Ukraine and the militarization of Europe

Peter Schwarz, wsws.org

[T]he conflict in Ukraine is being utilized to reshape political and social relations in Europe. In the process, the most right-wing forces, which have little support in the population, are setting the tone.

They are using the crisis, provoked by the US, Germany and NATO, to transform Europe into a military fortress. They are not only risking nuclear war with Russia, but also subordinating Europe to an iron discipline.

The NATO military alliance, dominated by the US, has virtually assumed control of European politics. At the end of this week, the biannual NATO summit, to be held in Wales, will agree a new strategic policy with historic implications.

“In future, the defence of alliance territory will once again be central after a decade in which all efforts were concentrated on foreign missions in far away places in the world,” writes the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagzeitung. By this it means that the massive military resources of the alliance are to be refocused on Russia, as was the case with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Among other things, the summit will agree the formation of two intervention forces, ready to act against Russia within days. This first is a 4,000- to 20,000-strong “vanguard” of the already existing NATO Response Force (NRF)—one that will be able to respond more rapidly. The second is a 10,000-strong expeditionary force under British leadership, with the participation of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands.

The NATO military alliance, dominated by the US, has virtually assumed control of European politics. Meantime, nobody asks why this entity is still around decades after it lost its official raison d’être.

In order to ensure the rapid deployment of these forces, NATO plans to establish bases for intelligence, logistics and planning in the Baltic states as well as Poland and Romania.

This effectively renders the NATO-Russia Founding Act signed in 1997, in which NATO committed itself not to deploy large troop contingents on the territory of the former Eastern Bloc, null and void. Poland, the Baltic states and Canada have long been demanding the cancellation of this agreement, in which Russia and NATO pledged to collaborate peacefully. To all intents, this has now been carried out.

Russia’s alleged aggression against Ukraine is constantly cited as the reason for the military moves. But this stands matters on their head. The aggression in Ukraine was instigated by the US and Germany, which supported a putsch against the elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, in which Washington and Berlin collaborated with the fascists of Svoboda and the Right Sector. The Russian reaction was entirely predictable.

The crisis in Ukraine was provoked and manipulated as a pretext for the militarization of Europe and, in particular, the surmounting of the deep-seated popular opposition to war and militarism in Germany. It is impossible within the framework of this article to list all of the lies and distortions employed over recent months to aggravate the crisis and exploit it for propaganda purposes. One thing, however, has remained constant: the exclusion by NATO of any negotiated settlement with Russia.

The real reason for NATO’s strategic change of course lies in the insoluble crisis of American and European capitalism. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the lie that the European Union, after perhaps a temporary lean period, will become a haven of general well being and social security has been shattered.

Especially in the Eastern European countries, the majority of the population has to contend with unemployment, poverty wages and the collapse of old age, health and social welfare provisions. The social situation of the working population is much worse than at the time of the collapse of the Stalinist regimes 25 years ago, while a small, corrupt and criminal minority has enormously enriched itself. But in Southern Europe too, and in the wealthier centre of the continent, the working class has faced one wave of austerity after another. Social relations in Europe are strained to breaking point.

The attempt to redefine Europe on the basis of the conflict between East and West is the response of the ruling elites to the bankruptcy of the project of the European Union. The EU is today despised by broad social layers, which correctly view it as an instrument of powerful capitalist interests. At the same time, conflicts and tensions are increasing between the European powers, especially between Germany and France.

The confrontation with Russia, as we wrote in April, “is aimed at unifying a divided European Union and silencing all social opposition. Previously, the identity of the EU was grounded on economic issues, such as the free movement of capital and goods and the common currency. In future, the struggle against a common enemy will replace economics as the basis of the EU’s internal cohesion.” This analysis has been fully confirmed.

The ruling class is reacting to this crisis as it did 100 and 75 years ago—with militarism and war. The militarisation of foreign policy and of society as a whole serves imperialist aims—the conquest of new spheres of influence, markets and sources of raw material—as well as the deflection of social tensions outward and the strengthening of the police powers of the state at home.

It is no accident that well-known representatives of social reaction stand at the head of the war campaign against Russia.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who never tires of stoking up the conflict with Russia, was the first Danish premier to rely on the support of the far-right Danish Peoples Party. The author of the book From Welfare State to Minimal State, he oversaw the redistribution of wealth from those at the bottom to those at the top and introduced Europe’s most restrictive immigration policy in previously tolerant Denmark. He was awarded the post of NATO general secretary as a reward for his dispatch of Danish troops to Iraq after the US-British invasion in 2003.

The appointment of Donald Tusk as the new president of the European Council must also be seen in this context. The Polish prime minister brings “the experience of anti-communism and anti-Soviet resistance to everyday Brussels,” wrote the Süddeutsche Zeitung. “From a central European perspective,” the newspaper continued, that could be “quite useful in the present crisis.”

Tusk counts among the leading architects of the February putsch in Kiev. He even managed to transform the official commemoration of the beginning of World War II into an anti-Russian demonstration—as if the invasion of Poland had not been the launching pad for Hitler’s war of extermination against the Soviet Union. Speaking September 1 at the Westerplatte near Gdansk, Tusk argued that the German attack 75 years ago allows the Poles today “to say loudly that nobody has the right to block our initiatives, whose aim is effective NATO action.” He warned against the slogan “never again war” becoming a manifesto of the weak.

A new volunteer recruit of the Ukrainian army Azov Battalion heading towards the eastern regions, after a military oath ceremony in Kyiv on June 23.
© Ukrainian News

With its moves against Russia, NATO is placing the fate of Europe in the hands of hysterical anti-communists who enriched themselves from capitalist restoration, such as Lithuanian President Dali Grybauskaite, who recently declared that Russia was “practically at war with Europe.” Then there are the Ukrainian oligarchs, such as President Petro Poroschenko and the regional governor of Dnipropetrovsk, Ihor Kolomoyskyi, who finances the fascist militia Azov Battalion. A provocation from this quarter would be sufficient to make a catastrophic war with Russia almost inevitable.

