Day: January 10, 2024
The NATO-Ukraine Council met on Wednesday (10 January 2024) following recent waves of heavy Russian airstrikes against Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure. Allies strongly condemned the escalation in Russian air strikes on Ukraine, as well as Russia’s use of ballistic missiles sourced from North Korea and drones from Iran.
Allies have already delivered a vast array of air defence systems to Ukraine and today they reaffirmed their commitment to further bolster Ukraine’s defences. Through NATO, Allies are buying up to 1,000 Patriot air defence missiles to replenish their stockpiles as they continue to bolster Ukraine’s air defences. Germany recently delivered Patriot and Skynex air defence systems and additional missiles for IRIS-T air defences to Ukraine, and the United Kingdom is sending around 200 air defence missiles to Ukraine. Today, Allies made clear that they will continue to provide Ukraine with major military, economic, and humanitarian assistance, and many Allies outlined plans to provide billions of euros of further capabilities in 2024.
Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said: “NATO strongly condemns Russian missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian civilians, including with weapons from North Korea and Iran. For a second year in a row, Putin is trying to wear down Ukraine with mass strikes, but he will not succeed. Russia’s campaign of cruelty only strengthens Ukraine’s resolve. As Moscow intensifies its strikes on Ukrainian cities and civilians, NATO Allies are boosting Ukraine’s air defences. We will continue to stand by the brave Ukrainians as they push back against Russia’s war of aggression.”
Wednesday’s meeting was held at ambassadorial level and was convened at Ukraine’s request. Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg chaired the Council. NATO ambassadors and invitee Sweden were briefed by videoconference by Lieutenant General Mykola Oleshchuk, the Commander of the Ukrainian Air Force, and Deputy Interior Minister Oleksii Serhieiev. The NATO-Ukraine Council was created at the NATO Summit in July 2023 and serves as a forum for joint consultations, decision-making and activities between NATO and Ukraine.
Many years ago, a newspaper headline asked the question: “What’s the difference between a politician and a psychopath?”
The answer, then and now, remains the same: None.
There is no difference between psychopaths and politicians.
Nor is there much of a difference between the havoc wreaked on innocent lives by uncaring, unfeeling, selfish, irresponsible, parasitic criminals and elected officials who lie to their constituents, trade political favors for campaign contributions, turn a blind eye to the wishes of the electorate, cheat taxpayers out of hard-earned dollars, favor the corporate elite, entrench the military industrial complex, and spare little thought for the impact their thoughtless actions and hastily passed legislation might have on defenseless citizens.
Psychopaths and politicians both have a tendency to be selfish, callous, remorseless users of others, irresponsible, pathological liars, glib, con artists, lacking in remorse and shallow.
Charismatic politicians, like criminal psychopaths, exhibit a failure to accept responsibility for their actions, have a high sense of self-worth, are chronically unstable, have socially deviant lifestyles, need constant stimulation, have parasitic lifestyles and possess unrealistic goals.
It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about Democrats or Republicans.
Political psychopaths are all largely cut from the same pathological cloth, brimming with seemingly easy charm and boasting calculating minds. Such leaders eventually create pathocracies: totalitarian societies bent on power, control, and destruction of both freedom in general and those who exercise their freedoms.
Once psychopaths gain power, the result is usually some form of totalitarian government or a pathocracy. “At that point, the government operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups,” author James G. Long notes. “We are currently witnessing deliberate polarizations of American citizens, illegal actions, and massive and needless acquisition of debt. This is typical of psychopathic systems, and very similar things happened in the Soviet Union as it overextended and collapsed.”
In other words, electing a psychopath to public office is tantamount to national hara-kiri, the ritualized act of self-annihilation, self-destruction and suicide. It signals the demise of democratic government and lays the groundwork for a totalitarian regime that is legalistic, militaristic, inflexible, intolerant and inhuman.
Incredibly, despite clear evidence of the damage that has already been inflicted on our nation and its citizens by a psychopathic government, voters continue to elect psychopaths to positions of power and influence.
Indeed, a study from Southern Methodist University found that Washington, DC—our nation’s capital and the seat of power for our so-called representatives—ranks highest on the list of regions that are populated by psychopaths.
