March 13, 2023
As world tensions heighten over Ukraine, some fear this crisis might grow into a great geopolitical catastrophe. Certainly it could. But few recognize there is an even greater matter of conflict brewing between the US and Russia. It could quickly outpace the already-dangerous Ukraine war.

Consider the following statement about the war: "This is not about Ukraine at all, but the world order." Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said that, referencing the war.

Oxford University professor Peter Frankopan in The Spectator for March 4, 2023 cited that statement by Lavrov. It was made a month after the invasion. Now it has become a point that's been virtually lost in the subsequent mish-mash of conflicting news reports on every side of the still ongoing Ukraine conflict.

Lavrov's "world order" term equates to an issue that many refer to as American hegemony.

To understand where the "world order" issue might take us, let's first look at the already immediate dangers of the Ukraine conflict.

Often we are reminded that Vladimir Putin famously alleged that the demise of the Soviet Union was "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century." NBC News reported it back in April 2005.

Now it can be debated whether Putin has initiated a great geopolitical catastrophe of his own by invading Ukraine in February 2022. There is obvious irony in that thought.

History will ultimately judge whether the Ukraine war will grow to be the greatest tragedy of the 21st century. Meanwhile, there is a practical reason to believe that the Ukraine conflict could even take on a much greater proportion than that.

If you take a serious look at the ultimate risk involved, you can see a distinct a possibility that the Ukraine conflict could become the greatest geopolitical catastrophe ever seen. The risk is that high if the war extends into a long war and to a direct nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia. A resulting nuclear catastrophe could lead to an insurmountable disruption of world civilization. I'll show how that's a quantifiable risk.

In a game of Russian roulette there is also a risk. There is a finite chance that you could kill yourself. It is improbable though. The odds from one pull of the trigger are against it. But who among us would bet on the improbable and pick up a revolver and take the chance? Why not? After all, the odds of survival are in your favor. But there is something else involved.

The additional factor here is of course one of risk/benefit. If you could somehow avert a worse and certain fate by agreeing to a trigger pull in Russian roulette, the risk might be worth it. The benefit would outweigh the risk. Otherwise it would be a foolish move.

Now we are actually facing a game of Russian roulette in Ukraine. That's not just an off-the-cuff allegation. It's the product of a scientific risk analysis conducted by Dr. Martin Hellman. He is Adjunct Senior Fellow for Nuclear Risk Analysis at the Federation of American Scientists. Hellman's been involved in scientific analysis of this issue going back at least 15 years.

Dr. Hellman now scientifically estimates: "So long as the war in Ukraine drags on, we are playing Russian roulette with the whole world about once a year." Mathematically the odds of catastrophe are about 17 percent.

In addition to Hellman's position with FAS, he is also a Professor Emeritus at Stanford University and winner of the million dollar ACM Turing Award, said to be the Nobel Prize for computing.

Given the risk explained by Hellman, is there an offsetting benefit? Is there anything that makes that nuclear risk acceptable?

A recent Rand report titled "Avoiding a Long War" suggests there is not. The gist of the report is roughly, (1) the war to protect and recover Ukrainian territories is supporting extreme tensions between nuclear superpowers, (2) the war has no direct and tangible benefit for Americans, and (3) priority should be given to ceasing hostilities over sending more weaponry.

That hardly seems offsetting to pulling the revolver's trigger once each year every year while the war rages on. But despite the absence of a practical benefit, a February 6, 2023 Gallup poll reports, "Americans Still Stand by Ukraine," Republicans 53 percent, Democrats 81 percent. "Ending the war quickly, even if it allows Russia to keep territory?" That gets only minority support. Republicans 41 percent, Democrats 18 percent.

But where's the benefit for Americans? I can't identify one, at least not for the general public. It could be that it is beneficial for others.

Hellman's conclusion suggests it's more likely you'll experience a nuclear catastrophe in the next year than the odds that your house will burn down. Yet homeowners readily buy fire insurance while caring or knowing little of the greater nuclear risk and indeed they mostly advocate taking that risk.

So here is a paradox: If there is no apparent benefit for Americans, why do they so heartily support fueling the fire of war by sending over more and bigger weaponry? Russia's unjustified aggression against Ukraine is clear. It is also clear there is no positive correlation between sending more weapons and reducing the Ukrainian deaths and destruction. Indeed it is having an opposite effect. What explains all this?