There is not a trace of opposition from all the other establishment parties in Europe. In Germany, the Social Democratic Party and the Greens stand fully behind the revival of German militarism. They voted for a breach in the dam of German foreign policy on, of all days, September 1, the 75th anniversary of Germany’s assault on Poland. For the first time since the Second World War, the German government is sending weapons to a war zone by arming the Kurdish Peshmerga in Northern Iraq with antitank rockets. The sending of weapons is only the prelude to sending soldiers to safeguard the interests of German imperialism in the Middle East.

The Left Party has also repeatedly condemned Russian “aggression” in Ukraine, and so declared their support for German militarism. If they occasionally criticise the policies of the government, they do so in the knowledge that their parliamentary support is not required. For them, it is a tactical matter of heading off and suffocating the opposition of the overwhelming majority of the population.

In the current crisis, Russia is without doubt the victim of a provocation, but the reaction of President Vladimir Putin is an expression of the political bankruptcy of his regime. The Russian regime emerged from the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the devastating effects of which are becoming ever more clear. Based on the defence of the interests of oligarchs who have amassed billions through the looting of state property, the Putin government is organically incapable of turning to the European and international working class. Instead, it appeals to Russian nationalism. This reactionary policy, which fuels divisions between workers in Russia, Ukraine and the rest of Europe, is one of the main trump cards held by imperialism.

The politics of the European bourgeoisie is a mixture of ruthless aggression and desperation. Confronted with the hopeless crisis of their system, they are rushing toward a catastrophe, just as they did in 1914 and 1939.

Only the working class can prevent such a catastrophe. It must unite internationally and fight for the overthrow of capitalism. The struggle against war is inseparable from the struggle for socialism. The most important prerequisite is the construction of an international revolutionary party—the International Committee of the Fourth International—and its national sections, the Socialist Equality parties.

Peter Schwarz is a senior political analyst with the Social Equality Party.

Obama’s War on Ukraine

Redefining Russia’s National Interests

Putin face used as target in Western Ukraine shooting range. Anti-Russian hatred gone berserk.

by RENEE PARSONS, Counterpunch

[A]midst a slew of unverified allegations in recent weeks of Russian invasions, violations of Ukraine sovereignty and NATO’s current claim of Russian troops and Russian tanks fighting on the side of the federalist rebels, the upcoming annual NATO Heads of State Summit in Wales, threatens a widening violence and heightened military activity throughout eastern Europe.

Add to the equation that the tide of war appears to be turning against the US-imposed Kiev government as a successful offensive by the rebels captured the coastal town of Novoazovsk near Crimea opening a new front in the southeast and holding the line in Elenovka as rebel forces maintain their ground in Donetsk, the Kiev government needs to save face by claiming that Russian troops are aiding the out-manned, under-supplied rebels. Russia’s envoy to the EU Vladimir Chizhov added that the only Russian troops in Ukraine were the nine paratroopers who wandered across the border recently while on patrol.

NATO Summit

It is worth noting that the largest gathering of international leaders to ever assemble in the UK, will include non NATO member Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko as part of a ‘special NATO meeting’ on Ukraine but will exclude Russian President Vladimir Putin. While that omission may be a sure sign that negotiating a political settlement regarding the US-sponsored fiasco in Ukraine is not a NATO or US priority, the subject of Ukraine will be front and center on the agenda as the EU/NATO/US alliance already know their plans with regard to NATO expansion and the future of Ukraine.

President Obama will attend the Summit after visiting the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania while‘reaffirming’ the US commitment to the region. It did not used to be common for the US President to visit every little nickel and dime country (no offense intended) along the way but in this case such assurance along with a Presidential visit can mean only one thing: that those self-proclaimed ‘threatened’ strategically-located countries (with Estonia and Latvia on Russia’s border and Lithuania and Poland bordered by Russian-ally Belarus) need the President to personally shore them up for a new NATO missile defense system going further east than the former Iron Curtain, and in advance of any possible turbulence spillover within their borders.

On the eve of the Summit, outgoing Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen offered the following:

“We are at a crucial point in history, our peace and security are once again being tested. NATO support for the sovereignty and total integrity of Ukraine is unwavering. Our partnership is long-standing. NATO is working even more closely with Ukraine to reform its armed forces and defense institutions. NATO stands ready to support Ukraine with advisors and assistance. We are advising Ukraine on defense planning and defense reform and are ready to intensify this cooperation. As a sign of strong support and solidarity, we have decided to hold a ‘special meeting’ with Ukraine at the upcoming NATO Summit in Wales. We will continue to improve the ability of NATO and Ukraine soldiers to work together. It is the right of every country to choose its own foreign policy without foreign interference. NATO fully respects that right but today Ukraine’s freedom and future are under attack.”

In addition, in a series of recent interviews with European newspapers, when asked whether there would be permanent international deployments under a NATO flag in east Europe, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said: “The brief answer is yes ….’for as long as necessary.’ In addition, Rasmussen promised a readiness action plan to provide rapid reinforcements with ‘a more visible NATO presence in the east.”

In accordance with the promise made in Bucharest in 2008 that both Georgia and Ukraine would become members, it is doubtful whether the Summit will formally act given NATO’s inability to accept new members with borders in dispute but would rather allow each to function as proxy states. As every NATO member fully understands, membership approval of any of the encirclement countries can be expected to trigger Russia’s long time vehement opposition to a missile presence on its borders.

