EU Hybrid War On Russia Risks Discrediting Green Energy Transition

    The viability of the green energy transition is receiving some of the most significant scrutiny in some time because of the energy crisis in the European Union (EU).  The EU has inflicted the crisis on itself by engaging in a hybrid war on Russia that has undermined EU energy security policy.  For people that do not understand this dynamic, the energy crisis is contributing to the impression the green energy transition in the EU is progressing too fast.  The deployment of alternative energy technology is not happening too fast, but the EU's energy security policy is exposing the limitations of these technologies.

    The EU and their Western allies, most importantly The United States of America, pursued strategies of subjugation and then containment towards Russia following the dissolution of the Soviet Union.  The victory of Russia and their separatist allies in the Georgian war of 2008, The debacle in Ukraine that is a consequence of the Western backed Euromaidan coup in 2014, and the Russian intervention in Syria in 2015 that defeated the Western proxy war, has motivated politicians in the West to adopt a strategy of regime change in Russia.

    Motivated by geopolitical considerations the EU attempted to lessen their dependency on Russian natural gas but were unable to find sufficient alternate supply.  The EU was undeterred by the reality Russia is the only country with readily available supplies, of the necessary volumes, to function as a reliable backup source to alternative energy technologies.  The EU could have acted prudently and secured sufficient backup energy supply to avoid the current energy crisis.  Most significantly, the EU decided to prematurely stop contracting new long-term natural gas supply contracts with Russia.  The EU also failed to implement sufficient energy storage technology to compensate for the variability of energy supplied from alternative energy technologies.  Low alternative energy supply is one of the factors contributing to the EU's current energy supply shortage.  It is claimed that it is only a lack of political will that rich countries are not already well underway in their transition to 100% reliance on alternative energy technologies.  There is a robust debate among industry experts, but it is unfortunately becoming clear that ready to deploy energy storage technologies are not sufficient to maintain even the EU's relatively modest level of alternative energy adoption.  In an effort to distract from the EU's incompetent green energy transition and energy security policies, EU politicians have accused Russia of using energy supply as a geopolitical weapon.  In reality, Russia has fully fulfilled existing natural gas supply contracts and the EU has not purchased any additional supply.  At the same time, the EU has criticized EU member states for pursuing bilateral natural gas supply contracts with Russia.  There seems to have been a hope that alternative energy technologies could make up an increasing share of the EU's energy supply without backup, or there was in reality no energy security policy at all.

    The EU energy crisis could undermine faith in the viability of the green energy transition in the minds of people that do not understand this self-inflicted crisis was avoidable.  The EU made geopolitical policy objectives more important than sound energy security policy.  To avoid the conclusion that the green energy transition is proceeding too fast, a public examination of the compatibility of all EU policies with the transition is needed.  Hopefully, an examination will increase public support for a broader green social transition, made up of many components of which the adoption of alternative energy technologies is just one.  The Public also needs to understand that geopolitical competition between countries undermines both the adoption of alternative energy technologies and implementation of a broader green social transition.

Is Russia Paying the Taliban to Kill American and NATO Soldiers?

In Afghanistan the Pashtuns are the single largest ethnic group. It is this group that makes up the majority of Taliban fighters and supporters. It should be clear that the foreign supported government in Kabul does very little governing and could not survive long on its own. To a greater or lesser extent, the Taliban have won the Afghan war.

Regardless of the outcome of the war being a negotiated political settlement or outright military victory, the Taliban are going to be a significant political force in any post conflict Afghanistan. With this inevitability in mind, the widespread reporting for close to a decade that every major regional country is supporting a Taliban faction makes perfect sense. This includes countries like China and Iran who are not supporters of Sunni fundamentalism generally speaking. It is also important to note that what is amorphously called the Taliban is closer to the myriad of rebel factions in Syria than a unified command and control structure.

