One-State/Two-State
Jeffrey Sachs rightly takes Israel to task for being a prime mover of and supporter behind US wars against Muslim majority States (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and, of course, Palestine and Iran) since the days in the late 1990s of the New American Century, which provided a discourse of justification for how the US needed to reshape the globe in its own image since 9/11, its policies of regime-change war so helpfully communicated to an otherwise largely non-comprehending US public by former NATO chief General Wesley Clark (Wesley).
There are few intellectually and emotionally adult people left who do not see the urgent need to break the genocidal ambitions of the lunatic cabal that runs Israel, with the support, unfortunately, of a very large proporotion of Israeli citizens. Almost to a man or woman, they, like Jeffrey Sachs, reach out, somewhat uncritically, for the comforting slogan of a “two state” solution.
There can be little doubt that in contrast to the horrific scenes of Israeli criminality that play out on our screens on a daily basis, a two-state solution woud be a very attractive alternative. It would provide a UN-sanctioned, legitimate, sovereign, independent Palestine with secure (or at least legitimately endorsed) borders. However, as I argued here a few years back (One-State Terror, Two-State Bunkum) this is not at all straight forward.
The concept is great in theory but few people at the moment want to grasp the nettles of its impracticality: these primarily have to do with the miserably fragmented sections of Palestine as currently constituted, the gross imbalances of weaponry and military resources between Palestine and Israel, the deep impoverishment of the Palestinian people, and the likelihood of eternal hatred, aggression and harrassment of Israel towards its new neighbor.
In reality, the viability of a Palestinian State is imaginable only with a thorough vanquishing of the State of Israel, and its geographical restructuring in favor of geopolitical security for Palestine, and the reopening (1) of the terms of the foundation of the State of Israel with frank acknowledgment of the beginning, before then, of Zionist terror against Palestinians; (2) of long-buried discourses about the relations between the Palestinians of Israel and the Israeli Occupation, on the one hand, and, on the other, their neighbors in Jordan, in particular and other states in the region (yes, we are talking about regional reconfiguration); (3) massive transfusions of wealth through the UN, from the countries that have mostly instigated the disappearance of Palestine at Israeli hands; and (3) a major rearmament program on behalf of Palestine as an effective counterweight to Israel, including either a forced denuclearization of Israel or a nuclearization of Palestine
Russian Economy
As indicated in my post yesterday, the bulk of Western economists, having failed so spectacularly with their policies of economic war against Russia (including counterproductive sanctions, shooting themselves in the feet with crazy oil price caps, forcible cessation of energy supplies to Europe from Russia, the draining of Western military stocks for the benefit of Zelenskiy’s continuing illegal hold on power in Ukraine, and the deaths and disablement of well over a million Ukrainians) now further debase themselves, slavering over the thought of an over-heated Russian economy that they insinuate will lead to a collapse of the Russian economy, inability to pursue its war aims in Ukraine, and regime change, all so that the West can move in, fragment the Russian federation, and seize capital advantages in the exploitation and expropriation of Russian mineral wealth, as envisaged by the Rand Corporation’s 2019 report on Extending Russia.
Wet Dreams, Wet Dreams!
The reality is far more mundane and far more advantageous to Russia. Russia is experiencing an investment boom, brought on in part (1) by Russian companies moving in on markets abandoned by Western companies at the start of the SMO, in part (2) by the rapid expansion of Russia’s military-industrial complex so that it is now superior in almost all respects to the total resources brought to bear on the Ukraine crisis by the Collective West, both in quantitative and qualitative terms, and benefitting, either actually or potentially, from Russian alliances and agreements with China, Iran and North Korea.
As do all economic booms (an increasingly distant memory in the case of most European countries, at least), this one puts pressure on supply-chains, prices, wages and labor supply, and inflation.
To deal with inflation and temper the boom, the Russian Central Bank, with Putin’s support, has risen interest rates to 21%, even though other sections of the Russian government (e.g. the Economics and Finance Ministries) would prefer to see the boom sustained. While Russian consumers may not be pleased with higher prices in the shops, these are more than compensated for by increased employment opportunities, increasingly generous social benefits (including a three year period of maternity support before a mother must return to her job), an even faster rate of increase in take-home pay, and by generous sign-on and high death benefits for those who elect to join the Russian armed forces.
