Dutton is a man of little compassion and…

All that I had predicted about Peter Dutton has come to pass.…

Compost: a climate action solution

Composting’s role in the fight against climate change will be in focus…

The River Road

By James Moore “Four wheels move the body, but two wheels move…

Balancing eSafety and Online Censorship, 2024

By Denis Hay Description: Explore how Australia’s eSafety laws impact free speech and how…

Ignorant. Woke.

By Bert Hetebry Yesterday I was ignorant. I had received, unsolicited, a YouTube video…

Violence in our churches

We must always condemn violence. There must be no tolerance for brutality,…

Treasuring the moment: a military tattoo

By Frances Goold He asked if we had anything planned for Anzac Day. "A…

Top water experts urge renewed action to secure…

The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) has today urged…

«
»
Facebook

Tag Archives: Ukraine

To Putin, Ukraine is his Taiwan

By Trisha De Borchgrave

Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin’s obsession with Taiwan and Ukraine (and their egos) collectively threaten to spark a nuclear war.

China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin have been relatively successful in their long-standing mission to centralise institutions, laws, and technologies in ways that maximize their political power and limit individual freedoms. But their one failure so far has been to secure the biggest object of their desire, the breakaway territories of Taiwan for Xi, and Ukraine for “P.”

In light of Russia’s recent military build-up near the Ukrainian border, one can almost imagine Xi Zooming with P a few months ago and saying, “Hey, this arms build-up around Taiwan is working for us, why not try it around Ukraine?”

Nothing unites these two autocrats more than the way their shared vision of national greatness is being undermined by the neuralgic sting of humiliation. As heads of former dominant regional powers, it is a rejection that they take personally.

Macho men never get over being jilted. Women who leave their husbands for no reason other than wanting to find their happier selves can often trigger a wave of embarrassment, hurt, and indignity in their exes. A former spouse’s newfound ability to live her own life is a constant reminder of their failure to sustain or re-create the union that was so central to their self-identity.

For Xi and P, the disintegration of their countries’ territorial integrity – the loss of Ukraine for Putin and of Taiwan for Xi – threatens to undermine their credibility.

For Xi and P, the disintegration of their countries’ territorial integrity – the loss of Ukraine for Putin and of Taiwan for Xi – threatens to undermine their credibility. Their “exes,” therefore, must have been unfairly taken away from them; Putin even goes so far as to say that Ukraine “has no right to exist.”

Russia’s investment into its build-up of forces near its border with Ukraine could reach 175,000 troops over the next few weeks, plus tanks, artillery, and equipment. For its part, China has undertaken a twenty-five-year military expansion around the Taiwan Straits, which includes precision missiles, fighter jets, a fleet of 360 warships, and nuclear submarines in the making. Each makes it clear to their opponents that, if challenged in their objective of an eventual reunion, there could be the risk of a nuke-driven world war.

As with the most painful family break-ups, this behaviour sucks all those around them into their soul-sapping and life-wasting meddling, whether it is the need to counteract Russian efforts to leverage European gas pipelines to weaken Ukraine, or America’s and Japan’s efforts to deter China’s intrusions into Taiwan’s air space. Everything becomes a zero-win struggle to try to assuage Russia’s and China’s feelings of being wronged and to deter their counterproductive plans to rewrite the past and shape the future.

This brinkmanship forces western allies into a relationship of strategic ambiguity with the “renegades,” by providing them, in an incremental game of grandmother’s footsteps, with military training, equipment, economic support, and diplomatic engagement that in 2021 approximated $450 million of American security assistance to Ukraine. Bipartisan approval in the US Congress will spend up to a yearly $2 billion on Taiwan.

In the battle to re-establish their country’s collective identity and thereby cement their name in perpetuity, Russia’s financial investment in fire and manpower on the Ukrainian border is a small price to pay if it becomes another step to its long-term goal. It has also amassed a $620 billion war chest to reinstate Putin’s spousal rights and global relevance.

 

Trisha de Borchgrave is a writer and artist based in London. For more see: www.trishadeborchgrave.com, and follow her on www.twitter.com/TrishdeB and on Instagram as intelligent_food

 

 

This article was originally published on The Big Smoke.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Merchants of Hypocrisy: Open for the Business of War

As the situation between Russia and Ukraine deteriorates to the brink of war, is our government entertaining the thought of joining in on this war, asks Loz Lawrey.

“Nothing is free. Someone always pays”, says Joe Hockey, “we must live within our means”.

Much has been made of the two simultaneous messages appearing on one newspaper’s front page: severe cuts to pensioner entitlements and the extravagant outlay of some $12.4 billion on weapons of war.

Accusations of hubris and hypocrisy are mere water off a duck’s back to this Coalition government, who are convinced they can do whatever they wish whenever they wish, regardless of public opinion.

