and around the Ukrainian war should be measured against the sanity of such an option.  

A B ... D Of Transgression

By Bob Travica

Prince Andrew, Boris Johnson, Novak Djokovic – three high-profile cases marking the start of 2022 with a common thread of breaching rules or norms. British Queen Elisabeth's son, Britain's Prime Minister, and the world's No. 1 tennis player. Each man is a member of an elite, and each is a transgressor.

Transgressor A. abandoned common social norms when he, as a married man and a royal, ventured to the wild side to have fun with a 17-year-old American woman. Transgressor B. partied with his staff or turned a blind eye on their partying in the midst of tough COVID-19 restrictions that his government imposed on citizens. Transgressor D. tossed away Australia's immigration regulation of double vaccination for COVID-19 while strategizing his visit to defend his 2021 grand slam winner title.

While sharing the common denominator of crossing the lines applicable to most people, there are more subtle similarities and differences between the three transgressors. Transgressors B. and D. are connected via the exceptional pandemic situation that imposed rules these transgressors collided with. However, D. and B. are also different inasmuch as is the contrast between an adamant anti-vaxxer ideology and abhorrent negligence of duty, or between a challenger of order and the order's hypocritical keeper. As for A., there is nothing exceptional about his context of collision as his transgression originated from mundane cravings.

Transgressors A. and B. are Britons, while D. came from Serbia in South-East Europe. Both Britain and Serbia tend to stand on their own. However, while the former distinguishes itself from the rest of Europe as one of its most powerful countries, the latter struggles to act sort-of-that way based on assumed rather than real resources.

Although Britain generates significant social reforms from time to time, it has for long maintained a stiff social stratification, part of which is the longest-lasting royal dynasty in modern history. As transgressor A. belongs to this dynasty, he was delivered by birth to the peak of Britain's social Olympus. In contrast, transgressor B. is a commoner descending from the academic segment of the middle class; he climbed to the peak of a political Olympus thus acquiring enormous power of the British PM post. In yet a starker contrast, transgressor D. came from an average family focused on sport and small business and worked his way up to the athlete's peak of Olympus.

All the three transgressors are eloquent people, speaking multiple languages, navigating easily through public discourse carved by mass and social media, social commentators, and followers. This may not be surprising for the two Britons that went through the education designed for the upper classes. The Prince became a military officer with distinction. The to-be PM became first a recognized journalist, writer, and a favorite guest in talk shows. Book-smart, resourceful persons making their expected marks.

However, the Serbian counterpart certainly raises eyebrows as a street-smart hero. With merely a modest education under the wings, his natural intelligence, determination, and self-initiative have carried him very far and very quick. He has become a global celebrity with the faces of athlete and entertainer, a businessman, a political influencer in the tennis world, and a multi-faceted icon in his native country (which he traded for a fancier place as soon as his mushrooming pocketbook allowed).

Olympus is the resort for gods, and gods don't obey rules but make them, and break them at will. Our transgressors created events that amount to social dramas with legal, political and cultural aspects. They mistook Olympian peaks for a natural habitat they are entitled to. And then, a sky fall came down on them. They are now discovering that there is a line drawn between acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, which applies even to them.

Once doubt creeps into the Olympians' narratives and public imagery, ugliness rears its head. Private, juicy details of the Prince's visceral entertainment spill into tabloids and daily gossip. Downing Street partying turns into a series of 1001 night stories starting with "once upon a time when the PM was…" The tennis champ's arduous border crossing gets wild interpretations (say, he planned to enter Australia so that he contracts COVID-19 on a certain date, waits for a necessary time to get tested negative, and then seeks an exemption from the double-vaccination rule to get the visa). Once the poop hits the fan, the odor hangs on for incredibly long.

There are rules and norms that even Olympians have to abide by. Huh – screams the folk's voice – that can't happen for real! The rich, famous, and influential always find a way out of trouble. Their power is their parachute. In the end of the day, they can still do whatever they want!