It was already last November that General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicated that he couldn't foresee a military victory in Ukraine by anybody. Somehow America's public doesn't believe that. How could that be?

Is it media influence? My observation of our media is that the mainstream message is highly emotionalized. Certainly it is easy to have compassion for the unforgivable fate of the Ukrainians. But concluding that more war, more killing, and more destruction will change that just isn't rational.

Instead, the media message I've seen largely plays upon abstract concepts such as preserving Ukraine's democracy, and helping her people to stay free. Mainstream media portray those abstractions with emotionality, and that catches on with audiences -- and it spreads.

How could that happen?

Recently I saw a book by a retired Canadian clinical psychologist, Dr. Bruce Hutchison, that seems to hit this squarely on the head. It's titled Emotions Don't Think: Emotional Contagion in a Time of Turmoil. And that's exactly how I perceive what's happening vis-a-vis Ukraine. But the emotions connected to the Ukraine war are to a great extent negative emotions. They allow people to accept and support the current risk of a nuclear confrontation -- without the consequences of that risk even registering with them. Hutchison calls the propagation of such emotions "toxic emotional contagion." He says they typically involve the emotions of fear and hate.

Lamentably, rational thoughts are not spreading about future carnage and destruction from a continuing war or of its futility. Instead, Americans have been swept away with apparently politically engineered emotions, and that sadly is permitting more carnage and destruction. "Emotions don't think," as Hutchison puts it.

"When President Biden made a secret trip Monday to Ukraine marking the anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, he declared that the United States is going to back Ukraine as long as it takes." That's what NPR reported on February 20, 2023.

So, it's more war and emotion, less thinking ahead.

But, still, what about Putin's ominous but oft-quoted statement that the loss of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of its century? Isn't that a real threat of territorial expansion?

That quote seems usually to be cited exactly for the purpose of arousing toxic emotions: fears of a territorially adventuresome Putin. It invokes images that are almost archetypical in the minds of many -- that of Hitler's march across Europe and the old domino theory of the Vietnam era. They can elicit a scary emotion that can be contagious.

However, less often seen is Putin's remark, "Anyone who doesn't regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains" That was reported in the New York Times on February 20, 2000. The remark sort of kills the implied scary emotion of the other Putin quote.

But now what about the potentially larger issue, the challenge to American dominance in the world? Whether you call it "world order" or "American hegemony," Russia is not alone in its dissatisfaction with that status quo.

So now what about Frankopan's citation from Lavrov? "This is not about Ukraine at all, but the world order"

More recent statements seem to affirm: that is Russia's bottom-line objective:

--"Russia's upcoming new foreign policy concept will focus on terminating the West's monopoly in international affairs, the country's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday." February 16, 2023, Xinhua

--"The Russian president said his country is opposed to the emergence of a unipolar world that revolves around Washington's interests." February 20, 2023, RT

Given all that, hasn't the US been lured into spending well over $100 billion on the wrong issue, Ukraine? Couldn't international unease over America's strong international role emerge as a far greater problem, indeed the main concern? Why would our government be pouring so many resources into Ukraine when it is not the prime issue?

Frankopan has an answer: "In its most blunt terms, the war has served as a moment of one of the greatest transfers of wealth in history..."

He even names names: "There have been big winners, such as shareholders in the five oil giants -- BP, Shell, Exxon, Chevron, and Total Energies -- who reported combined profits of $200 billion last year. The fossil fuel-producing states of OPEC also had eye-watering revenues, reaching $850 billion last year. But the price rise of LNG has meant countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh have suffered blackouts, which in turn cut productivity. This has paved the way for social unrest and political volatility -- as well as increasing a global sense of resentment towards the West."

The above doesn't even account for other big winners, the large US defense contractors with their huge profits.

All together, the Ukraine war has been a bonanza for an elite few. But not for the average American that must pay the taxes and bear the debt for all the related appropriations enacted by Congress and signed by the president.

Doesn't that bonanza for elites create vested interests in politically protecting the supportive legislation? And wouldn't that involve paying large fees to lobbyists who cater to the needs of politicians, including contributions to campaign funds and supporting pet interests of politicians? Who's going to want to pull back on our lavish support for Ukraine?

