Wednesday 1st of February 2023

this post is for the kiddies who don't know — as well as for the old folks who can't remember......

AS A VETERAN PROTESTER AGAINST THE US NUCLEAR SHIPS COMING INTO SYDNEY HARBOUR (1983), MR LEONISKY CANNOT LET THE LABOR PARTY CONTINUE ON ITS STUPID WAR MENTALITY, with the B-52s in the NT.

 

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) is an organisation that advocates unilateral nuclear disarmament by the United Kingdom, international nuclear disarmament and tighter international arms regulation through agreements such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It opposes military action that may result in the use of nuclearchemicalor biological weapons and the building of nuclear power stations in the UK.

CND began in November 1957 when a committee was formed, including Canon John Collins as chairman, Bertrand Russell as president and Peggy Duff as organising secretary. The committee organised CND's first public meeting at Methodist Central Hall, Westminster, on 17 February 1958. Since then, CND has periodically been at the forefront of the peace movement in the UK. It claims to be Europe's largest single-issue peace campaign. Between 1958 and 1965 it organised the Aldermaston March, which was held over the Easter weekend from the Atomic Weapons Establishmentnear Aldermaston to Trafalgar SquareLondon.

CND's current strategic objectives are:

  • The elimination of British nuclear weapons and global abolition of nuclear weapons. It campaigns for the cancellation of the Trident programme by the British government and against the deployment of nuclear weapons in Britain.
  • The abolition of weapons of mass destruction, in particular chemical and biological weapons. CND also wants a ban on the manufacture, testing and use of depleted uranium weapons.
  • A nuclear-free, less militarised and more secure Europe. It supports the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). It opposes US military bases and nuclear weapons in Europe and British membership of NATO.
  • The closure of the nuclear power industry.[3]

In recent years CND has extended its campaigns to include opposition to US and British policy in the Middle East, rather as it broadened its anti-nuclear campaigns in the 1960s to include opposition to the Vietnam War. In collaboration with the Stop the War Coalition and the Muslim Association of Britain, CND has organised anti-war marches under the slogan "Don't Attack Iraq", including protests on 28 September 2002 and 15 February 2003. It also organised a vigil for the victims of the 2005 London bombings.

CND campaigns against the Trident missile. In March 2007 it organised a rally in Parliament Square to coincide with the Commons motion to renew the weapons system. The rally was attended by over 1,000 people. It was addressed by Labour MPs Jon TrickettEmily ThornberryJohn McDonnellMichael MeacherDiane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn who voted against the renewal of Trident, and Elfyn Llwydof Plaid Cymru and Angus MacNeil of the Scottish National Party. In the House of Commons, 161 MPs (88 of them Labour) voted against the renewal of Trident and the Government motion was carried only with the support of Conservatives.[4]

In 2006 CND launched a campaign against nuclear power. Its membership, which had fallen to 32,000 from a peak of 110,000 in 1983, increased threefold after Prime Minister Tony Blair made a commitment to nuclear energy.[5]

 

READ MORE:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_Nuclear_Disarmament

 

HERE I SHALL REMIND PEOPLE THAT URANIUM WAS CHOSEN FOR NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS, BECAUSE THORIUM — A MORE EFFECTIVE FUEL FOR SUCH USE — DID NOT DECAY INTO PLUTONIUM NOR INTO CONCENTRATING uranium-235 isotope, WITH WHICH NUCLEAR BOMBS ARE MADE. THIS WAS A POLITICAL CHOICE.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW........................

 

CARTOON AT TOP FROM THE AUSTRALASIAN POST, MARCH 1963 — MISCHIEFED BY GUS....

the labor warmongers......

 

BY Mike Gilligan

 

Basing nuclear capable B52 bombers at the Tindal airbase is an abrupt, unambiguous sign that our government believes it is Australia’s interest for China to feel threatened with American nuclear strike from our soil. At America’s pleasure.

That is a monumental change in foreign policy. It emasculates our sovereignty. Yet it has not warranted a serious word from the Prime Minister, nor anyone else in government. A rambling, naive interview with Greg Sheridan and  published by News Ltd reveals gullible immaturity by the Prime Minister, to be kind.