There may be some truth in this. The power shield works. But it can break too. Rumors on the Prince's unfit social contacts have lingered over years before the current scandal cracked open. The PM's and the tennis champ's paths to a showdown are likely to be shorter. Such an ending may not happen inevitably with every transgressing Olympian. But when it does, it is irreparable. The first blows into their throne come from their professional circles. Military officers request from the Queen that Prince Andrew be removed from military ranks. Seniors in Boris Johnson's party request his resignation. ATP players (most of whom are double-vaccinated for COVID-19) might ostracize Novak Djokovic. These inner circle blows are the hardest, although not as visible as the blows from broader circles that typically follow the suit.

The common sin of our besieged Olympians is in violating common rules/norms. They clashed with the dictum that nobody is above the law. It is clearly articulated in the principle of égalité (equality) that guided the French revolution against the old regime in 1789. Equality of all citizens before the law became a cornerstone of liberal democracy, a shaky creation that has been lasting a mere blip in a long history of governance by brute force, bloodline, and usurpation of power levers. As égalité is constantly challenged – not only by people akin to our Olympians but also by masses of doubters –  this principle remains an ideal to achieve. For academically inclined political analysts, the keyword is a normative approach to politics rather than empirical or realpolitik. One more recent test of égalité was enacted by the former U.S. President Trump, who claimed that he could do anything he wanted with impunity just because he was the President, including shooting someone on 5th Avenue. Then he tried to overturn the presidential election results - and failed.

(See http://cogito-bob.blogspot.com/2020/09/ )

The tension between rules-based order and challengers continues. Before making your final verdict on any of the three transgression cases discussed here, try to answer to yourself: Which of these two sides do you want to be at? And why?

 The World Without Tremendous Trumpery

By Bob Travica

There is little doubt that Donald Trump will lose the upcoming Presidential election in the US. His mysterious "base" has shrunk down to some quarter of the voting population. When he won elections by the electoral vote in 2016, the pillar of his popular vote was white, less educated, older males. This part of the voting population has been shrinking relative to the educated colored and white voters. Latinos, who were anti-Trump in the previous election, are poised to make a significant difference in this election. Women of any background can be another voting force bringing Trump down. These points are based on various analyses and polls I looked at.

Who is still with Trump? Those white males as before, white evangelicals, arms lovers (hard to grasp in any country where arms in civilian hands are intended only for animal hunting), and various right-wing groups. The first three groups hold the banner of  MAGA (Make America Great Again) without questioning why their leader hasn't brought the greatness already in the past four years. Some of them bent the slogan into "Keep America Great" without questioning how the "greatness" squares with the huge human and economic toll of the COVID-19 pandemic that's been happening on Trump's watch. Actually, they don't believe in the pandemic numbers or even in the pandemic as such. If they acknowledge COVID deaths, they "put faith in dear God" and fatalistically proclaim that they are "ready to die if their time is up." So, they happily attend Trump's rallies without applying basic defenses against the new coronavirus and patriotically chant popular rock songs even when song lyrics send adverse messages. In a word, these voters represent a die-hard disconnect between fanaticism and ratio.  

The flocking of militant right-wingers around Trump is interesting because, again, it doesn’t make sense. These make a lot of noise and imperil public order and safety of just about anyone opposing them. Such groups make an inflammable social component that Trump manipulates in his endless political reality show that should help him to get re-elected. So, they "stand by" awaiting commands for the attack. Still, the hopeful storm troopers are a ragtag of militias, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and conspiracy peddlers like various "Anon"-networks (anonymous "knowers" of "secrets" at the Q-level of clearance, of CIA, FBI, etc.). All these groups are at the fringes of politics and actually residing in their dreamlands of self-exclusiveness, hatred, and adoration of raw physical force. But the object of their hatred differs. White supremacists keep not necessarily a grudge against the whites in the Democratic Party. In contrast, Neo-Nazis are more exclusive, embracing some white nations and disdaining others along with all the non-whites. 