Given the momentum of the tragic and senseless Ukraine war it is hard to foresee anything changing to favor the common good. The matter is largely out of our hands.

And doesn't that leave us all like lemmings heading for the proverbial cliff?


November 18, 2022
A missile of uncertain origin touches down in Poland. It kills two civilians. Promptly Ukraine's president Zelensky calls this a significant escalation of Russia's aggression.

For some time Zelensky plus officials in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia have been warning us of something like this. They claim that Russia's ruthless invasion of Ukraine was just the first expression of its territorial ambition. Next Putin would move further into Europe. That means totally defeating Putin in Ukraine is the only way to stop him.

There's no doubt that Putin's horrific war against Ukraine must be stopped. But as US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff just suggested, it's not likely to happen anytime soon. Said Reuters, "Top US general plays down probability of near-term Ukraine military victory." He opined that now might be an advantageous time for Ukraine to seek a negotiated peace settlement.

But listening to Zelensky's frantic rhetoric, it seems that's not likely to happen anytime soon either.

The missile that hit Poland is now in the forefront of concern. Headlines about it have evolved from Zelensky's excited description to the assertion that it was just an errant missile fired by Ukraine for defensive purposes against a Russian missile attack. It was just a mistake with no intention of hitting Poland.

That sounds reasonable, but the "defensive purposes" part could just be a political tactic.

The sequence as I saw it through the media coverage was:

(1) a missile explosion in Poland kills two,

(2) Reuters reported, "Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Tuesday, without producing evidence, that Russian missiles had hit Poland, a Nato country, in what he called a 'significant escalation' of the conflict."

(3) New York Times reported, "Poland, a Nato member, also said it would most likely invoke Article 4..."

(4) Russia claims to have ID'd the missile to be one in Ukraine's inventory, not Russia's. Says Tass, "Missile wreckage in Polish photos identified as Ukraine's S-300."

(5) Biden quickly takes a view, as reported by AP, "Biden: 'Unlikely' missile that hit Poland fired from Russia."

(6) Then and only then did the "defensive missile" story arise. Now, according to CNN, "Poland, Nato say missile that killed two likely fired by Ukraine defending against Russian attack."

(7) Whereupon Zelensky said "no way" to that theory. CNN quoted him, "I have no doubt that it was not our missile."

(8) But, "US President Joe Biden refuted Volodymyr Zelensky's claim that the missile that struck Poland and killed two people was not from Ukraine" according to the Times of India.

(9) Then Zelensky, according to The Hill, told Bloomberg's New Economy Forum in Singapore, "I don't know 100 percent -- I think the world also doesn't 100 percent know what happened... We can't say specifically that this was the air defense of Ukraine."

Here's my analysis:

If you look at the gestalt of all this it suggests a caper to trick Nato/US into the war (officially). He was unswerving in his unsupported allegations about Russia. Even in the face of friendly opposition Zelensky is adamant at pushing for Nato/US action.

But instead of holding him accountable for that, he was pandered to. For instance, I postulate that the "defensive missile" story was concocted to give Zelensky a graceful way to back down, one that he didn't take.

Potentially the missile could have been a mistake of either Russia's or Ukraine's, given the missile exchanges that were going on at the time.

But Zelensky's steadfast and unswerving commitment to making a Nato crisis out of it raises questions of whether the missile in question was an organized false flag gimmick planned by Zelensky just waiting for an opportunity to implement. I'm not advocating this as a certain explanation, but just pointing out that it would be consistent with Zelensky's zeal for a Nato Article 4 action, possibly moving on to Article 5.

Now the story has become that it is Russia's fault anyway. AP quoted Nato secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg "This is not Ukraine's fault. Russia bears ultimate responsibility." That's because Russia started the hostility in the first place. This sounds to me like just throwing another sop to Zelensky. Wouldn't it be better to get him more focused on the grim realities he faces?

This whole imbroglio illustrates just how tense and potentially explosive the situation with Ukraine really is. President Biden deserves credit for taking a measured and cautions approach as he reacted to the unfolding events. If he hadn't, with Zelensky's push, things could have escalated into a much larger and globally threatening war.