NATO Accusations

None of this is reassuring especially that the recent accusations have yet established whether NATO’s images are date and time stamped, accurate and reliable. Nevertheless, just as the unfounded accusations regarding MH 17 flight continue to fuel enmity toward Putin, the latest ‘invasion’ charge will be provocative enough, as US-dominated NATO members congregate, to escalate a war effort that has already claimed over 2,600 fatalities, according to the UN. It was, of course, the ouster of the democratically elected President Yanukovych and the imposition of a pro-EU, pro-NATO and a pro-IMF government in Kiev that sparked the revolt in east Ukraine.

One immediate flaw in NATO’s latest assertion is that, given its total dependence on creating military conflict, reliance on their version of anything should be subject to intense scrutiny. With an estimated 50,000 plus Ukrainian troops in action (not counting CIA and US mercenaries), the question is whether sending 1,000 Russian troops into Ukraine is worth the risk to Putin who has consistently followed a diplomatic path while US diplomacy has been dominated by threats and bullying.

What makes more sense is that if the situation in Ukraine reached the critical point of no-return, that Putin would send in a sufficient force the size of a field army accompanied by an impressive number of tank battalions, support convoys and enough heavy artillery to finish the job – and presumably there would be no doubt about whether or not the Russians had moved into Ukraine to protect the civilian population from continued merciless attacks. The other option is that the Russian air force could easily put an end to Ukraine’s shelling and bombing of defenseless citizens.

Perhaps the best response to the latest ‘invasion’ disinformation has come from Alexandre Zakharchenko, Chair of the Council of Ministers of the Donetsk National Republic, given in a recent press briefing. When an English speaking reporter inquired whether Russian military units were fighting with the rebels, Zakharchenko replied that if ‘you think that Russia is sending its regular units here, then let me tell you something. If Russia was sending its regular troops here, ‘we would not be talking about the battle of Elenovka; we’d be talking about the battle of Kiev.” Zakharchenko, an attorney who made an impressive presentation, went on to remind the media that “A territory has the right of self-determination and separation after a referendum,” a referendum that was approved by Donbass voters in May.

What is not debatable is that for some weeks, a conservative estimate of 4,000 Russian volunteers (including some ‘off duty’ military and women) have crossed into Ukraine to fight on the side of the ‘rebels.’ That number may have also been augmented by volunteers sent by Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov whose “statements in support of the illegal annexation of Crimea and support of the armed insurgency in Ukraine,” were cited as reasons for his inclusion in a recent round of sanctions.

Obama’s Unprovoked Attack on Russia

In reaction to NATO’s invasion charge, President Obama, whose State Department was intimately involved in the February coup, spoke at the White House voicing the usual provocations:

“Russia is responsible for the violence in eastern Ukraine. The violence is encouraged by Russia. The separatists are trained by Russia. They are armed by Russia. They are funded by Russia. Russia has deliberately and repeatedly violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.”

“In Estonia, I will reaffirm our unwavering commitment to thedefense of our NATO allies” and “At the NATO Summit in the United Kingdom, we’ll focus on the additional steps we can take to ensure the Alliance remains prepared for any challenge” and “There is no doubt that this is not a homegrown, indigenous uprising in eastern Ukraine.”

In a stunning denial of self-reflection, the president has consistently failed to mention his own Administration’s role as sole cause of the violence, the $1 billion of Congressional support for Kiev, the $5 billion of US aid revealed by Secretary of State Victoria Nuland last spring or the NATO build up in Poland, the Baltic states and elsewhere in eastern Europe. There is never serious mention of the humanitarian catastrophe on a civilian population, no mention of the fatalities, no mention of a ceasefire, no mention of the withdrawal of all non-Ukraine factions from meddling and no mention of requiring the Kiev government’s direct negotiations with the federalist rebels to determine the future of their own country.

Putin Redefines Russia’s National Interests

After the Gorbachev – Yeltsin years overseeing the dissolution of the USSR in which much of its national interests were imprudently relinquished to a market economy, Putin addressed the Munich Conference on Security Policy in 2007. During that speech, heredefined contemporary Russia’s national interests and its geopolitical concerns as he established himself as an independent, critical thinker with an international perspective – and, therefore, a threat to US dominion. The speech is worth reading in its entirety and here are several excerpts:

Decrying a “greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. One state, first and foremost, the United States has overstepped its national borders in every way.”

In referring to “Russia’s peaceful transition to democracy. Why should we start bombing and shooting now at every available opportunity?”

In referring to an earlier speaker, “I understood that the use of force can only be legitimate when the decision is taken by NATO, the EU, or the UN. If he really does think so, then we have different points of view. The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN. And we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN.”

With regard to expanding NATO with missiles on Russia’s borders: “It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. It represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?”

And lastly, Putin quoted the “speech of NATO General Secretary Manfred Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee“.

Renee Parsons was a staffer in the U.S. House of Representatives and a lobbyist on nuclear energy issues with Friends of the Earth. in 2005, she was elected to the Durango City Council and served as Councilor and Mayor. Currently, she is a member of the Treasure Coast ACLU Board.