Conspiracy peddlers prefer virtual storming to street fighting and embrace anyone who shares implausible "explanations" of politics by some opaque, dark forces. For example, the "Q-Anon" network rumors that the leadership of the Democratic Party has for long been involved in a system of global child slavery. In contrast, highly qualified for the role of stormtroopers, the militiamen, take the government for their object of hate. Trump's government is as bad as any other. Ultimately, isn't he a self-proclaimed "Law & Order President?" Hell, yea, and there is nothing attractive in the social regime that a government can impose on weapon-carrying free-stylers. These differing agendas make the fringe groups just temporary, side actors in Trump's political reality even though annoying ones.  

Time of Reckoning

Although Trump's loss is "tremendously" likely (to use his favorite word), the process of the power transition may hit hurdles. As he proved to be a scruples manipulator that's exclusively centered on holding to power, Trump will try all possible to challenge, slow down and derail the departure from the Oval Office of himself and his quasi-government that his family morphed into.

Instigating public unrest, street violence and chaos that calls for governmental emergency measures is a possible scenario. Trump might end up being removed from the office by force of law enforcement officers. Today, it's not just clinging to power that drives Trump. He is on the brink of desperation as he's trying to save his wealth and even physical freedom.

Trump probably committed a federal tax fraud, which had put even the corruption tsar Al Capone behind the bars. In addition, Trump certainly offended many people that he whimsically fired and humiliated during his rule. His numerous opponents are awaiting the opportunity to take revenge when Trump's executive privileges expire. This has already started with books of the former officials as well as some relevant observers. Parts of the Republican Party are rising in opposition, including some capable young Turks.

In the end, a fall in public disgrace will plausibly complement Trump's financial and legal losses. That's why he will try to dig his heels into the White House as deeply as possible.

Life Without Trumpery

What will our life be like without Donald Trump? Less chaotic. As I argued in my previous blog, Trump promised to drain the "Washington swamp" but he just replaced it with a spider web, where he is sitting at the center as a spider-king, shaking the net at whim, terrorizing and devouring incumbents. Lazy, corroded institutions of the American Republic have been repressed by autocratic, quasi-monarchist practices and institutions-in-making. The Senate's Republican Party segment became the President's parlor, where the distinguished political role of the US Senator gave way to a voting machine whipped by President's lieutenant McConnell (except for a few dissenting voices). The already mighty Department of Justice became an extended hand of the President under his second lieutenant Barr. The loyalism to parliamentary democracy melted down under the hard-handed boss who could never understand the differences between a political organization and his own company.

Trump has toyed with the Constitution and laws as he pleased. Lots of his moves have been plain bullying acts with no much deliberation. He tested the system daringly, bent it carelessly, and broke it at sensitive points. One breakup is in furthering the imbalance between the executive branch of government versus the legislative and judicial branches. Consequences can be long-term.

With Trump out of the White House, we can expect restoring some of the institutions and established practices even if that means refurbishing the "Washington swamp." The swamp is terrible, isn't it? Almost nothing can be done in this two-party Parliamentary system where parties lock each other into a chocking embrace over things big and small alike. Just look at the long food lines in the "richest and best country in the world." The jobless masses can't afford basic food. All the while, Democrats and Republicans are bickering over financial packages that could relieve some of the pandemic economic pain. Not good for sure! But if you think the parliamentary stalemate is the worst thing in the world, think again. Dictatorships are incomparably worse, no doubt about it!

Remember Latin American dictators that not long ago ruled by fear and terror, African counterparts that didn't shy in comparison and made millions perish in mass executions, the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, Mao's "Cultural Revolution" in China… And don't forget Europe, although hardcore dictatorships over there happened in the first part of the 20^th century with Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, Stalin…

If you think that an American dictator can’t be as bad as these historical counterparts, just think of Trump ruling in a country with no opposition party or press, no freedom of the protest, no free thought… All this complemented by policing on steroids, with FBI and the CIA turned into tools of oppressing the dictator's opponents. Think hard before replacing even an ill parliamentary system by an autocracy (efficient one or not).