Various countries support Taliban factions to make political inroads, so they can have influence and pursue their long-term regional interests relating to Afghanistan. This type of engagement works best by building trust and demonstrating each countries' value to the respective Taliban faction they support. It has been reported that Russia and other countries have provided night vision goggles in the past, an example of an item with high value. The goal is to attempt to create a long-term relationship that will endure the end of the conflict. 

The dynamic of many countries competing for lasting political influence in Afghanistan undermines the logic of the headline allegation against Russia. Vladimir Putin is regarded as being a skilled political and geopolitical strategist. It would be newsworthy indeed if Russia under his leadership has abandoned their decade long strategy of building influence in Afghanistan, and has instead adopted a pay per kill transactional relationship with Taliban factions. This allegation is based on the assertion of anonymous Western intelligence sources, with no evidence presented in 'reporting' on the matter. I will continue to give greater credibility to reasoned, fact based analysis than fact free allegations regardless of the source.

Oil Market Dysfunction (Peak Oil)

The recent unprecedented dysfunction in the oil market, has become an opportunity to remark at how wrong the concept of “Peak Oil” was. Unfortunately, the analysis of the underlying oil production dynamics are still correct. Primarily of interest is the dynamic between geology and the extraction technologies utilized. What was humorously wrong was the dominant theory of what the resulting crisis would be like. When oil rose to $140 a barrel, what did not happen was ever increasing prices until we ended up in some right-libertarian survivalist fantasy. What did happen was there was an economic recession.

The 2008 “financial” crisis justifiably brought major attention to the criminality in the global financial and real estate sectors. This criminality made the economic and social impact worse, but a false narrative that this criminality caused the crisis became accepted knowledge. The economic crisis started as a mortgage default crisis because this was simply the weakest link. With the high oil price came higher cost of transportation for people to get to work, higher prices for food and other staple products. At the end of the month when the US working poor could not pay all their bills, many chose not to pay their mortgage.

The lingering economic dysfunction since 2008, is in part a result of the failure of market dynamics to find a price that can produce enough oil and not stifle economic growth. This failure has resulted in a cycle of deflationary crises, now made worse by the dramatic drop in demand caused by the COVID-19 response. The dynamics have resulted in an observable production plateau of conventional crude oil. This not serving as a useful talking point for right-wing ideologues, spreading fear of inflation to promote austerity, does not change the geological and technological reality.

Russia Today (RT) Television Network and Russian involvement in the US 2016 Presidential Election

It is my analysis that there are two main motivations behind the outsized importance the issue of Russian involvement in the US 2016 Presidential Election, in all its many facets, receives.

The first main motivation is to serve as a distraction from two aspects of the election that deserve greater attention and strong political mobilization.  The first aspect, and in my analysis the driving motivation, is the failure of the Clinton campaign to comprehend the political mood of the country, and consequently having run an incompetent campaign.  The Democratic Party establishment does not want to acknowledge this failure in order to preserve the hold of neoliberal centrist ideology.  The secondary aspect is the role the out dated electoral college system played in determining the election outcome.

The second main motivation, and the subject of this piece, is to justify the intensifying attack against the Russia Today (RT) television network.  RT is attacked disingenuously for covering stories that go un- or under-reported by supposedly 'main-stream' media.  Likewise for providing a platform for people who are not easily able to find air time for their views on supposedly 'main-stream' or legacy media providers.

In the interests of  providing further context, I will address some of the other aspects of the wider story of Russian involvement in the US 2016 Presidential Election before proceeding further.

The main allegation against Russia, and the Russian State specifically, is the alleged hacking of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).  There has been no evidence released, to my knowledge, at the time of publishing.  Therefore, there can be no resolution of this question, at this time.

The second allegation, against Russia and the Russian State specifically, in order of importance at time of publishing, is the various forms of lobbying and influence peddling during the election period.  Many of the Russian connections to the Trump campaign and administration participants as well as Trump family members, often of a dubious nature, have been receiving a good level of coverage in the general press.