Washington’s image-makers have been busy demonstrating how deeply embedded Australia has become in America’s military containment of China. ABC’s Four Corners recently explained that Australians must get used to America’s war machine settling into our country, presenting “experts” mostly who profit from evermore defence spending, and well-upholstered consultants long on the take.

Yet the capitulation has not warranted a serious word from the Prime Minister, nor anyone else in government. To comprehend how this fiasco has emerged so fluidly, unremarked save for weapons lobbyists, we have to go back to another abrupt change.

The Roots of Sovereignty Emasculation

In November 2011, Prime Minister Gillard and President Obama announced “Force Posture Initiatives”. Henceforth American marines would be based in Australia on rotation. But the details went much further, presaging wider shifts such as B52 basing:

Australia will welcome the deployment of U.S. Marines to Darwin and Northern Australia, for around six months at a time, where they will conduct exercises and training on a rotational basis with the Australian Defence Force. The intent in the coming years is to establish a rotational presence of up to a 2,500 person Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF). 

The leaders also agreed to closer cooperation between the Royal Australian Air Force and the U.S. Air Force that will result in increased rotations of U.S. aircraft through northern Australia. Select equipment and supplies in support of these initiatives will be prepositioned in these locations to facilitate exercises and training. These joint initiatives, which will take place in Australian facilities, are part of an ongoing review of U.S. force posture in the Asia-Pacific region intended to pursue a more geographically distributed, operationally resilient and politically sustainable military presence in this region….these initiatives will better position both nations to join with other partners to respond in a timely and effective manner to a range of contingencies in the Asia-Pacific

So the  recent B52- basing revelation is only one part of a new security panoply engineered long ago. Australia has been on a path of having its defence “Americanised” for more than a decade. And that has nothing to do with Peter Dutton or any other maligned warmonger. Its origins lie deep within the Australian Labor Party. One explanation of this twist begins with former Defence Minister Beazley who was ambassador in Washington at the time. It is said, by a faithful ministerial staffer, that Beazley was preoccupied with the reliability of America coming to Australia’s assistance if we were ever attacked. The story goes that Beazley believed that if America could be manoeuvred into basing forces here the risk of abandonment would be eliminated. America would have no alternative but to protect us along with its own, so the logic went.

Another explanation is simply political – that a high-profile Presidential trip here would bestow valuable electoral advantage on the struggling Gillard government. Both explanations are credible. And damnable. Whatever the case, the Gillard government showed no confidence in Australia’s ability to make its own way in the world.

And it’s probably not over yet. Stephen Smith was Defence Minister for Gillard when the US Marines were given the keys in Darwin. That same Smith is now leading the Albanese government’s Strategic Defence Review. Who said it would be an independent review?

The irony is that this foreign policy backflip came at a time when Defence had overcome a seemingly impossible hurdle to creating our own effective defence – by developing an idiosyncratic wide area surveillance system, through clever fusion of atmospheric science, physics and processing technologies. Thereby Australia has been able to integrate air and sea operations from infrastructure across the continent’s north, for effective defence of our maritime approaches.

The Gillard insertion of American forces here was a sly, unexplained manoeuvre. In the hope of a few votes, it energised the warmongering alarmism of the LNP. Now neither major party can be trusted with Australia’s interests. They will compete increasingly for obsequious pursuit of America’s priorities. Once we believed we could be an independent nation contributing to the world as such. That prospect looks distinctly complicated now.

How to proceed from here is the immediate challenge. Let’s begin with education.

Separating interests

It is a fact that America’s six B52 Stratofortress bombers destined for Tindal are controlled by US Air Force Global Strike Command, with each able to carry twenty nuclear armed cruise missiles. Each missile has a range of 1500 miles. When added to the massive reach of the aircraft suddenly China’s heartland faces a new existential risk from Australia.

China has responded soberly, saying the development will lead to a new regional arms race. Meaning China will now have to construct forces to counter nuclear attack from Australia.

The American militarisation of Australia raises layers of big new, questions. Finding answers must start, in the proper way, with the foundations – being formal government- to – government security accords, paramount of which is the ANZUS Treaty, approved as it was by US Congress.