According to investigative journalist Zack Beauchamp, “In 2012, a group of psychologists evaluated every President from Washington to Bush II using ‘psychopathy trait estimates derived from personality data completed by historical experts on each president.’ They found that presidents tended to have the psychopath’s characteristic fearlessness and low anxiety levels — traits that appear to help Presidents, but also might cause them to make reckless decisions that hurt other people’s lives.”
The willingness to prioritize power above all else, including the welfare of their fellow human beings, ruthlessness, callousness and an utter lack of conscience are among the defining traits of the sociopath.
When our own government no longer sees us as human beings with dignity and worth but as things to be manipulated, maneuvered, mined for data, manhandled by police, conned into believing it has our best interests at heart, mistreated, jailed if we dare step out of line, and then punished unjustly without remorse—all the while refusing to own up to its failings—we are no longer operating under a constitutional republic.
Instead, what we are experiencing is a pathocracy: tyranny at the hands of a psychopathic government, which “operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups.”
Worse, psychopathology is not confined to those in high positions of government. It can spread like a virusamong the populace. As an academic study into pathocracy concluded, “[T]yranny does not flourish because perpetuators are helpless and ignorant of their actions. It flourishes because they actively identify with those who promote vicious acts as virtuous.”
People don’t simply line up and salute. It is through one’s own personal identification with a given leader, party or social order that they become agents of good or evil.
Much depends on how leaders “cultivate a sense of identification with their followers,” says Professor Alex Haslam. “I mean one pretty obvious thing is that leaders talk about ‘we’ rather than ‘I,’ and actually what leadership is about is cultivating this sense of shared identity about ‘we-ness’ and then getting people to want to act in terms of that ‘we-ness,’ to promote our collective interests. . . . [We] is the single word that has increased in the inaugural addresses over the last century . . . and the other one is ‘America.’”
The goal of the modern corporate state is obvious: to promote, cultivate, and embed a sense of shared identification among its citizens. To this end, “we the people” have become “we the police state.”
We are fast becoming slaves in thrall to a faceless, nameless, bureaucratic totalitarian government machine that relentlessly erodes our freedoms through countless laws, statutes, and prohibitions.
Any resistance to such regimes depends on the strength of opinions in the minds of those who choose to fight back. What this means is that we the citizenry must be very careful that we are not manipulated into marching in lockstep with an oppressive regime.
Writing for ThinkProgress, Beauchamp suggests that “one of the best cures to bad leaders may very well be political democracy.”
But what does this really mean in practical terms?
It means holding politicians accountable for their actions and the actions of their staff using every available means at our disposal: through investigative journalism (what used to be referred to as the Fourth Estate) that enlightens and informs, through whistleblower complaints that expose corruption, through lawsuits that challenge misconduct, and through protests and mass political action that remind the powers-that-be that “we the people” are the ones that call the shots.
Remember, education precedes action. Citizens need to the do the hard work of educating themselves about what the government is doing and how to hold it accountable. Don’t allow yourselves to exist exclusively in an echo chamber that is restricted to views with which you agree. Expose yourself to multiple media sources, independent and mainstream, and think for yourself.
For that matter, no matter what your political leanings might be, don’t allow your partisan bias to trump the principles that serve as the basis for our constitutional republic. As Beauchamp notes, “A system that actually holds people accountable to the broader conscience of society may be one of the best ways to keep conscienceless people in check.”
That said, if we allow the ballot box to become our only means of pushing back against the police state, the battle is already lost.
Resistance will require a citizenry willing to be active at the local level.
Yet if you wait to act until the SWAT team is crashing through your door, until your name is placed on a terror watch list, until you are reported for such outlawed activities as collecting rainwater or letting your children play outside unsupervised, then it will be too late.
This much I know: we are not faceless numbers.
We are not cogs in the machine.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we are not slaves.
We are human beings, and for the moment, we have the opportunity to remain free—that is, if we tirelessly advocate for our rights and resist at every turn attempts by the government to place us in chains.
The Founders understood that our freedoms do not flow from the government. They were not given to us only to be taken away by the will of the State. They are inherently ours. In the same way, the government’s appointed purpose is not to threaten or undermine our freedoms, but to safeguard them.