Oddly enough, and a subject beyond the scope of this post, the conduct most clearly identified as that of the Russian State and their agents, during the election period, has received relatively little coverage.  This lobbying and influence peddling mostly relates to the objective of securing the lifting of the Magnitsky Act sanctions.  The Magnitsky Act sanctions impact, among others, the personal finances of Russian President Vladimir Putin.  Focusing on this aspect of the story would provide an opportunity for the media to personally embarrass Putin.  The lack of such coverage is an oddity in the context of a Western media environment saturated with personal attacks generally, and an abundance of such attacks against Putin in particular.

There are numerous other specific allegations against Russia, and the Russian State specifically, for their involvement in the US 2016 Presidential Election.  Most allegations are outright absurd or of low credibility. Most of the rest are accurate allegations but of little significance both in perception and actuality.  A handful of allegations are stories that shamefully go under reported.  The attack against RT is one of these stories.  I endeavour here to contribute my part to rectify this situation.

Early in the still developing scandal of allegedly improper Russian, and Russian State involvement in the US 2016 Presidential Election, it was just a part of the larger Fake News story.  From the outset there was a particular frequency and prominence of specifically naming in passing of Russia Today (RT) Television Network by US government officials, and Western media personalities.  The specific mention of RT along with Wikileaks hacking, John Podesta e-mails, Fake News, and Facebook gave the impression that allegations against RT are near the top of the list, in importance and credibility, of specific grievances.  Early on, the focus on RT raised red flags for me.

The specific allegation against RT was often that it was part of a larger Russian fake news or disinformation campaign.  Sputnik News, another Russian State financed outlet, was and is often namedrop mentioned alongside RT in an attempt to group them together.  This can provide the appearance of credibility to the accusations against RT as Sputnik indeed is a 'mixed bag' outlet containing fake news as well as credible reporting from people such as Pepe Escobar (who has been referred to as a pipeline reductionist by Vijay Prashad).  The clear focus is on discrediting RT with little or no more than the namedrop mention of Sputnik News in most instances.

The specific version of the RT TV broadcast that I regularly view is carried on Rogers Digital Cable in Ontario, locally channel 177.  It has had superb accuracy in reporting compared to other, available TV news.  The broadcast is made up specifically of both RT International and RT America content.  My personal comparisons are to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation News Network (CBC), CTV News Network, and the PBS NewsHour program.  I also regularly view these other news sources.

When judging the credibility of a news outlet, I feel it is essential to differentiate the news reports from opinion or debate programming during the analysis.  The 'main-stream' news broadcasts listed as my comparisons to RT are frequently outright inaccurate in their reporting.  Additionally, their level of bias would often distort the objective truth of a story if their reporting was the only source a viewer was exposed to.

I focused my investigation of the allegation that RT was 'fake news' on:  The Intelligence Community Assessment:  Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections, declassified version released by the National Intelligence Council in January 2017.  This document was widely touted in the Western media as definitive evidence of Russian misdeeds during the 2016 US Presidential Election period.  Text regarding RT made up a significant portion of this document’s main body and annex.  In the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), little distinction is made between news reports and other content such as opinion programs.  Criticism of the news reporting does not allege factual inaccuracy, instead contending that coverage of certain subjects by RT was inherently propagandistic.  The main focus, regarding RT, of the Intelligence Community Assessment was on the other types of programming.

Quoting directly from The Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) here are some of the most outrageous accusations that, in my view, do more to discredit the argument that RT is not a credible news broadcaster, than support it.

            ICA Main Body:

The Kremlin’s principal international propaganda outlet RT (formerly Russia Today) has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks. RT’s editor-in-chief visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in August 2013, where they discussed renewing his broadcast contract with RT, according to Russian and Western media. Russian media subsequently announced that RT had become "the only Russian media company" to partner with WikiLeaks and had received access to "new leaks of secret information." RT routinely gives Assange sympathetic coverage and provides him a platform to denounce the United States.