The first question is whether Australia should persist with its objective of independent self-defence. Prima facie, US forces are in Australia with US geostrategic motives, and not generally to defend Australia. We have no undertaking that US Congress would assist with armed force if we were attacked. Unless Congress revisits its lack of commitment (ie ANZUS Article 4) it would be folly for any Australian government not to continue with self- reliance. While folly with war is no stranger to our governments, let’s assume rationality.

Which then raises the question of how the two nations’ forces with different loyalties, priorities, and roles are managed. A range of possibilities exist which offer each side more or less control. At one extreme is the fashionable military theme of “interchangeability”, whereby inevitably America runs everything (ie we are 100% the patsy). That this option is even on the table shows this is the way things are heading.

The more one looks at the issues the clearer it becomes that the current Defence Strategic Review has been asked to cover ground beyond its competence. That Review cannot respond rationally to its Terms of Reference without high level foreign policy and strategic distinctions being settled. To illustrate, players from the Prime Minister down have talked of acquiring long-range missiles and drones, echoing the opposition defence spokesman Hastie:

“We need to be able to hold an adversary at risk, at distance, out past the archipelago to our north, and in order to do that, you need strike capabilities — missiles, aircraft and long-term, nuclear submarines.”

Such weapons are said to be important in high intensity warfare, meaning against China. Which raises the question why the versatile Tindal B52s would not be engaged for that scenario. Why buy costly long-range missiles and strike platforms which do little more than duplicate the B52 capability? Of course, that may be because we would not have any control of the B52. If so that needs to be clarified. Along with many other complex distinctions. What can be counted on, when, by whom, in what circumstances? How else could a force structure analysis have credibility?

Americanisation has descended without any sense that the complexities have been recognised much less addressed. The government must tell us how foreign policy can be conducted in the light of American force projection from Australia. How much of our sovereignty do we retain, why and how and what we want to do with it? That is a review in itself, a responsibility which has been abrogated by every government since Gillard. Only then, should Defence be asked for its way ahead. To proceed otherwise will be damaging, certainly politically.

 

 

READ MORE:

https://johnmenadue.com/why-labor-cant-be-trusted-with-australias-security/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

SEE ALSO:

always involved in someone else pissy boer wars....

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.....................

BBC bullshit blues....

THE BBC IS SLANTED IN ITS ASSESSMENT OF THE RUSSIAN INTERVENTION IN UKRAINE. FIRST WE HAVE TO SAY THAT PUTIN DID NOT WANT "WAR" OR ANY CONFLICT OF ANY NATURE WITH UKRAINE. BUT THE ATTITUDE AND THE PROVOCATIONS FROM NATO AND ZELENSKY PUSHED RUSSIA INTO DEFENDING THE RUSSIANS OF THE DONBASS REGION. THESE RUSSIANS WERE ABOUT TO BE ANNIHILATED BY THE KIEV MILITARY AND LET'S SAY THAT RUSSIA HAD LITTLE CHOICE BUT TO INTERVENE. BEYOND THIS, A NO STAGE DOES THE BBC AND THE WESTERN JOURNALISTS RECOGNISE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE AGREEMENTS WHICH PUTIN WANTED WITH THE US/NATO/EU/UK/ZIONIST OUTFIT AS PROPOSED IN DECEMBER LAST YEAR:

SECURITY OF RUSSIAN BORDERS (SEE THE HEARTLAND CAPER).

MINSK AGREEMENTS TO BE ADHERE TO BY UKRAINE.

NO NATO IN UKRAINE.

CRIMEA TO BE RUSSIAN AS IT WAS AND SHOULD BE.

THE WEST TOLD PUTIN TO "FUCK OFF".

 

SO NOW THE BBC SNEAKILY DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF RUSSIA USING NUKES.... THIS IS DUBIOUS, BECAUSE NO MENTION IS MADE THAT THE US WERE THE FIRST ONES TO MENTION "USING" NUKES — AND LITTLE SHITHEAD ZELENSKY ALSO DEMANDED THE USE OF NUKES ON RUSSIA... HERE'S THE BAD BLOATED CRAP:

 

Vladimir Putin has said the threat of a nuclear war was rising, but insisted Russia had not "gone mad" and would not use its nuclear weapons first.