Dennis the Menace a.k.a. Mr. Bean

What else can we expect with Trump's departure? Less of entertainment! Indeed, Trump is like the cartoon character Dennis the Menace. Every day, I check my Internet feed or switch on the TV in an exciting expectation of finding what some new mischiefs have the American President committed. Not that this role is to be about entertainment, but Trump made it so. His trumperies are endless and tremendous! As silly as they can get, they overcome the wildest adventures of Trump's cartoon counterpart, although it's questionable whether the real menace could outsmart the cartoon character.

Maybe Trump is more comparable to Mr. Bean, a boy in an adult body. Everything this film character does is some sort of pissing against the wind. Things that boys would do to prove they have a personality. Same with Trump. Manage the pandemic? No! Rather, prove it isn't there really and watch how believers overlook what's obvious. I've got sick of COVID? No! It was just a hiccup curable with a cocktail of advanced drugs I can get but they, my folks, cannot, ha! Accept election results? Hell, no! Make them sweat over my grim faces. Endorse America's international deals and alliances? No way, adults have no clue what fun it is to step into a muddy paddle or trample over painstakingly cultivated flowers!

Free trade and open borders? Oh, c'mon, where is fun in all of that? Let's put some giant Lego blocks on our border and watch how astonished the onlookers' faces can get! Dig into racial problems of America? Whaaat? Think problem, and you start believing there is a problem; take it as a hoax, and you feel like a happy salesman spreading infectious goodwill! Commit to a Congressional hearing? Are ya kidding me? I can do whatever I want and I'll make funny, old wigs sing as I wish! Overall, folks have no idea how fun it is to sit in the Oval Office, where home pets can't find a corner to do what mother nature urges them to do!

Black Humor Standcom/Sitcom

I can understand that Trump's ambitions reach beyond Dennis the Menace and Mr. Bean. Hey, he's made a career in a reality show! He's a natural actor, isn’t he? As the President, he's worked hard to play a reality political show in the featuring role. A comedian role, alright, but an adult role nevertheless. Indeed, he's been both a standup comedian and a sitcom – a double fiat! Here are some of his standcom/sitcom references. Granted, they are more on the black humor side.

Trump catches COVID-19, a disease he publicly doesn't believe in, while taking unproven drugs all the time. He goes to a presidential debate and turns it into a drunk sailors' parlor, yelling at the opponent and pulling off fisherman stories of his own "achievements." Trump goes to an old church in D.C., his security forces cutting through scores of protesters, and then he pulls the leg of every watcher with a moment of unrealized expectations. Instead of praying or reading from an old Bible, he just holds it with a stern face put on. That black humor message is as clear as a black night. Good for a theatre of absurd. 

Note that Trump favors police jokes. For example, a police bully pushes an old man down, and Trump declares that the man acted out the fall. Then, Trump declares that a man choked to death by a policeman got happy while witnessing good stock market news from high above.

Trump keeps poking his opponent Biden for his old age and mental state. This joke is not obvious on the surface. To get it, you need to extend the thinking: "In contrast to Biden, I have four years less and much more body fat and tremendous, self-centered mind." In the past months, however, Trump outplayed even himself with COVID jokes. Here's his golden advice: If you want to clean yourself from the coronavirus, just sip some bleach or swallow an ultraviolet lamp! I've never heard any comedian cranking this joke before Trump.

Some people say that Trump is BAD - brute, arrogant, and dumb. Others counter that he is bold, astute, and dynamic. He may be some of these things and some more. But it's all irrelevant at this time of reckoning. The bottom line is, as well-known journalist Bob Woodward concluded, that Trump is the wrong man for the job.

 

Trumping the Constitution

Bob Travica

(Feb. 22, 2020, reviewed Sep. 29, 2020)

NOTE: This blog was written months ago. Before having a chance to review the draft, COVID-19 hit the world hard and my attention turned that way. Who could imagine that Mr. Trump would take a lead role in the COVID time as well, playing a bad boy, and so with no veil. But this is a story for the next blog in which I will discuss recent misdeeds of this 'tremendous golfer' and argue that he will lose the election. This one below is about his role in exposing the weaknesses of the U.S. Constitution and in furthering its undermining.