Chronicles of Inequality (TOO MUCH, Sept. 1, 2014)

	September 1, 2014
THIS WEEK
[I]n the United States today, you almost have to have some gray hairs on your head to remember a time when the American labor movement really felt like celebrating on Labor Day. But celebrate, once upon a time, labor did indeed do.Back in 1959, for instance, a New York Labor Day parade started up Fifth Avenue at just after 10 in the morning, and the last of the 144,699 marchers didn’t pass the reviewing stand until over eight hours later. Onlookers saw unionized stagehands and actors — in full costume — from My Fair Lady. They saw 200 bands and 57 floats and workers carrying banners from over 500 union locals. A good time would be had by all. And why not? Labor had plenty to celebrate in 1959. In those decades right after World War II, real wages were doubling. America’s working people were marching straight into the middle class.These days, by contrast, average Americans are marching only in place, working ever harder and seeing precious little for their labor. More in this week’s Too Muchon just how little. But more also on how the tide may be turning.	About Too Much, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies Program on Inequality and the Common Good Subscribe to Too Much Inequality.Org Join us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter
GREED AT A GLANCE
If you had a grand fortune, what would you fear more, a home invasion or Armageddon? Today’s super rich, the London Evening Standard reports, are actually pondering that question. Luxury home builders are asking them whether they prefer simple anti-intruder “panic room” hideaways for their abodes or bunkers fortified against biological, chemical, and even nuclear attack. In London, the well-heeled seem to be leaning toward panic spaces that can keep their wealthy occupants safe until the police arrive. In New York, contractors are installing more bunkers, at a unit cost that can top $3 million. Either way, business is booming for safe room contractors. The Panic Room Company has sales up 60 percent since December alone. The wealthier people get, says company founder Paul Weldon, the “more paranoid” they become . . .Apple CEO Tim Cook will be taking his bows next week in Silicon Valley as his tech giant unveils the latest iPhones. Cook, of course, takes more than bows for his labor. Last year he took home $74 million. The secret to his success? No one may be better at corporate tax avoidance. Apple is pioneering the practice of “synthetic cash repatriation,” accountant-speak for using corporate profits stashed in offshore tax havens to fund back-home expenditures — like stock buybacks that boost the value of executive pay packages. Why can’t lawmakers in get their act together and shut down these shenanigans? ExplainsJared Bernstein, the former chief economic adviser for Vice President Joe Biden: “Concentrated wealth is buying the policy agenda it likes.”The last thing the proud owner of a newly delivered special-edition Bugatti wants to see? That would have to be a scratch. Bugatti’s latest special-edition motorcar, the Veyron Grand Sport Vitesse, carries a $3 million price-tag, and the carmaker is sparing no expense to get each of these super cars safely from Europe to buyers. One Grand Sport, Wired reports, just arrived in San Diego, totally wrapped in protective sheathing. How carefully did the good folks at Bugatti do their wrapping? They wrapped each spoke on the wheel rims individually — in cloth, just “what you would expect of a $3 million car,” says Rick Ahumada, the sales manager at the San Diego car dealership that handled the delivery.	Quote of the Week “Most remedies for inequality include calls for progressive tax reform, for investment in education and training. The more insightful advocate balancing our trade and ending perverse incentives that reward CEOs for plundering their own companies. But none of these reforms is likely without a strong mobilization of workers — a strong union movement — to elect leaders and drive the debate.” Robert Borosage,Inequality: A Broad Middle Class Requires Empowering Workers, August 28, 2014 2014
PETULANT PLUTOCRAT OF THE WEEK
Next time you see Bruce Rauner, the GOP 2014 gubernatorial candidate in Illinois, don’t call him a 1 percenter. That label seems to peeve him. Rauner, a near-billionaire, resides in much more rarefied air than the mere 1 percent. He owns nine homes. Says Rauner: “I’m probably .01 percent.” Don’t call Rauner the “Mitt Romney of Illinois” either. That label reallyperturbs him. Insists Rauner: “I drink beer. I smoke a cigar. I use a gun.” But Rauner and Romney do have shared interests. Both made fortunes in private equity and both have a fondnessfor Cayman Islands tax havens. Rauner reported $108 million of income on his 2010-2012 returns. His tax rate on that income: under 20 percent. The then top federal tax rate: 35 percent. Rauner has so far spent $10 million of his own cash on his campaign. He’s leading in the polls.	Like Too Much? Email this issue to a friend
IMAGES OF INEQUALITY
Anybody see Spartacus in the neighborhood? No, you’re actually not looking at a slave-holding estate in ancient Roman days. You’re looking at a “hilltop Italianatepalazzo” that realtors have been hawking all this summer in California’s Laguna Beach. The seven-bedroom manse sits on three acres overlooking the blue Pacific, and the new owners, unlike their Roman Empire counterparts, won’t have to worry about beating back slave revolts. The asking price: $38,888,888.	Web Gem What should you be making?/ Or, to rephrase the question, what would you be making today if America’s corporate elite were not siphoning off the lion’s share of the gains from the nation’s increased economic productivity? This interactive Economic Policy InstituteLabor Day site can help you see what inequality is costing you at paycheck time. NOTE: For a real experience of what this type of excess means, click here to take the tour of the palazzo.
ANTIDOTES TO INEQUITY
Consumers the nation over have been protesting all this summer against CEOs who’ve been plotting “tax inversions,” deals that have U.S. companies acquire foreign firms and then re-emerge headquartered in that foreign country — to avoid U.S. taxes. These protests have so far forced Walgreens CEO Greg Wasson to back off an inversion plan. Now activists are targeting Burger King. But consumer campaigns can only work against firms that sell directly to consumers. What about those that don’t? Lawmakers Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Lloyd Doggett of Texas are trying to leverage the power of the public purse. They want Congress to deny federal contracts to firms that invert. A step in that direction, a DeLauro-Doggett amendment that denies federal contracts to U.S. firms that reincorporate in Caribbean tax havens last month won a House floor vote.	Take Action on Inequality Tell Burger King CEO Daniel Schwartz you’ll dine elsewhere if the fast-food giant completes a pending tax-avoidance deal with Canada’s Tim Hortons.
INEQUALITY BY THE NUMBERS
	Stat of the Week How adept at avoiding taxes have America’s CEOs become? This adept: In 2013, corporate profits jumped $93 billion, says the Commerce Department, but the taxes U.S. corporationspaid on those profitsdropped by over $15 billion.