The Russian president insisted that his country would only use weapons of mass destruction in response to an attack. 

Speaking at Russia's annual human rights council meeting, he also said the war in Ukraine could be a "lengthy process".

Western officials believe Putin initially planned for a rapid victory.

 

Russia's capacity to use nuclear weapons has come under increased scrutiny since it invaded Ukraine in February.

"Such a threat is growing, it would be wrong to hide it," Putin warned while talking about the prospect of nuclear war via video link from Moscow.

 

But he asserted that Russia would "under no circumstances" use the weapons first, and would not threaten anyone with its nuclear arsenal.

"We have not gone mad, we are aware of what nuclear weapons are," he said, adding: "We aren't about to run around the world brandishing this weapon like a razor."

Putin also boasted that Russia had the most modern and advanced nuclear weapons in the world, and contrasted its nuclear strategy to the US - who he said had gone further than Russia by locating its nuclear weapons on other territories.

"We do not have nuclear weapons, including tactical ones, on the territory of other countries, but the Americans do - in Turkey, and in a number of other European countries," he said.

Putin has previously insisted that Russia's nuclear doctrine only allowed for the defensive use of nuclear arms.

 

READ MORE:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63893316

 

SEE HOW IT'S DONE?... IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SLANT DON'T WORRY, IT'S VERY SNEAKY.

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FFREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW............. PLEASE BBC DEMAND ASSANGE'S FREEDOM!!!!!!!!

 

MEANWHILE:

 

BY Jeffrey Sachs

 

The Ukraine War is an extremely dangerous war between nuclear superpowers in a world desperately in need of peace and cooperation.

There is a new glimmer of hope for a quick negotiated end to the war in Ukraine.

In his recent press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, President Joe Biden stated, “I’m prepared to speak with Mr. Putin if in fact, there is an interest in him deciding he’s looking for a way to end the war. He hasn’t done that yet. If that’s the case, in consultation with my French and my NATO friends, I’ll be happy to sit down with Putin to see what he wants, has in mind.” President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman replied that Russia is ready for negotiations aimed “to ensure our interests.”

Now is the time for mediation, based on the core interests and bargaining space of the three main parties to the conflict: Russia, Ukraine, and the United States.

The war is devastating Ukraine. According to EU President Ursula von der Leyen, Ukraine has already lost 100,000 soldiers and 20,000 civilians. Not only Ukraine but also Russia, the US, and EU—indeed the entire world—stand to benefit enormously from an end to the conflict, lifting both the nuclear dread that hangs over the world today and the devastating economic fallout of the war.

It is time for the U.S. and Russia, two great powers of both the past and future, to show their greatness through mutual respect, diplomacy, and common efforts to ensure sustainable development for all.

No less an authority than the Chairman of the U.S. Joints Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley, has urged a negotiated political solution to the conflict, noting that Ukraine’s chance for a military victory, is “not high.”

There are four core issues to negotiate: Ukraine’s sovereignty and security; the fraught issue of NATO enlargement; the fate of Crimea; and the future of the Donbas.

Ukraine demands above all to be a sovereign country, free from Russia’s domination, and with secure borders. There are some in Russia, perhaps including Putin himself, who believe that Ukraine is really part of Russia. There will be no negotiated peace without Russia recognising Ukraine’s sovereignty and national security backed by explicit international guarantees of the UN Security Council and nations including Germany, India, and Türkiye.

Russia demands above all that NATO renounce its intention to expand to Ukraine and Georgia, which would fully encircle Russia in the Black Sea (adding Ukraine and Georgia to existing Black Sea NATO members Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey). NATO refers to itself as a defensive alliance, yet Russia believes differently, knowing full well of the U.S. penchant for regime-change operations against governments it opposes (including Ukraine in 2014, with the U.S. role in the overthrow of then pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych).

Russia also claims Crimea as home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet since 1783. Putin warned George Bush Jr. in 2008 that if the U.S. pushed NATO into Ukraine, Russia would re-take Crimea, which Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev had transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954. Until Yanukovich’s overthrow, the Crimea question was handled prudently by Russia-Ukrainian agreements that gave Russia a long-term lease on its naval facilities in Sevastopol, Crimea.