 *

The Big Chief danced vigorously around the fire, shaking wildly his headdress of heavily sprayed hair implants. When he finished his winning dance, he looked at the teleprompter and shouted: "Hey guys, you've done a really good job! Tremendous! Daddy trained you well. Come here to get your treat!" Creatures kneeling around started to inch toward the Big Chief with their mouth open. He grinned and threw a handful of small bones in the air.

Got it? If not, let's try another opening line. On February 5, 2020, the U.S. Senate relinquished its powers in order to inaugurate the first American king Donald Trump I. That's the day when the American Republic faced monarchy. This event ties into the topic of American political system I promised to address the last time I wrote about Trump (see).

CEO of USA Corp.

I previously suggested that President Trump would be impeached in the House of Representatives but acquitted in the Senate. And so it happened that the House controlled by Democrats (Dems) impeached the President for the offenses of abuse of power and of obstruction of Congress in December 2019. The Senate controlled by Republicans (I'll call them Reps) rejected both these articles. The decision was preceded by three weeks of grueling speeches in the Senate, where the impeachers wrestled with Trump's lawyers.

At the Senate trial, the impeachers struggled to prove that Trump abused power when he tried to exchange Congressionally approved military aid for Ukraine for the favor of digging political dirt on Democrat Joe Biden, a contender in the American presidential election this year. Prompted by an anonymous whistleblower who traced a call between Trump and the Ukrainian President, the House conducted an investigation. Trump refused cooperation and blocked executive officials from testifying and releasing documents; the impeachers qualified this as obstruction of the Congress. Battling back, Trump's defense struggled to minimize the importance of the incriminatory evidence, offer an alternative story on delaying the aid ("Trump was concerned with corruption in Ukraine"), and to discredit the impeachment on a procedural basis. But all that was rather a show trial with no witnesses or new documents brought in because Republican senators blocked these. It reminded me unpleasantly of the Nazi or Stalinist-era fabricated trials. In the final act, just one Republican senator dared to drift from the party line voting for removing Trump from office.  

The acquittal vote was the end of the Dems' long chase which included a two year-long "Russian Probe," the impeachment-driving Ukrainian case, some conspiracy theories, the U.S. intelligence community, most of the mainstream media, and millions of dollars and works hours.

----

The plan of the self-proclaimed challenger of the "Washington swamp" became clear: replace the Washington swamp with a Trump-spider web.

----

During this period, Donald Trump revealed his true colors. He stirred internal and foreign politics according to his populist ideology of "Make America Great Again" (MAGA), undoing the laws and international agreements of preceding Democratic administrations. He intensified fighting with American liberal mass media and the intelligence sector. His drunken sailors' grudging and aggressive Tweetomany persisted as well as the character of his public statements spinning relentlessly fact and fiction. The executive branch has remained unstable under Trump's leadership as he kept disturbing it by frequent firing and hiring. He just couldn't get rid of the role he had played in the reality show "The Apprentice", which made him broadly famous.

If the first half of Trump's tenure indicated that the real estate baron's transition to a top politician was uneasy, the following period proved that he could not learn, not even how to act presidentially. As in "The Apprentice" and in his business career, Trump has been capable of playing just a single role, that of a hard-handed boss. He's been running the country as the CEO+Chairman+President+owner of a business corporation. In a word, the plan of the self-proclaimed challenger of the "Washington swamp" became clear: replace the Washington swamp with a Trump-spider web.  

And then again, as oddly as it can be, Trump's clumsy moves have been blowing up the carefully maintained covers in America's realpolitik. The covers supposed to obscure that politics is akin to manipulation rather than "serving people," that politicians' lie routinely, that America is a plutocracy where politicians serve special and their own interest, and that America's foreign policy is driven by cold cash rather than hot morals. Most importantly, Trump's trampling (a.k.a. trumping) over untouchable institutions revealed that "something is rotten in the state of 'Denmark'." The soft spots are at the very heart of the American political system.