This last consideration is of course not a pleasant thought for families whose members are killed on the battle fields, but it is highly preferable to Ukraine’s unrealistic policies of mass mobilization and forced conscription (frequently taking a brutal and violent form in the shape of press gangs and the shooting by Ukraine of young men trying to flee into Russia or other neighboring states). Further, generous Russian pay-outs to military disproportionately benefit the more impoverished regions of Russia.
The war, because it draws labor away from industry and into the armed forces, is a further pressure on labor supply. Ultimately, this can be, and is being, resolved by policies that are designed to support family growth. In the immediate future, it may be resolved by importing foreign labor from Russian allies such as North Korea, China or Iran or from other members of the BRICS and from Central Asia. Significant immigration is generally a dangerous policy direction for any government to consider, but is hardly unusual, and is being approached by Russia is what appears to be a gradual and considered fashion.
Google Owes Russia
Google not only refuses to allow Russian content on YouTube but also conveniently wants to ban lawsuits against Google’s measures of censorship and demonetization that cripple Russian broadcasters.
RT cites RBK in an Orinoco Tribune report (Google) that 17 Russian broadcasters are demanding $20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 from Google ($that’s $20.6 decillion) over their loss of access to YouTube.
“In October 2022, the Moscow Arbitration Court ordered Google to restore YouTube access to the blocked Russian channels. It placed a compounding penalty of 100,000 rubles per day ($1,028) on the tech giant if it did not comply, with a provision that every week, the amount of the penalty would double, with no cap on the total amount”.
By September the fine had reached almost 13 decillion rubles but has now climbed to over 2 undecillion, or $20.6 decillion – a number with 34 zeroes. The ruble currently trades at around 90 to the dollar.
“The Moscow court’s decision allows Russian broadcasters to appeal to international courts with a request to enforce it in their jurisdictions. Such lawsuits have already been filed against Google in Türkiye, Hungary and other countries. In South Africa, Spas, a Russian Orthodox Christian TV channel, obtained a court order for the seizure of Google’s assets over its failure to restore the channel’s YouTube account in June this year.
“Google’s parent company, Alphabet, said earlier this year it does not “believe these ongoing legal matters will have a material adverse effect” on the company. However, in August, Google filed lawsuits in US and UK courts against RT, Tsargrad, and Spas, seeking to ban them from initiating legal proceedings in foreign jurisdictions based on the Moscow court’s order”.
British Intelligence Against Trump (again)
Kit Klarenberg on Substack cites an investigstion by Paul D. Thacker and Matt Taibbi exposing how the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) hatched a covert plot at the start of 2024 to “kill [Elon] Musk’s Twitter.” This was just one component of a wider British invasion of the US political sphere, designed to sabotage Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. CCDH was founded by Morgan McSweeney, and is said to have masterminded Keir Starmer’s landslide July general election win, and is now advising Harris’ presidential campaign.
CCDH was a key element of McSweeney’s anti-Corbyn crusade. He is now promoting a “Grand Atlantic Alliance” between London and Washington, in the expectation that they will work together to stay fighting Russia in Ukraine. The campaign is a successor to the Russiagate hoax in which British intelligence figures played a significant role. And it is linked to the work of Britain’s Institute for Statecraft's propagation of the idea, in 2016, that the West was already at war with Russia, but its politicians, pundits, businesspeople and citizens just didn’t know. (The IFC is godtather to the now much-maligned Integrity Initative).
“The objective was to produce “armed conflict of the old-fashioned sort” with Russia, which “Britain and the West could win.” IFS finally got its war in February 2022 - and Britain and the West are now losing, badly…
“IFS chief Chris Donnelly is covertly leading Britain’s contribution to the Ukraine proxy war, committed to a strategy of endless escalation and provocation. Leaked documents and emails show he is committed to challenging the Biden administration’s reluctance to get overtly involved in the conflict “firmly and at once.” In December 2022, the BBC confirmed British operatives were intensely worried about Biden’s “innate caution”, and had “stiffened the US resolve at all levels”, via “pressure.”