Until we can get back to this way of thinking, until we can remind our fellow Americans what it really means to be free, and until we can stand firm in the face of threats to our freedoms, we will continue to be treated like slaves in thrall to a bureaucratic police state run by political psychopaths.
The commencement of the Ukraine war in February 2022 sparked an unforeseen surge in energy trade, particularly in oil, between Russia and India. Prior to the war, Russia contributed a mere one percent to India’s total oil imports. However, within a year, this share witnessed a remarkable escalation, reaching 35 percent. This surge catapulted India to the position of the third-largest purchaser of Russian crude oil globally, trailing only China and the USA.
As of April 2023, India ascended to the position of the largest energy supplier to European nations. This rise aligns with the convergence of factors, namely the availability of inexpensive Russian energy and the effective contributions of key oil refineries such as Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), Bharat Petroleum Corporations Limited (BPCL), and Nayara Energy. Notably, India has been exporting refined oil to Europe in quantities surpassing even those of Saudi Arabia. The three pivotal elements contributing to this phenomenon encompass the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war facilitating an excess of affordable Russian oil to India, the imposition of EU sanctions and price constraints on Russian oil imports, and the operational efficiency of Indian refining companies.
From the outset of the war, India’s acquisition of Russian oil at a notably economical rate has surged by an astonishing 1,350%. This unanticipated escalation in Russian energy supply has proven advantageous for both nations. For Russia, it has facilitated the ongoing war effort against Ukraine, while concurrently allowing India to amass significant foreign reserves. The surplus of Russian energy supply has empowered India to address the energy needs of resource-strapped European nations grappling with an energy crisis triggered by the commencement of the war.
In the span of a year, India’s intake of oil from Russia surged from 30.85 lakh tonnes to a substantial 55.9 million tonnes. Following the imposition of sanctions and price constraints, India maximized the export of Russian oil to Europe. Essentially, India is engaged in refining Russian oil and subsequently exporting the refined product to the European market. The process is reminiscent of a “Laundromat,” where countries acquire cheap Russian oil, refine it locally, and then sell it to Europe. However, India has faced criticism for exporting refined oil to the EU, with detractors contending that it is akin to cleansing the tarnished reputation of Russian oil.
The third pivotal factor lies in India’s oil refining industry, renowned as the world’s largest, with the capacity to exceed its domestic energy demands. However, India’s oil reserve capability is minimal, lasting only for a month. In this context, with Indian refining companies benefitting from a cost-effective energy supply that reduces refining expenses, their role in augmenting the export of petroleum products through surplus supply is commendable and advantageous for the Indian economy. Notably, India has surpassed Saudi Arabia in exporting clean oil to the EU.
The import of Russian oil through Indian refineries presents a double-edged sword for the EU. While the EU seeks alternative sources of oil, it simultaneously grapples with concerns regarding reliance on Russian energy. The energy (oil) trade between the EU and India remains legal under EU sanctions, yet it has garnered criticism from EU’s chief diplomat, Josep Borrell. In May 2023, Borrell called for a crackdown on India’s resale of Russian oil into Europe, highlighting the contentious nature of this trade relationship.
In the span of a year, India has accrued savings of 35 thousand crore rupees through the acquisition of cost-effective oil from Russia. Simultaneously, it has strategically positioned itself as a significant supplier of petroleum products. While India undeniably reaps benefits from its flourishing refining industry, the sustainability of its larger energy supplier role to the EU post-war is dubious due to its perceived short-term capability.
Following the conclusion of the war, India may forfeit the price discount on Russian-imported energy, potentially diminishing its status as an energy exporter to the EU. Despite these gains, India’s reputation has suffered to some extent, with accusations of indirectly aiding Russia by importing inexpensive Russian oil and thus alleviating the impact of sanctions. Nayara Energy, owned by Rosneft, a Russian oil company, has notably thrived from Russia’s economically advantageous energy supply to India. Furthermore, the trade conducted in Ruble and Rupees has played a role in the recovery of the Russian currency from the adverse effects of sanctions.
Given the transformed geopolitical landscape and the urgent energy needs of the EU, India emerges as a key player in the global and European energy markets by actively supplying energy. Therefore, the ongoing Ukraine war, coupled with the provision of affordable Russian oil and geopolitical advantages, has positioned India as a transient yet significant energy supplier to the EU.
