Tag: perpetual war

The Missiles of October

The last remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the United States and Russia — New START — is set to expire on Feb. 5, 2026.

This treaty, which caps the nuclear arsenals of both nations at 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear weapons each, was signed back in 2010, during the administrations of U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. At that time, the two nations were engaged in what proved to be an abortive “reset” of relations.

But the underlying problems which prompted the need for a reset —  NATO expansion, continued U.S. pursuit of hegemony disguised as a “rules based international order” and a general U.S. disregard for arms control as a necessary mechanism of global stability — were never fully addressed, and new problems emerged (such as the reemergence of Vladimir Putin as the president of Russian, Russian intervention in Syria and the conflict in Ukraine) which made a reset impossible.

Instead, relations between the two nuclear-armed world powers worsened, and today the U.S. finds itself in a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine that threatens to go nuclear at any moment should either side make a mistake or miscalculation. Both nations find themselves on the cusp of a new nuclear arms race, and the only thing that holds them back is a treaty set to expire and no new treaty on the horizon.

On Sept. 22, Russian President Vladmir Putin, speaking to his Security Council, declared that “to avoid provoking a further strategic arms race and to ensure an acceptable level of predictability and restraint, we believe it is justified to try to maintain the status quo established by the New START Treaty during the current, rather turbulent period.” Putin said Russia is prepared to stick by the treaty’s limits for one more year after it expires.

As of the end of September, the Trump administration had yet to formally respond to Putin’s offer regarding New START. The closest thing to a response was a comment made by President Donald Trump to the press when asked about Putin’s offer. “Sounds like a good idea to me,” Trump told reporters as he departed the White House.

The lack of an official response from the Trump administration regarding a moratorium on retaining the New START caps on deployed nuclear weapons is disconcerting, since the purpose of the moratorium isn’t to simply prevent an arms race in the short term, but also buy time for negotiations that would result in a new treaty framework that takes into account the complexities surrounding the issue of nuclear weapons and arms control today.

Keep reading

Ukrainians told to stop sharing violent conscription videos

Ukraine’s conscription authorities have called on citizens to refrain from documenting cases of violent forced military enlistment, instead urging the population to “cherish” recruitment officers. 

The message, shared on Wednesday by the Kiev Regional Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support (TCK), condemned a Telegram channel called Stop TCK Ukraine, which has been circulating videos of men being violently detained and forced into enlistment vehicles – incidents popularly dubbed “busifications” that often go viral.

The center alleged the channel was part of Russian information warfare and told Ukrainians to “never (!) watch videos of ‘busification.’”

“For God’s sake, don’t film or share such videos,” the post read. “If the Russians turn you into sheep, they’ll slaughter you like pigs tomorrow. So cherish the TCKs, help the TCKs, assist and protect them. They are the only ones filling the ranks of frontline units.”

Keep reading

US ‘war on drugs’ is just another regime change attempt

The United States is once again targeting Venezuela, in Washington’s long quest for regime change in the country.

What the Trump administration falsely claims is a war against so-called Venezuelan drug smugglers, has seen the extrajudicial killings of 21 Venezuelans in the past few weeks. US troops, aircraft and warships have been moved near Venezuelan waters, which some fear indicates a coming US war on the country.

The US military made several separate attacks over the course of the past month on boats US President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have claimed were carrying drugs “enroute to poison Americans”. Neither Trump nor Hegseth provided any evidence or the specific locations of the incidents.

One would think that the legally appropriate way to deal with drug traffickers (if that is in fact what the Venezuelans were to begin with) would be to arrest them and put them on trial. Instead, the men were killed on sight, apparently with missiles that also conveniently destroyed all the evidence. Trump’s justification was to claim they were “extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels and narcoterrorists” and that they “POSE A THREAT to U.S. National Security, Foreign Policy, and vital U.S. Interests.”

To sum it up, we have extrajudicial assassinations in international waters, without congressional approval.

Furthermore, on September 12, 18 armed US personnel from the US Navy destroyer USS Jason Dunham boarded and occupied a local tuna fishing vessel Carmen Rosa for 8 hours in Venezuelan waters, in yet another direct provocation of Caracas.