Dream of Separating and Balancing Powers

The American political system is officially based on a separation of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, combined with mutual checking and balancing of each other. The model was novel when introduced after the war for independence from the British colonial rule in the 18^th century, and its basic ideas still shine. Each part of the government is supposed to have its realm of authority, which includes protecting it from intrusions by their counterparts. Legislators make laws, executives manage within the bounds of the law, and judges apply the law to rule on socially appropriate behavior. A division of labor as in a business firm but without a boss on the top. This is different from other political systems at that time and still today. Monarchies of the past gave way to political systems in which the executive branch is partly bestowed with legislative power (the United Kingdom, Canada), or which have a Parliament wielding legislative power plus controlling the executive branch by the right of voting on confidence in the government.

----

Trump: I can do anything I want because I'm the President.

Sun King Louis XIV: Anything we do is legal because we wish so.

----

Authors of the American Constitution (the framers, founding fathers) decided to untangle the bundle of monarchic powers and allocate these to separate branches of government without any of these towering others. Whether this was realistic in a culture that highly valued individual ownership and governance, is a question for Constitutional and cultural studies. The fact is that the Trump period shows clearly an imbalance of powers in favor of the executive branch. For example, Trump has been using extensively executives orders to introduce new legislation that's been controversial for the most part. Also, he has increasingly ignored the Congress that worked within its domain of power, and pushed executive officers to do the same. Examples include Attorney General Barr, head of the Judiciary Department, who manipulated the release of the Mueller investigation of the foreign involvement in the 2016 elections ("Russian Probe"). Then, in testifying before the Senate, Barr coolly drove a legalese slalom through questions to respond or not as he pleased.

It's very interesting that all these daring President's moves are within the Constitution and its interpretations by the Supreme Court. Specifically, powers of the executive order and of executive privilege of non-disclosure draw on interpretations of the Constitution. However, in current mulling in Washington, the constitutional institution of the presidency has been kept out of criticism, at least publicly. Doesn't it stand to reason that a bossy style of this (or any) President should not be able to make executive power dominant if the Constitution guarantees a separation and balance of three powers? 

Isn't it peculiar that a distinguished professor of Constitutional law interpreted the Constitution at the Senate trial by assuring that "a President can do anything he wants but commit a federal crime" and still not be removable from office? While he supported his oratory with aid of lots old, dusty books, his words merely echoed Trump's recent public statement ("I can do anything I want because I'm the President"). All this buzz is spookily similar to maxims of the 17^th century French "Sun King" Louis XIV. He ruled long with absolute power, pontificating that what was good for him was also good for France, whereas anything he did was legal because he wished so.

----

If a President can do anything he wants but commit a federal crime, is there something wrong with the U.S. Constitution?

----

All things considered, it seems that the revered U.S. Constitution does not preclude, if not even supports, the domination of executive power. So, the Constitution needs to be put under lenses if we want to understand why the American political system now appears broken under Trump's feet.

Executive Bias

The American political system has some peculiarities. These start with the terminology. It refers to "administration" to what is usually called "government" elsewhere; the heads of the areas in the executive branch including commerce, finance, transport, agriculture, interior affairs (managing government land), foreign policy, and defense. The term "government" is used in the U.S. in reference to the legislative, judicial, and executive parts (branches) of the nation-state organization; this is called "state" in the rest of the world. The federal policing function, which in most countries is identified as a domain of interior affairs, is within the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the U.S.

DOJ is part of the executive branch and includes FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies as well as intelligence agencies (CIA is one of them). DOJ has some judicial prerogatives since it can initiate a review of court decisions. This is again different from the rest of the world, where the notion of justice is associated with courts of law, the judicial branch being clearly separated from the executive branch. Unless there is a police/military regime in place, it is unusual in most countries that the head of police or security gets involved directly in daily politics as the current head of DOJ, the U.S. Attorney General, does. And it's all legal unless the Supreme Court rules differently.