Introduction
The district of Panjgur, nestled in the southwestern province of Balochistan, Pakistan, stands at the crossroads of a dynamic political landscape as the approaching general elections draw near. As the political heartbeat accelerates, Panjgur emerges as a miniature of the larger electoral narrative in the country, characterized by its own unique dynamics and challenges. This article embarks on an exploration of Panjgur’s political terrain, seeking to unknot the layers of complexity that define the current electoral scenario in Panjgur.
Against the backdrop of Balochistan’s historical significance in national politics, Panjgur assumes a pivotal role in shaping the political destiny of the province. The intricacies of Panjgur’s political dynamics unfold as we navigate through the historical dominance of major parties, such as the Balochistan National Party (BNP) Awami and the National Party (NP), both of which have been influential forces in shaping the district’s political trajectory.
The challenges faced by aspiring contenders, notably the struggles encountered by parties like BNP-Mengal and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) in their bid for political prominence, provide valuable insights into the intricate web of Panjgur’s political struggles. These struggles, spanning two decades, shed light on the enduring battle for dominance among political entities seeking to sway the electorate in their favor.
Moreover, the volatile nature of Panjgur’s electorate comes to the forefront, a characteristic that distinguishes the region from others in the political landscape. A cyclical pattern of voter allegiance, changing every five years, adds an element of unpredictability to the electoral equation. In the lead-up to the current election campaign, Panjgur witnesses daily events of supporters and voters transitioning between political parties, where loyalties are continuously tested and reshaped, creating an environment of constant fluctuation.
Changing Voter Dynamics in Panjgur: Exploring the Volatile Nature of Electoral Allegiance
The shifting allegiance of voters in Panjgur every five years is a characteristic feature that significantly impacts the political landscape of the district. This dynamic behavior is influenced by a multitude of factors, each contributing to the ebb and flow of voter sentiment. Let’s delve into the in-depth understanding of these contributing factors:
- Personal Works Unfulfilled by Preceding Minister/ MPA of the constituency: The failure of the preceding minister to address and fulfill the personal works and concerns of the constituents plays a pivotal role in shaping voter opinion. Whether it be employment opportunities or community-specific projects, the inability of the political leadership to deliver on these fronts can lead to disillusionment among voters.
- Behavioral Issues of Politicians in Power: The conduct and behavior of politicians in power directly impact the perception of voters. Instances of corruption, unethical practices, or a lack of responsiveness to public concerns contribute to dissatisfaction. Personal integrity and ethical governance play a crucial role in determining the sustained support of the electorate.
- Unfulfillment of Election Manifesto Promises: Voters often base their choices on the promises made by political parties during election campaigns. When these promises remain unfulfilled, uncertainty and discontent emerge among the electorate. The failure to translate campaign rhetoric into tangible actions erodes the trust that voters place in their elected representatives.
- Non-Provision of Basic Necessities: The absence or inadequate provision of basic necessities, such as functional healthcare facilities, accessible education in remote areas, a reliable electricity supply, and clean drinking water, significantly impacts the quality of life for the residents of Panjgur. When these essential services are lacking, voters are more inclined to seek change in leadership in the hope of improved living conditions.
- Hurdles in Border Trade: Panjgur’s economic ties, especially related to border trade, play a crucial role in the district’s prosperity. Hurdles in the form of bureaucratic barriers, particularly those introduced through token or sticker systems, can impede the smooth flow of trade. This issue is not only an economic concern but also resonates with the broader sentiment of the electorate, as it directly affects livelihoods and economic opportunities.
In essence, the changing voter dynamics in Panjgur are a product of a complex interplay of personal, ethical, and socio-economic factors. The electorate’s responsiveness to the performance of political leaders, coupled with the tangible impact on their day-to-day lives, shapes the dynamic nature of political allegiances in this district. Understanding these nuanced factors is crucial for political actors seeking to secure and maintain the support of the diverse and discerning voter base in Panjgur.