RT and Sputnik—another government-funded outlet producing pro-Kremlin radio and online content in a variety of languages for international audiences—consistently cast President-elect Trump as the target of unfair coverage from traditional US media outlets that they claimed were subservient to a corrupt political establishment.

RT’s coverage of Secretary Clinton throughout the US presidential campaign was consistently negative and focused on her leaked e-mails and accused her of corruption, poor physical and mental health, and ties to Islamic extremism.

ICA Annex A:

RT America TV, a Kremlin-financed channel operated from within the United States, has substantially expanded its repertoire of programming that highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties. The rapid expansion of RT's operations and budget and recent candid statements by RT's leadership point to the channel's importance to the Kremlin as a messaging tool and indicate a Kremlindirected campaign to undermine faith in the US Government and fuel political protest. The Kremlin has committed significant resources to expanding the channel's reach, particularly its social media footprint. A reliable UK report states that RT recently was the most-watched foreign news channel in the UK. RT America has positioned itself as a domestic US channel and has deliberately sought to obscure any legal ties to the Russian Government.

In the runup to the 2012 US presidential election in November, English-language channel RT America -- created and financed by the Russian Government and part of Russian Government-sponsored RT TV (see textbox 1) -- intensified its usually critical coverage of the United States. The channel portrayed the US electoral process as undemocratic and featured calls by US protesters for the public to rise up and "take this government back."

RT introduced two new shows -- "Breaking the Set" on 4 September and "Truthseeker" on 2 November -- both overwhelmingly focused on criticism of US and Western governments as well as the promotion of radical discontent.

In an effort to highlight the alleged "lack of democracy" in the United States, RT broadcast, hosted, and advertised thirdparty candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates. The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a "sham."

RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against "the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations. RT advertising for the documentary featured Occupy movement calls to "take back" the government. The documentary claimed that the US system cannot be changed democratically, but only through "revolution." After the 6 November US presidential election, RT aired a documentary called "Cultures of Protest," about active and often violent political resistance (RT, 1- 10 November).

Simonyan has characterized RT's coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement as "information warfare" that is aimed at promoting popular dissatisfaction with the US Government. RT created a Facebook app to connect Occupy Wall Street protesters via social media. In addition, RT featured its own hosts in Occupy rallies ("Minaev Live," 10 April; RT, 2, 12 June).

RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use (RT, 24, 28 October, 1-10 November).

RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national debt. Some of RT's hosts have compared the United States to Imperial Rome and have predicted that government corruption and "corporate greed" will lead to US financial collapse (RT, 31 October, 4 November).

RT runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and the impacts on public health. This is likely reflective of the Russian Government's concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom's profitability (5 October).

According to Simonyan, "the word 'propaganda' has a very negative connotation, but indeed, there is not a single international foreign TV channel that is doing something other than promotion of the values of the country that it is broadcasting from." She added that "when Russia is at war, we are, of course, on Russia's side" (Afisha, 3 October; Kommersant, 4 July).

On 26 May, Simonyan tweeted with irony: "Ambassador McFaul hints that our channel is interference with US domestic affairs. And we, sinful souls, were thinking that it is freedom of speech."

RT hires or makes contractual agreements with Westerners with views that fit its agenda and airs them on RT. Simonyan said on the pro-Kremlin show "Minaev Live" on 10 April that RT has enough audience and money to be able to choose its hosts, and it chooses the hosts that "think like us," "are interested in working in the anti-mainstream," and defend RT's beliefs on social media. Some hosts and journalists do not present themselves as associated with RT when interviewing people, and many of them have affiliations to other media and activist organizations in the United States.