The U.S. President heads both his administration and the state. These two roles are separated elsewhere. In some countries, the President of State has a stronger power position vis a vis the Prime Minister (e.g., France). In other countries, the President is rather a figurehead representing the state internationally, while the Prime Minister holds larger executive power (typical of Europe). As no such a separation exists in the American political system, the U.S. President wields more power than any president or a prime minister in other countries. (Presidential systems exist in Latin America too.) 

----

American President wields more power than any president or a prime minister in other countries.  Presidential power increases when a President's party dominates Congress.

---- 

One of the presidential powers is hiring (and firing) the heads of organizations making the executive branch. The President appoints officials of an administration or nominates these (like the U.S. Attorney General), while the Senate approves the appointment. The President also nominates the Supreme Court Justices and Associate Justices, while the Senate approves them. This is equivalent to an owner's or CEO's powers in private business. This authority can be used for expanding executive power as the former Presidents and the current one prove. By putting loyalists in leading positions and threatening them by firing, Trump is able to direct the workings of the executive agencies.

Although the bookish definition implies that the executive branch makes no law, the U.S. President is entitled to issue executive orders that come automatically into effect with no approval of other branches of the state. That's the law as well. It is most visible in foreign policy, where presidents can start wars without the approval of Congress. President Obama initiated a whole war by drone against persons that his administration designated as terrorists. The war also targeted U.S. citizens abroad who were on the wrong side, and so without charges, due process, or trial. Both Obama and his predecessor G.W. Bush managed massive surveillance operations abroad, including spying on the U.S. allies in Europe. Bush's presidential resume also includes ratcheting up interrogations techniques that security agencies could carry (e.g., torturing prisoners by waterboarding).

As for President Trump, some of his foreign policy moves have caught by surprise adamant cold warriors and other traditionalists in the U.S. foreign policy, thus indicating again huge presidential powers. He also killed single-handedly international agreements the U.S. was part of (NAFTA, the international nuclear deal with Iran, and the international climate accord). Further, Trump antagonized Iran in several ways and went into a trade war with China. To be sure, presidents do not tailor the foreign policy in solitude with no influence of corporations, the military-industrial complex, and other powerful players. The point is that presidents can move the security, intelligence, and military arms of the state without the approval of Congress. And the Congress should make laws of such a magnitude, shouldn’t it?

In domestic politics, presidents also rule via several legislative instruments. Previous presidents expanded surveillance over the citizens, changing dramatically "the land of the free." Trump's executive actions include restrictions on immigration, expanding the Mexican border wall (he proclaimed it a national emergency), re-organizing the executive branch, meddling with taxes, health care, and a bunch of "America first"-orders.

 Presidential power is increased when a President's party dominates the Congress. This loss of power balance is inherent to any two-party system. In the U.S., it surfaced visibly when the Republican Party controlled both the House and Senate from the 2016 presidential election until the midterm Congress elections in 2018. Even controlling solely the Senate by the President's party is sufficient to screw the Constitution. This showed up in Trump's impeachment trial. The Senate's Republican majority leader rejected the possibility of a true trial even before it began, and the final acquittal vote was 98% partisan.

Framing the Framers

It appears that the American strong Presidential model collides with the idea of separation of powers. The Constitution provides no means of curbing executive power even when it takes apparently wrong turns. The mechanism of checks and balances is deficient. Since executive power towers others, mutual balancing of powers is hard to achieve. Small children do not balance the power of parents. Yes, they may run some checks but these are toothless due to power asymmetry.

Sure enough, taking on the Constitution equals blasphemy. Both the pro- and contra-Trump camp swear allegiance to the Constitution and the framers. But when the politicking and legalese travesty is put aside, a common-sense question remains: How is it possible that two diametrically opposite sides find anchoring in the same document? Is it perhaps too broad, imprecise, underdeveloped, inconsistent, obsolete, incapable of preventing interpretations that counter its own assumptions? Wouldn't it be wise to take a realistic look at the Constitution in its historical time and contrast it with the complexities and needs of the present time? While the debaters in Trump's impeachment strived to divine what the framers did and did not want, it may be wise to remember that those founders of the independent American state tried to solve problems of their time based on contemporary knowledge.