IN FOCUS
Finally Revealed: Obamacare’s Hidden Gem An obscure provision in the Affordable Care Act, a new report details, raises taxes on firms that overpay their top execs. The only problem: The provision so far only applies to corporations in one industry. The Institute for Policy Studies has been releasing annual reports on CEO pay for 20 years now, and these Executive Excess studies have built up quite a following. One reason: The studies offer what few other CEO pay reports do: context. Anyone with the patience to plow through annual corporate filings can, after all, show that CEO paychecks are keeping America’s top execs on the fast track to fortune. The Executive Excess series shows just how. America’s most lavish corporate rewards, past editions have detailed, are going to CEOs who downsize jobs, pocket bailouts, profiteer off defense contracts, cook their corporate books, contribute big to pols, and stiff Uncle Sam at tax time. All this context can make for engaging — and enraging — reading. America’s CEOs aren’t just grabbing way more than their fair share, Executive Excess documents. They’re poisoning our economic and political life in the process. The latest annual Executive Excess, released last week, has no shortage of new enraging stats. One stands out: The health insurance industry’s top 57 executives — the top five execs of the industry’s top 10 companies, plus their mid-year replacements — last year snared $300 million in total personal compensation. But the new Executive Excess 2014, despite numbers like these, will likely leave readers feeling more invigorated than infuriated. We now have, the new study makes clear, a concrete reason to feel hopeful about reining in executive excess. And that new reason for hope sits in the unlikeliest of places: Obamacare, the controversial Affordable Care Act enacted back in 2010. What does Obamacare have to do with executive pay? A virtually unknown provision in the legislation ends — for health insurers — the free ride on executive compensation the federal tax code hands Corporate America. Until last year, all U.S. corporations could deduct off their corporate income taxes almost everything they pay their top execs. The new Obamacare tax provision ends this subsidy in the health insurance industry. Health insurers now only get to deduct off their taxes the first $500,000 they pay each executive. What does losing this deduction mean in real corporate life? The 2014 edition ofExecutive Excess, The Obamacare Prescription for Bloated CEO Pay, has probed the pay records of the nation’s 10 largest health insurers for an answer. These 10 insurers lost $207 million in deductions, thanks to Obamacare, on the compensation that went to their 57 top-paid executives. The loss of these deductions upped their tax bill by $72 million. But that $72 million, notes Executive Excess lead author Sarah Anderson, only hints at the revenue the Obamacare executive pay provision will raise over coming years. Many more than 57 executives in the health insurance industry overall made more than $500,000 last year. Obamacare will likely raise the industry’s total tax bill over $50 billion over the next 10 years. A significant sum, to be sure. Still, says Anderson, the Obamacare executive pay provision’s real significance doesn’t come from those billions. That significance comes from the precedent the new deductibility standard for health insurers sets. “All corporations,” says Anderson, “should get the same medicine.” Outside the health insurance industry, current law has since 1993 limited the tax deductions corporations can claim on executive pay to $1 million per executive. But that limit comes with a huge loophole: Corporations can deduct “incentive pay” over $1 million that they define as “performance-based.” Obamacare ends this “performance” loophole, drops the $1 million limit to $500,000, and applies that $500,000 limit to all health insurer executives. All other corporations only have their five highest-paid officers under pay scrutiny. The health insurance industry, predictably, now feels picked upon. “Requiring plans to pay higher taxes does nothing to make coverage more affordable or accessible,” groused Brendan Buck of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the top industry trade group, after last week’s Executive Excess release. So the health insurance industry is looking for ways to make health insurance “more affordable”? How about, for starters, not shelling out $300 million a year for just 57 executives?	New Wisdom on Wealth Harold Meyerson, In corporations, it’s owner-take-all, Washington Post, August 26, 2014. Companies are devoting nearly all their profits to executives and other shareholders, leaving next to nothing for employees. Robert Kuttner, The Snake in the Market Basket,American Prospect, August 28, 2014. The CEO loved by this New England supermarket chain’s employees for worker fairness had to partner with a private equity firm to win back his place. Kenneth Thomas,Understanding Piketty,Angry Bear, August 29, 2014. An engrossing analysis of what Capital in the Twenty-First Century offers on taxing the rich. Learn more about Too Mucheditor Sam Pizzigati’sgripping history of the triumph over America’s original plutocracy. Read theintro chapter online.
NEW READS
Concentrated Wealth, Concentrated Influence Commission on Social Mobility and Child Poverty,Elitist Britain, London, August 28, 2014. 76 pp. To what extent do wealthy people run the world’s most unequal developed nations? This new study has an answer for the only major industrial nation that rivals the United States on the inequality front. Britain’s Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission has analyzed who holds the jobs that most directly influence the UK’s political process and public opinion. In all, Elitist Britain?examines the backgrounds of over 4,000 influentials, paying particular attention to where they attended school. Those students who attend private schools in the UK, the report points out, “tend to have parents with a high income or wealth.” And these private school students, the commission found, dominate the UK’s political life. Private school grads make up only 7 percent of the British public as a whole, for instance, but 71 percent of senior judges and 43 percent of newspaper columnists. And grads of the UK’s two elite universities, Oxford and Cambridge, make up less than 1 percent of the public but 59 percent of cabinet ministers. The UK, says commission chair Alan Milburn, risks becoming a society run by “a small few” exceedingly “familiar with each other but far less familiar with the day-to-day challenges facing ordinary people.” That can never be, he adds, “a recipe for a healthy democratic society.”	Enjoy Too Much? Email this issue to a friend who might like Too Much, too
ABOUT TOO MUCH
Too Much, an online weekly publication of the Institute for Policy Studies \| 1112 16th Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036 \| (202) 234-9382 \| Editor: Sam Pizzigati. \| E-mail: editor@toomuchonline.org \| Unsubscribe.	Subscribe to Too Much Forward to a Friend