Keep reading

When Presidents Kill

During the past six weeks, President Donald Trump has ordered U.S. troops to attack and destroy four speed boats in the Caribbean Sea, 1,500 miles from the United States. The president revealed that the attacks were conducted without warning, were intended not to stop but to kill all persons on the boats, and succeeded in their missions.

Trump has claimed that his victims are “narco-terrorists” who were planning to deliver illegal drugs to willing American buyers. He apparently believes that because these folks are presumably foreigners, they have no rights that he must honor and he may freely kill them. As far as we know, none of these nameless, faceless persons was charged or convicted of any federal crime. We don’t know if any were Americans. But we do know that all were just extrajudicially executed.

Can the president legally do this? In a word: NO. Here is the backstory.

Limiting Federal Powers

The U.S. Constitution was ratified to establish federal powers and to limit them.
Congress is established to write the laws and to declare war. The president is established to enforce the laws that Congress has written and to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

Restraints are imposed on both. Congress may only enact legislation in the 16 discrete areas of governance articulated in the Constitution — and it may only legislate subject to all persons’ natural rights identified and articulated in the Bill of Rights.

The president may only enforce the laws that Congress has written — he cannot craft his own. And he may employ the military only in defense of a real imminent military-style attack or to fight wars that Congress has declared.

The Constitution prohibits the president from fighting undeclared wars, and federal law prohibits him from employing the military for law enforcement purposes.

The Fifth Amendment — in tandem with the 14th, which restrains the states — assures that no person’s life, liberty or property may be taken without due process of law. Because the drafters of the amendment used the word “person” instead of “citizen,” the courts have ruled consistently that this due process requirement is applicable to all human beings.

Basically, wherever the government goes, it is subject to constitutional restraints.

Tribunal Trial

Traditionally, due process means a trial. In the case of a civilian, it means a jury trial, with the full panoply of attendant protections required by the Constitution.
In the case of enemy combatants, it means a fair neutral tribunal.

The tribunal requirement came about in an odd and terrifying way. In 1942, four Nazi troops arrived via submarine at Amagansett Beach, New York, and exchanged their uniforms for civilian garb. At nearly the same time, four other Nazi troops arrived via submarine at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, and also donned civilian clothing. All eight set about their assigned task of destroying American munitions factories and infrastructure. After one of them went to the F.B.I., all eight were arrested.

At trial, all eight were convicted of attempted sabotage behind enemy lines — a war crime. The Supreme Court quickly returned to Washington from its summer vacation and unanimously upheld the convictions. By the time the court issued its formal opinion, six of the eight had been executed. The two Americans were sentenced to life in prison. Their sentences were commuted five years later by President Harry Truman.

Keep reading

How Much U.S. Has Given Israel and How Much U.S. Military Has Spent to Protect It, Since the Gaza War Began

Since the Gaza war began on October 7, 2023, the United States has poured massive financial and military support into Israel, marking one of the largest aid efforts in modern U.S. history. According to recent studies, Washington has provided an estimated $21.7 billion in military assistance to Israel over the past two years — about $17.9 billion during the first year of fighting and roughly $3.8 billion in the following months. These figures represent a combination of direct arms transfers, financial aid, and replenishment of Israel’s missile defense systems such as Iron Dome and David’s Sling.

Much of this funding came from emergency appropriations and presidential drawdowns, which allowed the U.S. to deliver weapons and ammunition directly from its own stockpiles without waiting for new contracts to be approved. Within weeks of the October 2023 attacks, U.S. aircraft were flying shipments of artillery shells, precision-guided bombs, and interceptors to Israeli bases. Congress later formalized these actions through a $14.1 billion supplemental package in early 2024 that reimbursed the Pentagon and expanded Israel’s access to advanced defense systems. In early 2025, the U.S. approved another $8 billion in arms sales, ensuring a steady flow of weaponry in the years ahead.