 ---

It appears that history exposes the inability of the Constitution to ensure removing any President from office.

----

The historical period of the framers was undoubtedly different from the present. So for example, when the framers started the Constitution with words "We the people," they didn't refer to the black part of the population because the framers themselves were slave owners. Or, the framers worried about governing over militias born uncontrollably in the War of Independence. Granted, there are still militias in the U.S., but these are self-styled groups that pile up weapons and exercise shooting, banking on the Constitutional "right of the people to keep and bear arms." Indeed, the changed historical conditions convolute past institutions.

The framers were foremost interested in preventing the ousted colonial power Great Britain to conspire with the U.S. government officials, including the President. Therefore, treason was defined as the top reason for impeachment, followed by bribery. However, the framers also opened two other boxes for impeachable offenses (borrowed from Britain, as was the whole idea of impeachment) – "high crimes and misdemeanor." Opened them and left empty for the future generations to fill in the content. All three American Presidents impeached by the House (A. Johnson in the 19^th century, B. Clinton in 1999, and D. Trump now), as well as R. Nixon who resigned before his probable impeachment, were charged on these bases. All three were acquitted by the Senate.

It appears that history exposes the inability of the Constitution to ensure removing any President from office. The Congress has such powers on paper but is rather toothless in comparison with Parliamentary systems that can knock down the government (administration) by a vote of no confidence. The empty boxes for impeachable offenses are left to the mercy of political maneuvering, lawyers' intellectual gymnastics, and random circumstances of a given historical period. Perhaps the framers never really meant that a President should be removed from office but rather should be kept in check by such a possibility? They raised the bar for the guilty vote as high as to two-thirds of the senators present. True, in the Johnson trial the vote came to just one below the bar, but the number of the voting senators was just 54 (in the other two trials, it was 100).

Nobody is Above the Law… But the President

The Dems battling Trump keep shouting that "nobody is above the law!" The law implied is the Constitution. The Reps don't deny this publicly but rather through behavior. The Constitutional law professor mentioned above (otherwise known for playing devil's advocate or perhaps apprentice) offered Reps a parachute. He added to the Dem's "nobody is above the law" an appendix: "but the President!"

From the ethical perspective, the combatants follow two incompatible ethics. "Nobody is above the law" implies a rules-based ethic that has been a staple of Western liberal democracy (civil liberties, equality before the law). In contrast, "Nobody is above the law but the President" implies a utilitarian ethic that presumes good for a majority of people as the core ethical norm. In a nakedly partisan manner, the President's men and women brush off universalism in favor of particularism. Are they missing the boat? Not quite.

A significant pool of Americans feels safe under the President's wing; the populist ideology MAGA stir the masses and institutions; The Republican party must ensure another presidential mandate and (tacitly) protect the backing corporate interests; and what is always crucial for the American voter - the economy hums assuredly. Sufficient reasons for being utilitarian. Ah yes, there is also a hefty dose od pragmatic ethic on the Reps' side: good is what works at the moment and assures the survival of the individual politicians involved.

Although the opposed ethics may be ultimately responsible for incompatible interpretations of the Constitution, the implication again is that this document allows for such incompatibilities. The President can be above the law if he is daring enough and his party and voters comply. Fascination with the dated constitutional basis represents a puzzling paradox in the American culture that heavily invested in the present historical time. Even though America has been making its own way in many respects, it can't escape core social regularities that played out in the world's history. Indeed, threatening omens of the past have been bursting as the rule of the first American king, Trump I, unfolds.

One of Trump's defenders in the impeachment trial invited Dems to drop the impeachment ball and join Reps under the economic mastermind of Donald Trump. He screamed: "One nation, one people!" Sounds familiar, although the complete historical blueprint reads: "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!"