Shouldn't Zelensky's quick and unwarranted conclusions have been called out for what they were right from the start? He commands a lot of world sympathy for the terrible tragedy that has beset his country. But that shouldn't have allowed his catastrophization of the incident to go so far unabated.

And all the blame placing and finessing of responsibility? What has it really accomplished? Placing blame is no way to find common ground. Personally, I think that energy would be better spent on finding a peaceful resolution than on placing blame.


February 18, 2022
President Zelensky, this is about the threat of a Russian invasion that President Biden is warning against.

On one hand you expressed appreciation to the United States and its partners for providing your country with "effective support."

But on the other hand, you have said you do not expect any Russian invasion anytime soon. In fact, you seem to doubt President Biden's story and even asked him for proof.

Different fates await you and your country depending on which way it goes.

There is a safe way out of this dilemma for you. Be forewarned it is iconoclastic. But, before identifying it, allow me to review the background.

Here is what President Biden says lies in store for you:

Russia may invade at any moment. At first Biden was focused on a likely land invasion over your eastern border. Lately he's talked of an air attack on Kyiv to kick off the invasion. He says a bloody and destructive war would ensue. People on the ground would be killed indiscriminately.

What's at stake is the killing of Ukrainians, the ruination of Ukrainian cities, and the destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure.

But that's not all. Biden's alleged war would create an enormous humanitarian crisis.

Reflect upon what happened in Donbas since 2014. It is widely understood that the conflict there has claimed about 14,000 lives. The United Nations reports that in just 3 years of conflict 2 million Ukrainians were displaced from their homes; 100 thousand were forced into asylum in other countries. Given the population size of all Ukraine, the impending crisis could be more than five times worse.

Now, also consider exactly what the "effective support" is for which you credit President Biden -- and what it isn't. There'll be no troops to help save your country. All you'll see is the imposition of more sanctions on Russia (the last ones didn't accomplish much) and you'll get more weapons. But where are those weapons going to get you?

Do you really believe that you could win a war against Russia and its vast might? If you think so, you might want to reassess that conclusion. Russia has the capability to turn most of your country into a big Chernobyl Exclusion Zone in just a few minutes.

Why risk that or other dire consequences? You're not completely convinced of Biden's invasion story. You publically asked for proof but apparently received none. Why don't you honestly reject the invasion threat and be done with it?

The invasion story is unsubstantiated. That does not mean that an invasion will never occur. I don't know if it will. But for now the story appears to be a fabrication.

But to what end? There is reason to believe that the invasion threat was fabricated for reasons having little to do with Ukraine. Some believe that domestic politics in the United States is the driving force.

Here is the narrative: US elections in November will determine which party controls Congress. Dissatisfaction with President Biden is increasing as is unrest about a litany of domestic issues. Potentially all this can impact which way the election goes.

The consequences of that are vast. The fates and fortunes of many politically or financially powerful people are at risk. There is no reason to expect that the protection of or quest for power will proceed in a principled way.

The crisis over Russia's invasion plans can be useful for both sides of the US election contest. It allows Biden to project an image of toughness in the face of growing domestic beliefs that he is weak. It gives both sides opportunities for campaign contributions from domestic industries that thrive on world tension. And it diverts public attention from the domestic failures of Washington..

The unsubstantiated invasion story is coming from Biden and a bipartisan group that apparently benefit from the sparing with Russia. Don't you see what is happening here? You are being used as bait in the fight. Your public statements seem to indicate that this crisis is all about you. But it isn't.

No matter which side wins in the US-Russia sparing, I suspect you will lose. It will be your people, your cities, your infrastructure that will be sacrificed on behalf of American political interests.

What's more, these are not even the interests of the majority of Americans. More than half of American citizens are already aware that our political system needs improvement.

Contrary to the interests of the political elites, the American population has its own set of priorities. Pew Research released a 2022 report on which issues Americans want their government to prioritize. Ukraine did not even make the list.

Yet, your country's interests are already being compromised by the invasion story. Look what happened when President Biden advanced his claim that Russia would stage an air attack on Kyiv. The result? It set off a panic among many foreign embassies. They got out of town quickly.

Previously you had called on the West to tone down the rhetoric about the unsubstantiated Russian invasion plans. You were justly concerned that it could create panic. You were right about that. No one listened to you. You didn't matter. You are just bait. The American politicians that are emboldening you to prepare for a fight with Russia do not have your best interests at heart. It is high time for you to realize that.