Castro Compares NATO to Nazis

by Stephen Lendman
fidelcastro1

[I]n a Monday Cuba state media article, Castro accused Washington and EU allies of warmongering. He compared NATO to Hitler’s SS. More on what he said below.

At age 88, Castro is outspoken on geopolitical issues mattering most. His intellect remains keen. His honesty and integrity are impeccable. His forthrightness is noteworthy. His knowledge of vital issues is impressive.

He survived hundreds of US attempts to kill him, a punishing embargo and countless other hostile acts.

In 2006, illness forced him to step down. Reports at the time erroneously pronounced him dead or dying.

He recovered and remains active. Hopefully he has many more productive years left.

On the occasion of his 88th birthday, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro called him the “central figure of the new independence of Latin America and the Caribbean.”

“Fidel Castro is the refounding of the ideas of José Martí and the Bolivarian project in the twentieth century, which led him to victory on an island that was in the plans of colonization of America.”

“Even his bitterest opponents will have to recognize that Fidel managed to bring out the Cuban sentiment, independence and took the island from the colonial clutches of the United States forever, but never in history will be settled.”

“Fidel is a giant,” said Maduro. He’s a role model for right over wrong. He’s a legend in his own time. He’s polar opposite rogue Western leaders.

US-led NATO is a global killing machine. It threatens humanity’s survival.

It prioritizes war. It deplores peace. It ravages and destroys one country after another.

Humanity’s survival depends on eliminating this cancer once and for all. The alternative is too grim to tolerate.

Castro accused Western politicians of hypocrisy and aggression. The West is “a symbol of imperialist policy,” he said.

Instead of waging war, “governments should produce food and industrial products, build hospitals and schools for the billions of human beings who desperately need them; promote art and culture, struggle against epidemics which (kill) half of the sick (and) finally eliminate…cancer” and many other life-threatening diseases.

“Many people are astonished when they hear the statements made by some European spokesmen for NATO when they speak with the style and face of the Nazi SS.”

“Adolf Hitler’s greed-based empire went down in history with no more glory than the encouragement provided to NATO’s aggressive and bourgeois governments, which makes them the laughing stock of Europe and the world.”

“The world has seen no respite in recent years, particularly since the European Economic Community, under the strict and unconditional leadership of the United States, decided the time had come to settle scores with what was left of two great nations (Russia and China) that…had carried out the heroic deed of putting an end to the imperialist colonial order imposed on the world by Europe and the United States.”

Cuba will keep resisting, he stressed. “(T)here is no worse price than capitulating before an enemy who attacks you without any right to do so.”

“When the USSR disintegrated and disappeared from the socialist landscape, we continued resisting and together, the state and the revolutionary people, we’re continuing our independent march.”

Castro praised the former Soviet Union for “gathering its resources and sharing its technology with a large number of weak and less developed nations, the inevitable victims of colonial exploitation.”

He accused Senator John McCain of supporting Israel’s Mossad. Washington and Israel created the Islamic State, he said.

Today it “controls a considerable and vital portion of Iraq and reportedly one-third of Syria as well.”

“Global society has known no peace in recent years, particularly since the European Economic Community, under the absolute, inflexible direction of the United States, decided that the time had come to settle accounts with what remained of two great nations which, inspired by the ideas of Marx, had achieved the great feat of ending the imperialist colonial order imposed on the world by Europe and the United States.”

“Would a true society of nations be convenient or not, in the current world, one in which respect is shown for rights, beliefs, culture, technologies and resources in accessible places around the world…”

“And wouldn’t the world be much more just today…if people saw in others a friend or brother, and not an enemy disposed to kill, with weapons which human knowledge has been capable of creating?”

“Believing that human beings could be capable of having such objectives, I think that absolutely no one has the right to destroy cities; murder children; pulverize homes; sow terror, hunger and death anywhere.”

“In what corner of the world can such acts be justified?”

“A colossal fraud is what is seen today, as problems emerge which suggest the possible eruption of a war, with the use of weapons which could mean the end of human existence.”

“There are unscrupulous actors, apparently more than a few, which consider meritorious their willingness to die, but above all to kill in defense of their indecent privileges.”

“Cynicism is something which has become symbolic of imperial policy.”

Castro remains outspoken on major issues. He worries most about possible nuclear war. In March 2012, his articleheadlined “The roads leading to disaster.”

“As far as I am concerned,” he said, “I do not harbor the slightest doubt that the United States is about to commit, and lead the world toward, the greatest error in its history.”

“Does anyone think that the United States will be capable of acting with the independence that could preserve it from the inevitable disaster awaiting it?”

“It is really extraordinary to observe a nation so powerful technologically and a government so bereft of both ideas and moral values.”

“The Israeli government has openly declared its intention to attack the enriched uranium production plant in Iran, and the government of the United States has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in manufacturing a bomb for that purpose.”

“Imagine United States (and/or Israeli) forces dropping monstrous bombs, capable of penetrating 60 meters of cement, on industrial facilities. Never before has such an adventure been conceived.”

In a July 2010 videotaped interview, he expected Washington and Israel to target Iran, saying:

“When they launch war, they’re going to launch it there. It cannot help but be nuclear. I believe the danger of war is growing a lot. They are playing with fire.”

At stake is humanity’s survival, Castro explained. It’s being “led inexorably toward disaster,” he believes. He hasn’t “the slightest doubt,” he said.