Ukraine and Russia differ heatedly over the Donbas, with its predominantly ethnic Russian population. While the Ukrainian language and cultural identity prevails in most of Ukraine, Russian cultural identity and language prevail in the Donbas. After Yanukovych’s overthrow, the Donbas became a battleground between pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian paramilitaries, with the pro-Russian forces declaring the independence of the Donbas.

The Minsk II agreement of 2015 was a diplomatic agreement to end the fighting, based on autonomy (self-government) for the Donbas region within Ukrainian borders, and respect for the Russian language and culture. After signing, Ukrainian leaders made clear that they resented the agreement and would not honour it. Though France and Germany were guarantors of the agreement, they did not press Ukraine to follow through. From Russia’s point of view, Ukraine and the West thereby repudiated a diplomatic solution to the conflict.

In late 2021, Putin reiterated Russia’s demand for no further enlargement of NATO, especially to Ukraine. The U.S. refused to negotiate over NATO enlargement. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg provocatively stated at the time that Russia would have no say in the matter, and that only NATO members would decide whether or not to encircle Russia in the Black Sea.

In March 2022, a month after the Russian invasion, Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made substantial progress on a pragmatic negotiated end to the war, based on NATO non-enlargement, international guarantees of sovereignty and security for Ukraine, and the issues of Crimea and the Donbas to be resolved peacefully down the road. Turkish diplomats were the very skilled mediators.

Yet Ukraine then walked away from the negotiating table, perhaps at U.K. and U.S. prodding, and adopted the policy of refusing negotiations until Russia was driven out of Ukraine by military action. The conflict then escalated, with Russia annexing not only the two regions of the Donbas (Luhansk and Donetsk), but also Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions. Recently, Zelensky inflamed the situation by demanding the severing of Ukrainian links with Russian Orthodox institutions, breaking religious ties of ethnic Russians and many ethnic Ukrainians that date back a millennium.

With both the U.S. and Russia now warily approaching the negotiating table, the time for mediation is at hand. Possible mediators include the United Nations, Türkiye, Pope Francis, China, and perhaps others, in some combination. The contours of successful mediation are actually clear, as is the basis for a peace settlement.

The main point for mediation is that all parties have legitimate interests and legitimate grievances. Russia wrongly and violently invaded Ukraine. The U.S. wrongly conspired in the overthrow of Yanukovych in 2014, and then heavily armed Ukraine while pushing NATO enlargement to encircle Russia in the Black Sea. Following Yanukovych, Ukrainian Presidents Petro Poroshenko and Volodymyr Zelensky refused to implement the Minsk II agreement.

Peace will come when the U.S. backs away from further NATO enlargement towards Russia’s borders; Russia withdraws its military forces from Ukraine and backs away from the unilateral annexation of Ukrainian territory; Ukraine backs away from its attempts to retake Crimea and from its repudiation of the Minsk II framework; and all parties agree to secure the sovereign borders of Ukraine under the UN Charter and backed by the guarantees of the UN Security Council and other nations.

The Ukraine War is an extremely dangerous war between nuclear superpowers in a world desperately in need of peace and cooperation. It is time for the U.S. and Russia, two great powers of both the past and future, to show their greatness through mutual respect, diplomacy, and common efforts to ensure sustainable development for all—including for the people of Ukraine, who are most urgently in need of peace and reconstruction.

First published in Common Dreams December 5, 2022

 

READ MORE:

 

WE KNOW THAT PEACE WILL ONLY COME WHEN:

SECURITY OF RUSSIAN BORDERS (SEE THE HEARTLAND CAPER) ARE AGREED TO.

MINSK AGREEMENTS TO BE ADHERE TO BY UKRAINE IS NOW OBSOLETE DUE TO THE WEST "POSTURE" — THUS THE RUSSIAN DONBASS REGIONS ARE NOW RUSSIAN TERRITORIES ONCE MORE (KIEV MISSED ITS CHANCES TO BECOME A PEACEFUL FEDERATION).

NO NATO IN UKRAINE.

CRIMEA TO BE RUSSIAN AS IT WAS AND SHOULD BE.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....................