Don't be a fool, President Zelensky. There is no apparent way for you to win anything if Russia really does stage a full scale invasion. Meanwhile your kowtowing to President Biden is perpetuating the fabricated invasion threat that isn't doing you any good. Isn't it time for you to stop and introduce some inescapable realism into the discourse?

But how can you get out of the spot you've gotten into? In that regard you have something in common with President Biden. How is he going to back away from the alleged invasion that never (to date) happened?

Here's the iconoclastic way out for you: Offer your surrender to Russia preemptively. Act before an attack. If Russia honestly was not planning an attack she will have no reason to accept the offer. That should end the story. If Biden then persists with the invasion tale, he could be easily discredited.

But if Russia admits that an attack was planned, then what? The US and Nato would proceed to inflict the promised draconian sanctions and give you more weapons. In the end everything would be the same as if Russia had launched a real attack -- except that your people would be alive, your cities would be untouched by destruction, and your infrastructure would be intact. And the additional weapons? You could sell them.

There's really little risk in this for you. Russia is not trying to impose a political ideology, economic system, or religion. It is not seeking to harm your people. President Putin claims just wanting to be free of a possible threat from malicious Nato weaponry on its border with Ukraine.

And for President Biden? How can he back away from his invasion story? There's a good way and a bad way. The good way would be to negotiate a settlement with Putin.

The bad way might be horrific. Remember that he suddenly came up with the notion of an air attack on Kyiv? What would stop him from launching a false flag attack on the city? Citing his earlier warning, Biden could blame it on Putin. The likely objective of the attack would be to get Ukraine to retaliate against Russia.

If done by missiles it would be hard to identify the actual source of the attack. Either side could fabricate satellite images. Those supplied by the US or Nato would be more likely believed. Russia's easily could be discredited, given the build-up Biden's given the world about an invasion.

Don't even give that a chance of happening, President Zelensky. Cut out the wishy washiness. Be a survivor. Protect your country. Send your surrender offer over to Putin right away -- before it's too late!


February 2, 2022
"All concerned [must] take immediate steps to deescalate tensions and continue on the diplomatic path." That is the emphatic plea of UN Secretary General Guterres. It was presented on January 31 to the Security Council. Its meeting that day was called by the United States to "discuss Russia's threats to Ukraine," according to the Guardian.

Two days later Reuters began reporting, "Biden orders nearly 3000 US troops to Eastern Europe to counter Russia."

It looks to me that Biden has just thumbed his nose at the Secretary General.

This is all about the ongoing war of words between presidents Biden and Putin. Biden alleges that Russia is poised to invade and conquer Ukraine. Putin says Russia has no such plans.

Nonetheless, both sides seem to be playing a machismo-laced game of tit-for-tat. We can see US/Nato strengthening its side of the Ukraine-Russia border and Russia taking military steps of its own. And on it goes.

Each side seems to blame the other for initiating the threatening behavior. But at this point what does that matter? They both should just stop their behaviors that can be interpreted as provocational and, as the UN Secretary General said, "continue on the diplomatic path."

The US troops are being sent to enhance "defensive capabilities in front line allied states," said retired admiral John Kirby speaking for the Pentagon. Is that a tacit assertion that Germany, Poland, and Romania are expected to be targets of possible Russian attack?

Why those countries? Romania hosts an Aegis Ashore missile site at Deveselu Air Base, and Poland has one at Redzikowo. And Germany? According to Nato "Germany hosts several Nato facilities, such as Headquarters Rapid Deployable German-Netherlands-Corps in Munster and the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) in Uedem whose primary peacetime role is the tactical Command and Control of Quick- Reaction Alert Forces used to police Nato airspace above the Benelux countries, above Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and the Baltic States."

It will be some job for some 3000 US troops to help defend all that. But it seems more likely that the deployment is just a provocation with a bit of showmanship.

Lately, however, there also has been a shift in terminology. Earlier US statements have referred to European "borders," but now I'm seeing the term "flanks." Very military, very menacing. (Voice of America: "US Sending 2000 More Troops to Europe to Bolster Nato's Eastern Flank.")