Current Election Campaign Unveiled
1. Shifting Alliances: A Dynamic Electoral Landscape
The ongoing election campaign in Panjgur is witnessing a fascinating trend of shifting alliances, marking a distinctive feature in the current political scenario. Supporters and voters are actively engaged in a daily fluctuation, changing their political affiliations, primarily oscillating between the National Party and BNP-Awami. This dynamic dance of political allegiance underscores the volatile and unpredictable nature of the electoral climate in Panjgur.
The daily occurrence of these shifts indicates a unpredictability that permeates the political landscape, where alliances are forged and broken with remarkable frequency. As political actors adapt to the changing sentiments of the voters, the election campaign unfolds as a dynamic, ever-shifting tableau where loyalties are continuously tested and redefined.
2. Entry of Federal Political Parties: A Paradigm Shift in Panjgur’s Politics
The present election cycle in Panjgur marks a departure from the established norms, witnessing a substantial entry of federal political parties into the local political arena. This paradigm shift is particularly noteworthy as it introduces new dynamics and challenges for regional actors.
Local political figures, such as Kifayat Baloch, have chosen to align themselves with the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), signifying the federal party’s concerted efforts to establish a presence in Panjgur. The re-entry of ex-deputy chairman Senate Sabir Baloch further adds layers of complexity to the political landscape, bringing in experienced leadership with historical ties to the region. However, it is recognized that the PPP faces a formidable task in making a lasting impact, necessitating substantial investments of time and efforts to win the trust and support of the local populace.
The engagement of federal parties introduces a fresh dimension to Panjgur’s politics, potentially altering the traditional power dynamics that have shaped the region for years. The success of these federal entrants hinges on their ability to resonate with the specific needs and aspirations of the local population, thereby navigating the intricate web of regional politics while adapting to the unique socio-cultural fabric of Panjgur.
Shaping the Future Trajectory of Panjgur’s Political Landscape
As we meticulously analyze the present trends and gauge the inclinations of the electorate, it becomes evident that the forthcoming elections in Panjgur are poised to witness a gripping one-on-one contest primarily between the National Party and BNP-Awami, particularly for the coveted provincial assembly seats. Nevertheless, seats adjustment between BNP-Mengal and JUI-F may change the scenario to a greater extent. This electoral narrative unfolds against the backdrop of historical dominance and dynamic voter dynamics that characterize Panjgur’s political landscape.
On the critical stage of the National Assembly seat, the National Party stands at an advantageous position, leveraging its stronghold not only in Panjgur but also in the adjoining Kech district. This strategic advantage positions the National Party as a formidable contender, reflecting the deep-seated influence it has cultivated within the region. Yet, if any alliance occurs for contesting national assembly seat between or among the political parties, BNP-Mengal, JUI-F, and BNP-Awami, can make the contest more interesting on the voting day.
However, as the political drama unfolds, it is crucial to acknowledge that the ultimate outcome of the elections will hinge on the responsiveness of political parties to the multifaceted concerns of the electorate. Addressing the grievances outlined by voters, such as unfulfilled promises, infrastructural deficiencies, and hurdles in basic service provisions, will be pivotal in shaping the electoral narrative. Furthermore, the effectiveness of communicating a comprehensive vision for the development and progress of the Panjgur district will play a pivotal role in winning the hearts and minds of the diverse and sensitive electorate.
In this dynamic context, the upcoming elections represent a critical juncture—a defining moment that will significantly influence the trajectory of Panjgur’s political dynamics. The variability of political alliances, the entry of federal parties, and the ever-changing voter sentiments underscore the need for adaptability and strategic insight among political actors.
As Panjgur stands on the brink of a transformative electoral experience, the future political landscape of the district is poised for evolution. The choices made by voters and the responsiveness of political entities to the aspirations of the people will not only determine the immediate outcomes but will also shape the broader narrative of Panjgur’s political journey in the years to come. The upcoming elections, therefore, represent more than just a political event; they represent a pivotal moment in defining the future course of Panjgur’s political trajectory.
Some of you ask why I spend so much time and effort writing to you, the “converted,” rather than aim at people who disagree with us. My answer is that we are engaged in the fight of our lifetimes to uphold the fundamental ideals upon which this nation is based. Many of you can make use of data and arguments to reaffirm those ideals and help convince others who are wavering or still reachable.
Take immigration, which is being demagogued by Trump and his Republican sycophants.