The motivations, alleged and real, behind the Russian government's funding of a news broadcaster that delivers credible reporting on news stories, and perspectives largely ignored by supposedly 'main-stream' news broadcasters, is not a substantive argument against the validity of the reporting on RT.  There is nothing improper about the subject matter broadcast by RT at any time period in relation to the ongoing election cycles in the US.  The most propagandist practice I have observed on RT is the quoting of Russian government officials and their aids without further comment substantiating or refuting the validity of the quote.  Instances of this practice should be familiar to frequent viewers of Western 'main-stream' media with regard to their quoting of Western government officials and their aids.

I highly recommend that everyone read the full ICA document.  I frankly find it deeply disturbing to characterize coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement, third party candidates, or anti-fracking programming highlighting environmental issues and the impacts on public health, as in any way being propaganda or improper of a media outlet.  To those who contend RT is propaganda, what I want to know is when did the Russians co-opt Larry King?

I would encourage people to watch some RT programming and if anyone finds any content objectionable to make a comment about it below.

Climate Change Market Solutions Trap

The embrace of market driven 'solutions' to climate change is both bad policy and bad politics. Major liberal and social democratic political parties have accepted the right-wing framing on the need for market driven policies on all issues and have fallen into a political trap.

It is clear that any cost of doing business is passed onto the consumer. For this reason, carbon pricing policies to impose an economic disincentive on the use of fossil fuels are effectively regressive policies. The adoption of these policies by liberals and social democrats allows the political right to hammer them with this line of attack with seeming credibility. The political right are perceived to be outflanking from the left by proposing no action on climate change.

The market driven policy direction exposes the real contradiction, constrained within capitalism, between the economic wellbeing of the masses and climate action pursuant to climate science. Liberals and social democrats continue to pretend this contradiction does not exist.

I have no specific policy proposals to offer within the scope of this post only the general call for libertarian communism. On a side note, the aforementioned political label is great because it annoys both market fundamentalists and Stalinists.

Uniformed Police Participating in LGBT Pride Parades

The distinction between the virtuous Black and LGBT Pride movements and White and Straight Pride hate movements is no longer very clear among the general public.  In this vein, it is asserted that Pride, dropping the explicit focus on the LGBT community, is simply about inclusion and therefore it is argued that Uniformed Police should be included as any other constituency.

This argument is designed to erase the historical origin of Pride as a protest movement for the LGBT community's fundamental and civil rights.  The LGBT community has been historically, and is currently, violently suppressed by the Police around the world.  Logically, following from the historic origin of LGBT Pride, efforts for further inclusion would naturally highlight the Black and Brown liberation movements, and the Palestinian freedom struggle among other just causes.  If this were the dominant trajectory of the LGBT Pride movement, and it would once again become an anti-establishment protest movement for the rights of the oppressed - not the festival atmosphere viewed as a major economic stimulus it has become in the West - I contend we would soon see the police reinvigorate their role, with regards to LGBT Pride, as the agents of oppression.  It should be no surprise that there is no similar demand for uniformed police to participate in May Day demonstrations.  In the United States, the catalyst for the modern LGBT Pride movement was the June 28, 1969 Stonewall Inn Riots.  Learning more about this history is a good place to start to understand why uniformed police have no place in LGBT Pride.

It is only the historically ignorant, or those with sinister motivations, that would suggest the police should be treated as honoured participants in a LGBT Pride parade.

Executive Overreach: Use of Military Force Without Congressional Authorization

There are many arguments to be made against the continuation of the American Empire and Wars of Choice.  Making flimsy, legalistic arguments against political opponents, and ignoring clear crimes of a greater magnitude committed by those in the same party, is partisan hackery.  Holding all Presidents accountable in an unbiased fashion is the only way to stand up for the constitutionally mandated division of powers.

Barack Obama’s military intervention to overthrow the government of Libya in 2011, is the most clear, blatant and damaging example of executive overreach for a military intervention not authorized by U.S. Congress since 2001.  This intervention would be the focus of any sincere commitment to challenge executive overreach of unauthorized military intervention.  This clearly impeachable offence by Obama should be cause for an investigation seeking the prosecution of Obama and his administration.  There can only be a real deterrent to future violations with the prosecution of this offence.  Otherwise, it will become clear that such blatantly unconstitutional actions, for all to see, go unpunished.