This sounds like serious business. "Biden says no one knows what Putin will do," according to CNN. An AP story revealed, "US orders 8500 troops on heightened alert amid Russia worry." Biden is not fooling around.

Are we about to see the start of bombs flying, and how soon?

For some time word was that a Russian invasion of Ukraine is dangerously imminent. On January 18, NBC news reported "White House warns Russian invasion of Ukraine may be imminent." Days later the Independent chimed in, "Biden warned Ukraine's president Kyiv could be 'sacked' by imminent Russian invasion."

Despite all this there are some blatant contradictions. For starters, Ukraine, at the focus of all the fuss, does not seem to agree with Biden on this.

British journalist Mary Dejevsky writing in the Independent said, "The disparity between the alarm being sounded in the most hawkish western capitals, including London, and the calm that prevails across Ukraine has been one of the most striking aspects of this potential conflict. The headline of her story reads, "Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, is a lone voice of reason in stand-off with Russia."

According to the Washington Post, "Ukraine's Zelensky's message is don't panic." He's quoted saying, "Take a breath. Calm down." That seems more in keeping with the UN Secretary General's admonition.

Anecdotally I've heard that average Ukrainians aren't as alarmed as Biden seems to be. One report from Odessa said they are trying not to think of the worst, but are starting to wonder what plans should be made in case it happens.

But here's the kicker of it all. The imminent invasion? It was all a big mistake. The troops put on high alert over an imminent invasion: mistake. The US forces being rushed into Poland, Romania, and Germany in response to an imminent threat: mistake. Yes, it was all a big mistake.

The White House now admits there was no imminent threat.

Does this sound like Saddam's weapons of mass destruction that never were there? According to the February 2 Washington Post, "The White House is distancing itself from its previous assessment that Russia poses an "imminent" threat to Ukraine." Press secretary Jen Psaki said the administration will no longer use the word "imminent."

It's not giving up on the assertion that an invasion is in the works, mind you. But should anybody still believe that now?

The latest revelations make Biden sound like an international loose cannon.

It is time to start demanding concrete, honest proof of these dangerous allegations of a Russian invasion -- and time for both sides to stop all military escalations and, as Guterres says, "continue on the diplomatic path."


November 20, 2019
Amid wildly conflicting stories about the Ukraine scandal one thing's for sure. Someone's not telling the truth. That means some of the news reports are based on misinformation.

Who is spreading the misinformation? Associated Press has been caught as one guilty party. That troubling revelation comes not from the ubiquitous news stories we see carrying an AP byline. It has been conducted out of view of the general public.

AP's vehicle for this covert activity involves an AP publication that is generally unknown to the public at large. But for news editors and journalists it is a bible. It's called the AP Stylebook. News people rely upon it as a reference on style matters, such as whether to write website or Web site, or how to spell the name of China's president.

The Stylebook goes beyond that, however. For instance AP just released a supplement titled, "Impeachment Inquiry Topical Guide." It recommends how to spell Ukraine's new president's surname and the country's capital city. But it goes further than that. It delves into the political arena. And that's where AP went wrong. Under the guise of providing the news community with useful background it has snuck in one-sided versions of controversial issues that are far from settled.

One example appears in the background on the unusual role of Rudolph Giuliani in the Ukraine affair. AP makes reference to "the discredited theory that Ukraine and not Russia tried to intervene in the 2016 election." Stating that this has been categorically discredited is a boldly false statement.

The facts are that the issue is presently the subject of a criminal investigation by a US Attorney. Surely AP is aware of that, and indeed it reported on October 24, 2019, "DOJ review of Russia probe now a criminal inquiry." An honest report on the cited theory would have said that the matter is sharply contested and currently an issue within a criminal investigation.

Another example is the question of whether President Trump has violated his oath of office. His opponents have made a strong allegation on that. AP advised editors that "House committees are trying to determine if President Donald Trump violated his oath of office by asking a foreign country to investigate a political opponent."

But that allegation is far from being self evident. By not warning of that fact, AP has misled the journalists again.

How is it not self evident? Here's the presidential oath of office:

"I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The premise of AP's argument is that asking a foreign country to investigate a political opponent violates the oath of office. But the oath of office is clearly silent on any such type of activity. It is an open issue on whether Trump committed a transgression here. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. That's a subject being considered by highly visible Congressional inquiries in which some parties are seeking to impute meanings into the oath. But for now the allegation is unsettled and the supposed violation is not in the oath per se.