In August 2010, his article headlined “Nuclear Winter,” saying:

“(W)e do not need a nuclear world war for our species to perish. A nuclear conflict between any two nations can do it.”

“A nuclear war is inevitable,” he added. It could happen any time for any reason.

On July 18, his article titled “Astonishing Provocation” blamed Kiev for downing MH17. At the same time, he denounced Israel’s Operation Protective Edge.

He called it “a heinous crime.” Washington fully backed it. “Obama did not support David against Goliath, but Goliath against David,” he said.

“I only wish to express my solidarity with this heroic people defending the last inch of what was their homeland for thousands of years,” he added.

In his Monday Cuba state media article, Castro said “(j)ust ideas will triumph, or disaster will triumph.”Given Washington’s imperial agenda, he very much fears the latter.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Return of the Evil Empire

The United States media machine is unequaled at producing and disseminating misinformation.
Lies by omission are its specialty.

abc-diane-sawyer-stepping-down-from-abc-world-news

Prefatory note by Jack Revolutionist (LUV News)

[O]ver the weekend I heard a woman on NPR, one of their talking heads, describing how she knows the Russians have invaded Ukraine– she heard someone speaking Russian, so he must be an invading Russian. Of course, had she the slightest knowledge about that which she was relating, she would be aware that almost everyone in Eastern Ukraine speaks Russian, many of them as their only language (with the exception, perhaps, of a common dialect of mixed Russian/Ukrainian spoken by most people who live in Ukraine).

The obedient mainstream “journalists” know there has been an invasion because of faint clues– a military man has no identifying marks on his uniform, therefore, he must be Russian. The military equipment is Russian (this one is almost funny, many Russian weapons are made in Eastern Ukraine, and almost everything the dissidents have captured from Ukrainian troops is Russian, because Ukraine uses mostly Russian weapons).

CONT’D BELOW

__________________________________

“The capacity for a blithe hypocrisy that brooks no irony seems like a requirement for a high position in the American government, indispensable in the White House…”

VIDEO:
Menendez: US should provide arms to Ukraine to fight Russian ‘invasion’

Robert Menendez, a notorious Cuban gusano who currently serves (what else in the land of the free?) as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Sunday said the U.S. and its allies should provide lethal aid to Ukraine’s military, calling Russia’s recent incursions into the country an “invasion.”

“This is a watershed moment,” Menendez (D-N.J.) said during an interview from the capital city of Kiev on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “Thousands of Russian troops are here … and they are directly engaged in an invasion.”

CONT’D FROM ABOVE
They keep divining, examining entrails– they know an invasion is in there somewhere. Because the State Department says so– yes that one– the one that told us about those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, babies being killed by Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Menendez says we need to arm the Ukrainians because Russia has invaded, without, as with all the rest, providing an iota of evidence.

Is it just me, or do you think it might be obvious if Russia invaded, and there would be no need to comb the crime scene for fingerprints? I think you can safely say you will know it when you see Ukrainian troops headed for Kiev at breakneck speed, in need of clean underwear. Ask the Nazis about the Russian army that defeated them in what we call World War II (Russians call it the Great Patriotic War), and they would tell you there is no question about identifying a Russian invasion

Jack Revolutionist
_______________________________________

The U.S. Owns the Narrative on Ukraine

Return of the Evil Empire

by JASON HIRTHLER

[Y]ou have to hand it to them. The United States media machine is unequaled at producing and disseminating misinformation. It begins in the bowels of the State Department or White House or Pentagon and is filtered out through the government’s front organizations, otherwise known as Mainstream Media (MSM).

In 2014 the U.S. has succeeded in demonizing Vladimir Putin and Russia, precipitating a New Cold War that may yet become a hot one. The evil empire is back. The White House has made proficient use of mass media propaganda to get the job done. First, they’ve controlled the narrative. This is critical for two reasons: one, because it permits the White House to sweep the February coup in Kiev into the dustbin of American memory, never to be seen again. Second, it has allowed it to swiftly assert its claim that Russia is a dangerously expansionist power on the edges of a serene and peace-loving Europe. In other words, the omission of one fact and commission of another.

On the former front, by the State Department’s own concession, it spent some $5 billion in Ukraine, fomenting dissent under the standard guise of democracy promotion. The myriad NGOs beneath the nefarious cloud of the National Endowment for Democracy are little more than Trojan horses through which the State Department can launch subversive activities on foreign turf. We don’t know all the surely insidious details of the putsch, but there are suggestions that the violence was staged by and on behalf of the groups that now sit in power, including bickering neofascists that were foolishly handed the nation’s security portfolio.

On the latter end, a frightful portrait of a revanchist Russia will be presented for public consumption. But consider the context before you consign Putin to the sordid annals of imperial tyrants. A belligerent superpower arrives on your doorstep by fostering a violent coup in a neighboring nation with the obvious intent of ensuring Kiev accepts an IMF deal rather than a better Russian one, and further that Ukraine become the newest and perhaps decisive outpost of NATO. Had you been in his shoes, would you have permitted an illegitimate, Western-infiltrated government to challenge the integrity of your Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol? Doubtful.

Crimeans swiftly organized a secession vote—swiftly denounced as fraud by Western media (with some credence, it should be added). Given their Russian ethnic profile and quite credible fears of oppression from Kiev, whose nationalist bully boys were already posturing about eviscerating Russian citizens rights, Russia’s annexation of Crimea is certainly understandable to minds not saturated in Western propaganda.