Here are Trump Republicans’ five biggest lies about immigration, and the truth.
1. They claim Biden doesn’t want to stem illegal immigration and has created an “open border.”
Rubbish. Since he took office, Biden has consistently asked for additional funding for border control.
Republicans have just as consistently refused. They’re voting to cut Customs and Border Protection funding in spending bills and blocking passage of Biden’s $106 billion national security supplemental that includes border funding.
2. They blame the drug crisis on illegal immigration.
Last Wednesday, at the southern border in Texas, Republican House Speaker Michael Johnson claimed “America is at a breaking point with record levels of illegal immigration. We have lethal drugs that are pouring into our country at record levels.”
Rubbish. While large amounts of fentanyl and other deadly drugs have been flowing into the United States from Mexico, 90% arrives through official ports of entry, not via immigrants illegally crossing the border. In fact, research by the conservative Cato Institute found that more than 86% of the people convicted of trafficking fentanyl across the border in 2021 were U.S. citizens.
3. They claim that undocumented immigrants are terrorists.
Johnson also charged that “312 suspects on the terrorist watch list that have been apprehended — we have no idea how many terrorists have come into the country and set up terrorism cells across the nation.”
Baloney. America’s southern border has not been an entry point for terrorists. For almost a half-century, no American has been killed or injured in a terrorist attack in the United States that involved someone who crossed the border illegally.
Johnson’s number comes from government data showing that from October 2020 to November 2023, 312 migrants — out of more than 6.2 million who crossed the southern border during these years — matched names on the terrorist watch list. It’s unclear how many were actual matches and whether the FBI considered them national security threats (the watch list includes family relations of terrorist suspects, many of whom are not considered to be involved in terrorist activity).
Republican Representative Mark Green, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said that FBI “Director Wray admitted before my committee the other day … that with the border wide open and a war in Israel, Hamas can just walk right in. That’s the director of the FBI. He fears for his own agents. It’s clear this is intentional.”
Alarmist rubbish. At that November 15 hearing, after Green asked Wray whether people on the terrorism watch list could be among those who entered the country without detection, Wray replied that there was no way to know. When Green then asked whether Wray could guarantee that Hamas wasn’t among them, Wray said, “What I can tell you is that our 56 joint terrorism task forces are working their tails off to make sure that they suss out and identify potential terrorist suspects, whether they’re on the watch list or not.”
4. They say undocumented immigrants are stealing American jobs.
Nonsense. Evidence shows immigrants are not taking jobs that American workers want. And the surge across the border is not increasing unemployment. Far from it: Unemployment has been below 4 percent for roughly two years, far lower than the long term average rate of 5.71 percent. It’s now 3.7 percent.
5. They claim undocumented immigrants are responsible for more crime in America.
More baloney. In fact, a 2020 study by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, cited by the Department of Justice, showed that undocumented immigrants have “substantially” lower crime rates than native-born citizens and legal immigrants. A recently published study in the American Economic Journal — analyzing official data from 2008 to 2017 on immigration, homicide, and victimization surveys — found “null effects” on crime from immigration.
Notwithstanding the recent surge in illegal immigration, America’s homicide rate has fallen nearly 13% since 2022 — the largest decrease on record. Local law enforcement agencies are also reporting drops in violent crime.
Who’s really behind these lies?
Since he entered politics, Donald Trump has fanned nativist fears and bigotry.
He’s now moving into full-throttle neofascism, using the actual language of Hitler to attack immigrants — charging that undocumented immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country” and saying they’re “like a military invasion. Drugs, criminals, gang members and terrorists are pouring into our country at record levels. We’ve never seen anything like it. They’re taking over our cities.” He promises to use the U.S. military to round up undocumented immigrants and put them into “camps.”
His demagoguery is being echoed by Trump lackeys to generate fear and put Biden on the defensive.
Do we need to address our border situation? Yes — which Biden is trying to do. But we need to do so in a way that treats migrants as humans, not political pawns.
Trump and his enablers want us to forget that almost all of us are the descendants of immigrants who fled persecution, or were brought to America under duress, or simply sought better lives for themselves and their descendants.
Know the truth, and spread it.
This article was published at Robert Reich’s Substack