Libya had nothing to do with September 11, 2001, and had no relationship with Al Qaeda.  Obama intervened not only without congressional authorization, but in defiance of a vote by the House of Representatives, defeating a motion authorizing further military intervention in Libya.  Consequently, Obama specifically violated the War Powers Resolution by continuing to intervene militarily in Libya.

There are some in politics and associated policy and commentary professions that choose to make US military action against The Islamic State the focus of their condemnation.  I will demonstrate that the only argument that has any validity, at best relies on a flimsy legalistic interpretation of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

The following is the most relevant part of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. 

The following sequence of events should make it clear that The Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) should be considered an authorized target for use of military force, regardless of what some commentators and elected representatives contend.

Sequence of Events:

·   Al Qaeda leadership - determined by the President to have committed the attacks of September 11, 2001 - recognized Al Qaeda in Iraq as an affiliate.

·   Al Qaeda in Iraq underwent several mergers with ex Iraqi Ba'athists and other parts of the Iraqi resistance to US occupation, adopting the name The Islamic State of Iraq.

·   After nearly being totally defeated in Iraq, The Islamic State of Iraq was able to reconstitute itself by infiltrating the Syrian opposition in the Syrian Civil War.  They eventually emerge as The Islamic State of Iraq and Al Sham (ISIS).

·   Following longstanding tensions between Al Qaeda leadership and their Iraqi affiliate, a full break occurred, severing the organisations.  Around this time period, the truncated name “The Islamic State” is adopted.  This rupture represented a challenge from The Islamic State to Al Qaeda for dominance and leadership of the global Jihadi movement.

·   There is speculation, that I am inclined to believe, that within the Iraqi affiliate the ex Iraqi Ba'athists became dominant and resented following orders from Al Qaeda leadership based primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

An interpretation of the intention of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force that exempts The Islamic State is flimsy and absurd, especially with regard to the purpose “to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States”.  Following the logic of the proponents of this interpretation, the mere development of an internal Al Qaeda power struggle bringing a splinter faction to prominence, in its own right, must be interpreted as reason enough to exempt the newly independent organization from being an authorized target.  It is exactly the same conclusion members of the House Progressive Caucus reached to condemn Donald Trump for escalating the anti Islamic State Syrian intervention initiated by Obama.  It is clear that the argument of executive overreach is extremely weak in the matter of combating ISIS.

There are inconsistencies in positions regarding Obama's and Trump's actions combating ISIS.  There is also a severe lack of condemnation for Obama's 2011 Libyan intervention, which so far has been the far greater crime compared to Trump's so far limited attacks on Syrian government forces recently.  Trump's military engagements against the forces of the State of Syria, and their allies, constitutes his own genuine executive overreach.  Trump has not sought authorization from Congress for these actions, and has not indicated he is intending to, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.

The War Powers Resolution is an attempt to allow The President, in their capacity as Commander in Chief, to respond to imminent threats to the United States and maintain the constitutional requirement that vests the power to declare war and authorize the use of military force with the Congress.  It would seem most reasonable to grant the greatest leeway to the President to combat the credible and ongoing threat presented by Al Qaeda and ISIS.  There should be no leeway to allow the President to make unilateral war on a sovereign state that presents no credible threat to the United States, overriding the authority of the Congress in doing so.  Far too many people, judging by their emphasis on the matter, seem to have drawn the opposite conclusion.

There can, and should, be a separate debate if a military response to organisations like Al Qaeda and ISIS is necessary at all, and what is the effectiveness of the actions taken in diminishing the threat.  It is my conclusion that Obama's drone war policy was largely counterproductive.  What should not be tolerated are wars that only serve the personal interests of the President or murky geostrategic and corporate interests.