But beyond financial aid, the U.S. has spent billions more on its own military operations in the Middle East to shield Israel from regional threats. Analysts at Brown University’s Costs of War project estimate that between October 2023 and September 2025, American military operations related to the Gaza war cost between $9.6 and $12 billion. These expenses cover the deployment of aircraft carriers, fighter jets, missile-defense batteries, and surveillance assets in the eastern Mediterranean and Red Sea. The U.S. Navy maintained carrier strike groups, such as the USS Gerald R. Ford and USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, near Israel’s coast for months, acting as a visible deterrent to Iran-backed militias and providing rapid-response capabilities if the conflict spread.

American forces also launched limited air and missile strikes on groups like the Houthis in Yemen, who had been targeting Red Sea shipping routes in protest of the Gaza war. These actions, while not directly part of Israel’s operations, were considered essential to protect Israel and maintain regional stability, according to U.S. defense officials. Together with increased patrols, intelligence flights, and logistics costs, they formed a significant share of Washington’s wartime spending.

The overall U.S. investment — both in aid to Israel and in its own regional missions — now totals between $30 billion and $35 billion since the start of the conflict. This figure represents not only direct support for Israel’s military campaign but also the cost of sustaining America’s wider strategic presence in the Middle East. Officials argue that such support is necessary to deter Iran and maintain the balance of power, while critics point out that it deepens U.S. involvement in a war that has caused widespread civilian suffering in Gaza and strained Washington’s global image.

Even as the fighting enters its third year, shipments of U.S. arms and funds continue, and naval assets remain stationed near the conflict zone. The financial and operational commitment underscores the depth of Washington’s alliance with Israel — one that now extends far beyond arms sales, involving continuous military engagement, strategic cover, and billions in taxpayer dollars to sustain a war that shows few signs of ending soon.

Keep reading

Ukrainian parliament confirms local elections will not be held due to martial law

The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted a resolution that ensures the continuity of representative bodies of local self-government given the conditions of military aggression by Russia, Ukrinform reported, quoted by BTA.

The document states that the organization, preparation and holding of local elections in accordance with national legislation and European standards for democratic elections are impossible in the conditions of the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine and given the declared martial law in the country.

At the same time, the parliamentary resolution emphasizes the stable functioning of local government bodies and the exercise of their powers in accordance with the Constitution and laws of Ukraine.

According to the document, mayors, municipal and city councilors and regional councils will remain in power until holding elections after the war with Russia.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said during a meeting with Donald Trump earlier this year that he was ready to hold elections after the end of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

According to the Ukrainian constitution, the country was supposed to hold local elections on October 26, five years after the 2020 elections. This would affect the term of Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko, who has been in office since 2014. Due to martial law in the country, regular parliamentary elections in October 2023 and presidential elections in March 2024 were canceled. This gives Russia reason to question Volodymyr Zelensky’s legitimacy, DPA reports.

Keep reading

Trump has yet to provide Congress hard evidence that targeted boats carried drugs, officials say

The Trump administration has yet to provide underlying evidence to lawmakers proving that alleged drug-smuggling boats targeted by the U.S. military in a series of fatal strikes were in fact carrying narcotics, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

As bipartisan frustration with the strikes mounts, the Republican-controlled Senate on Wednesday voted down a war powers resolution that would have required the president to seek authorization from Congress before further military strikes on the cartels.

The military has carried out at least four strikes on boats that the White House said were carrying drugs, including three it said originated from Venezuela. It said 21 people were killed in the strikes.

The officials, who were not authorized to comment publicly about the matter and spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration has only pointed to unclassified video clips of the strikes posted on social media by President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and has yet to produce “hard evidence” that the vessels were carrying drugs.

The administration has not explained why it has blown up vessels in some cases, while carrying out the typical practice of stopping boats and seizing drugs at other times, one of the officials said.

Keep reading

Senate Votes Down Resolution Seeking to Halt Trump’s Use of Military Force Against Cartel Boats

The U.S. Senate has voted against legislation seeking to direct the withdrawal of the U.S. military from hostilities that have not been authorized by Congress.

The proposal was a direct challenge to President Donald Trump’s decision as commander in chief to use military force against drug cartels operating in waters around the United States.