And yet the majority of the West, meaning the U.S. and Europe, seem content with this narrative of a recrudescent Russian empire with imperial designs on Europe. The White House has successfully characterized Russia as the Slavic aggressor while sweeping NATO’s undeniably hostile behavior beneath the rug of its false rectitude. Claims of the need to defend another nation’s “sovereignty” are always a bit rich coming from the White House. Yet the rhetoric of outrage streams forth from Washington, and it sometimes seems the principal qualification for a high-level appointment in an American administration is the capacity for a blithe hypocrisy that brooks no irony.

This is no surprise. A sophisticated doctrinal system adept at manufacturing consent will succeed less by what it asserts than by what it leaves out. The facts omitted are always inconvenient ones. Among other missing pieces of the story currently being peddled by the MSM, is the issue of NATO’s raison d’être, which vanished with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the dissolution of the USSR. No matter, it has swiftly refashioned its mandate into a rapid-reaction force ready to descend on flashpoints around the globe, like Serbia and Libya and Afghanistan. Despite promises to the contrary, it has essentially worked to bring all the former Warsaw Pact countries into its U.S.-dominated embrace. The goal is self-evident: put missiles on Russia’s doorstep, the better to alienate Moscow from Berlin and ensure that Washington isn’t left out in the cold by its rivals.

If recent history weren’t sufficient to lay plain NATO’s blueprint of aggression, consider the behavior of its chief spokesman, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a frothing hawk who yesterday announced plans for a large and permanent military presence in Poland and the Baltics. Ready with prefabricated war motifs, Rasmussen said the plan was to deploy, “…what I would call a spearhead within [a] response force at very, very, high readiness.” He generously conceded that such a rapid response unit would require “supplies, equipment, preparation of infrastructure, bases, headquarters. The bottom line is you will in the future see a more visible NATO presence in the east.”

Sounds like war footing. Sounds like chest-thumping, drum-beating posturing. Sounds like NATO baiting the Russia Bear. No doubt it hopes to lure Moscow into aggressive actions with which it can a) quickly smear Putin in the MSM, and b) use to rationalize a massive arsenal in eastern Europe.

Note that Rasmussen’s pronouncement was no doubt timed to coincide with a tête-à-tête between Putin and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in Minsk, Belarus. What purpose exactly did the stillborn summit serve, given the bellicosity emanating from Brussels by one of Ukraine’s leading backers? One supposes the idea was to gain negotiating leverage, as if Russia hasn’t been observing NATO’s covetous moves for the last twenty years.

In a domestic context, this scenario might be described as entrapment. The West seems intent on manufacturing a conflict, if not a war, where none existed. Peace, described as elusive in the press, could be achieved in a matter of days if the White House were so inclined. Instead, it prefers escalation. And sooner or later, Russia will move more visibly to defend the eastern rebellion, stepping squarely into the trap. In fact, it may already have.

Yesterday NATO released U.S.-supplied satellite imagery supposedly showing Russian troops “establishing firing positions” inside eastern Ukraine, a claim instantly ridiculed by Moscow. Naturally, the imagery was obscure. Impossible to verify, but not hard to believe. Despite its own flood of propaganda, it would be credulous not to imagine the Russians supplying arms and tactical support to the so-called “pro-Russian insurgents” in the east. Nor would it be astonishing to see Russian troops cross the border. Again, the question arises: what would you do? Particularly given the Kiev-led brutality aimed at eastern “rebels”? Would you respond like Putin has, or rather more recklessly, perhaps like John F. Kennedy when he heard of Russian missiles in Cuba? Or imagine a pro-Russian Mexican government, installed by a Moscow coup, shelling pro-American citizens near the U.S. border. In imagining how Washington might respond, the words ‘restraint’ and ‘judicious’ don’t come readily to mind.

Little if any coverage is given to another critical piece of the real story, namely the obvious economic rivalry underlying the conflict. Ukraine is a major chip in the tussle for access to Black Sea resources, and for primacy in the provision of those resources to European homes. Likewise, the importance of channeling that access and supply through IMF-engineered loans, naturally denominated in dollars and central to the dollar’s now-threatened role as the world’s reserve currency.

Next, the false historical narrative will be distanced from the White House through internationalist channels which, although they are fronts for American power, will be perceived by many as independent judgments that happen to agree with the American assessment. U.S.-controlled NATO, the U.S.-dominated United Nations, and the U.S.-submissive EU will convene to censure Russia, ignore Kiev crimes against its own population, and clamor for more sanctions and a provocative NATO build-up in eastern Europe. Short shrift has been given to the news that the BRICS nations—representing some 40 percent of the world’s population—have declined to join the West in its sanctions regime.

But such history—distant or near—is trampled underfoot, beneath the crushing weight of MSM misinformation, thanks to which we can expect millions of Americans to dutifully wave their star-spangled totems as our ships and drones and battalions reluctantly set off to defend our freedoms once more.

Jason Hirthler is a veteran of the communications industry. He lives and works in New York City and can be reached at jasonhirthler@gmail.com.

Ukraine and the militarization of Europe

The NATO military alliance, dominated by the US, has virtually assumed control of European politics. Meantime, nobody asks why this entity is still around decades after it lost its official raison d’être.

Obama’s War on Ukraine

Redefining Russia’s National Interests

Chronicles of Inequality (TOO MUCH, Sept. 1, 2014)

Castro Compares NATO to Nazis

Return of the Evil Empire

The United States media machine is unequaled at producing and disseminating misinformation. Lies by omission are its specialty.

“The capacity for a blithe hypocrisy that brooks no irony seems like a requirement for a high position in the American government, indispensable in the White House…”

VIDEO: Menendez: US should provide arms to Ukraine to fight Russian ‘invasion’

Return of the Evil Empire

The United States media machine is unequaled at producing and disseminating misinformation.
Lies by omission are its specialty.

VIDEO:
Menendez: US should provide arms to Ukraine to fight Russian ‘invasion’