Tony Abbott still claims an irrefutable mandate to make choices and decisions with little consideration, consultation or advice. As with John Howard, ‘instinct’ and ‘belief’ are enough. In other words, unfettered open slather prevails: “You elected us, so we’ve won and we’ll do as we please. About anything. And everything. Because we can”.

The joint strike fighter jets will, according to Abbott, “ensure our edge as a regional power . . . you just don’t know what’s around the corner . . . the world remains a difficult . . . and often a dangerous place”. Confrontational, assertive language. Some might call it the language of a warmonger.

Weasel-speak, flung about like a certain proverbial substance, is used to distract us and disrupt our analytical thinking before we reach any conclusions, a sort of bait-and-switch operation which leaves us ignoring important issues and giggling at trivia.

A slogan is uttered, a camera flashes, a ‘gotcha’ moment happens, and in the confusion important questions go unasked and unanswered. The media pack moves on.

Meanwhile the warm fireside tone of the delivery belies the harsh message aimed at preparing us psychologically for the kicking and beating this brutal government intends to consciously, deliberately, inflict upon Australian society.

Hockey’s psychobabble continues: “It is about the we, not the me” (sounds a bit like socialism) . . . “more use of co-payments must be made” (definitely conservatism).

But is it babble? Or well-crafted spin to prepare us for war? Australia’s apparently irreversible engagement with the U.S. and subservience to its foreign policy seems really stupid and ill-advised whenever the sabre-rattling between the U.S. and China or Russia begins.

Isn’t this how it works? Step one: encourage recession by talking down the economy and defunding everything. Step two: follow through with austerity measures to ensure across-the board misery. Step three: encourage minority-blaming, thuggery, social dislocation. Step four: mission accomplished: the people are crushed and ready for war.

I was born several years after the conclusion of World War Two. During my whole life war and conflict have been constants on the world stage, and Australian soldiers have died overseas in Korea, Malaya, Borneo, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.

One thing you can count on with the human race; we’ve always got a war going on. And Australia has always been prepared to send its young men out as cannon-fodder at the whim of the U.K. or the U.S. on the flimsiest pretext.

Remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction which never were? There are many who wonder why John Howard hasn’t been tried as a war criminal for committing our country to the U.S.’s unjustified invasion of Iraq in which so many Iraqis, Americans and Australians died.

What is war other than schoolyard bullying writ large? A line is crossed, battle is engaged, and the reason for it all is forgotten in the heat of the action. Bait and switch, again. And again.

The invasion of Iraq was not sanctioned by the United Nations. At the time, Howard justified the action by saying it had “a sound legal basis” in previous decisions of the security council. As usual, clever language was used to deflect questions and criticism about the lack of U.N. support.

Today both Howard and George W. Bush are happily retired while a country lies in ruins, her people struggling to subsist within a legacy of destruction and conflict.

Is this what we can expect from Abbott? Another neoconservative bequest of misery, poverty and unrest? Blind unthinking subservience to the megalomania of a foreign power which believes it owns the world? Young Australians scattered about the globe to die for nothing? Young lives to be chewed up and spat out by a global military-industrial complex that prevails to this day, the same one Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the world about in 1961?

How does the lie prevail, the lie that tells us something good is accomplished by slaughter and destruction?

As far as the Iraq war went, here’s how Howard justified it: “The government strongly believes that the decision it has taken is right, it is legal, it is directed towards the protection of the Australian national interest and I ask the Australian community to support it”. And support it we did.

Well, perhaps not all of us, but if we didn’t speak out then we too supported the invasion. I’ll declare myself here: I felt the outrage, but I didn’t express it. To my shame, I didn’t speak out.

Divided and conquered, we bury our misgivings and swallow the bitter pill of nationalism. We allow ourselves to accept the necessity for a conflict we don’t even comprehend. Then we participate in that conflict, convinced of the righteousness of our purpose. And history repeats.

That’s how they get away with it. By our silence we give consent. John Howard will never be brought to trial, because we would also be judging ourselves.

The huge government spend on fighter jets can only be seen as a “toys for the boys” indulgence by Abbott and Co. It’s hard to imagine our little airforce taking on Russia, the U.S. or China. And if we’re to ride on the coat-tails of the Yanks, don’t they have enough jets already? And what’s the real context of this? Defence? We’re hardly a match for a superpower, with or without jets.

Yesterday U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry issued a stern warning to Russia over the situation in Ukraine, saying “Whatever path Russia chooses, the United States and our allies will stand together in our defense of Ukraine”. More sabre-rattling. And what did Abbott say again? ” . . . you just don’t know what’s around the corner . . . the world remains a difficult . . . and often a dangerous place”.

Is it simply that there’s a mood in the world for war?