The 48-51 vote on Wednesday was mostly split along party lines, although Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Maine) crossed the floor to support the Democrat-led resolution, while Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) crossed the floor to join the majority of Republicans to reject it.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) sponsored the measure, which was filed under the War Powers Act of 1973.

The resolution bill sought to direct the removal of the United States military from hostilities that Congress has not authorized. The bill came in response to U.S. military hits on four vessels linked to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. U.S. officials said the ships were involved in smuggling drugs into the United States. At least 21 people have been killed in these military operations.

The resolution said that drug trafficking could not be considered an armed attack or an imminent threat justifying military action, and that designating an organization as a foreign terrorist group did not authorize such use of force. It noted the United States retains the right to act in self-defense against an armed attack.

Keep reading

Biden Stands Accused of Provoking ‘the War in Ukraine to Cover Up His Family’s Corruption’

A senior Russian official has accused Joe Biden of provoking the war in Ukraine to conceal alleged corruption involving his family.

Kirill Dmitriev, who serves as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s special envoy on international economic and investment cooperation, made the claim in a statement to reporters and in a series of posts on X on Monday.

Dmitriev said Biden’s actions as president contributed to the escalation of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which began in February 2022, and alleged that the motivation was tied to his family’s financial interests in the region.

Dmitriev stated, “Former U.S. President Joe Biden provoked the war in Ukraine to cover up his family’s corruption.”

Keep reading

Israel Ignores Trump Demand To Stop Bombing During Peace Discussions

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has ignored President Trump’s request to stop the bombing of Gaza during negotiations with the leaders of Hamas over the latest peace proposal. It appears that Trump may be changing some of his views and slowly beginning to realize that, as the Jewish New York Times Columnist, Tom Friedman, wrote last May 9, “Netanyahu is not our friend.”

In just the last few days, Trump has said emphatically that he will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank, criticized Israel’s bombing of Qatar, and has publicly called for Israel to stop bombing Gaza during the peace discussions.

In addition, Axios reported this past weekend that Trump expressed his frustration in a phone call with Netanyahu telling him “You are always so f——ing negative.” Hopefully, Trump was not fooled by Netanyahu’s showy flattery nominating him for the Nobel peace prize at a White House dinner. AI defines flattery as “excessive or dishonest praise given to further one’s interest rather than to genuinely admire another person.” That is exactly what Netanyahu was doing, and everyone knew it.

Several former presidents have been angered by Netanyahu or by actions or demands by earlier Israeli leaders. According to a 2024 CNN story “Netanyahu earned the undying enmity of former President Barack Obama for trying to tank the Iran nuclear deal” and that former President Bill Clinton “exploded” after his first meeting with Netanyahu saying “Who’s the f——ing Superpower here?”

In fact, according to AI and several news reports, almost every U.S. President since Eisenhower, both Democrats and Republicans, have expressed anger or frustration with Israel’s demands, wars, and settlement policies.

Eisenhower went the furthest. According to AI, he was “furious” with Israel for its demand for the U.S. to go with it to war with Egypt over the Suez Canal. “Eisenhower threatened to impose economic sanctions and cut off all aid to force Israel to withdraw its troops from the Sinai Peninsula. The pressure worked and Israel pulled back its forces.” What is most amazing is that Eisenhower did this on national television just one week before the 1956 Presidential election.

A recent Washington Post poll revealed that, “Many American Jews sharply disapprove of Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza, with 61% saying Israel has committed war crimes….and about 4 in 10 saying the country is guilty of genocide against the Palestinians….”

This poll of 815 American Jews also said 68% gave “negative marks to Netanyahu’s leadership of Israel.” The same report said hundreds of thousands had turned out for pro Palestinian demonstrations across Europe, including 250,000 in Rome.

Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians has now been condemned by huge majorities in 95% of the countries in this world in both street protests and official actions by national governments and the United Nations.

The U.S. has stood as Israel’s only significant ally, along with a very few tiny countries afraid of losing American foreign aid. It is obvious that our Congress would have led the condemnation of what has gone on in Gaza if it had happened in any other country than Israel. In this situation, the silence by members of Congress has been deafening, apparently because of fear of money directed by the Israel Lobby.

Keep reading