AP's transgressions continue in the Guide's section on "Key Places." It states that Russia "annexed Ukraine's Crimea region" as if that were a settled matter. However, it is clearly in dispute. Most Crimeans rebut the annexation claim, believing that they voted to be reunited with Russia.

It is true that the United Nations passed a non-binding resolution that claims the Crimean referendum on independence from Kyiv was invalid. "Non-binding" is a critical term here. What's more, that resolution would seem to conflict with the very Charter of the UN that cites "the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples."

This is plainly a contested political battle in which AP is playing the role of a combatant.

AP could learn a lot from the National Geographic Society. While claims still abound that Crimea remains subject to Ukrainian sovereignty, the Society has drawn its maps to show Crimea as an integral part of Russia. The organization's director of editorial and research for National Geographic Maps put it simply: "We map the world as it is, not as people would like it to be."

Even on simple matters AP misrepresents. For instance it announces a style change from Kiev to Kyiv. There's nothing wrong with that. But AP's rationale is mistaken. It claims that change is "in line with the government's preferred transliteration to English." But it is not a "transliteration" issue. The name for Ukraine's capital city is Kiev in the Russian language. In Ukrainian it's Kyiv. It's a language difference, not one of transliteration. It's like we say Moscow, they say Moskva.

And then there's the matter of how to spell the surname of Ukraine's president. AP recommends that editors and journalists use "Zelinskiy." But the common usage in English has been Zelensky. A google search with that latter spelling netted 15,100,000 hits. For "Zelinskiy" it is only 64,700.

Unlike the capital city name, this spelling issue really is a matter of transliteration. And AP seems to be going with the wrong choice. AP claims that Zelensky himself requested AP to use the "Zelinskiy" transliteration. But when I asked them to substantiate that claim they failed to respond. Incidentally, the president himself on his official English language website spells it "Zelenskyy." That nets 44,000 hits on google.

There are still additional signs of bias in AP's Guide that are more serious than spelling. They seem to indicate a persistent application of bias. It makes frequent use of loaded terms.

For instance, it says that "Russia tried to intervene in the election" of 2016. By any common definition of the word "intervene" AP's usage is inappropriate. There was no force or threat of force, there was no demonstrable hindrance or modification, there was no demonstrable interference in an outcome. At worst, what Russia has been alleged to have done is what is commonly called propaganda. Given all the distortions in AP's guide it seems likely that its use of "intervene" is a deliberate provocation of fear.

At this point it is necessary to reflect upon what AP is up to. What kind of role is it playing in bringing vital political news to American voters? A quote from Walter Cronkite can help put this into perspective:

"We all have our likes and our dislikes. But... when we're doing news -- when we're doing the front-page news, not the back page, not the op-ed pages, but when we're doing the daily news, covering politics -- it is our duty to be sure that we do not permit our prejudices to show. That is simply basic journalism."

I can't think of a rational argument that would support a notion that AP is practicing even basic journalism. It has exploited the presumptive trust enjoyed by its Stylebook -- a bible in the journalism field -- to covertly propagate one-sided "background" to its unsuspecting readers.

If one accepts Cronkite's concept of journalism, there no longer seems to be reason to trust AP's Stylebook. It's wrong on the political issues. It's even wrong on the simple matter of how to spell the Ukrainian president's name. The Stylebook might more honestly be termed a political document that manifests an insidious propensity to propagate false and misleading information.

What a sad and troubling conclusion that is.


February 20, 2015
This is Iraq all over again. I'm talking about the deception of the American people about a threat that may not even exist. Iraq had its "weapons of mass destruction." Ukraine has its alleged "invasion" by Russia and threat to the rest of Eastern Europe. I busted this myth in Ukraine in the Crosshairs. What I found in my research is that those trying to convince us of Putin's dastardly role are lying.

In all honesty I don't know whether or not Russia has played the role it's been accused of. But I did find that those who are trying to convince us of that rely upon fabrications. I've got evidence of that.

Blaming the media for all this is like blaming the messenger. With Iraq, sure, many news people played along like puppy dogs. And they're jumping through the same hoops now. It's true that there are a handful of media commentators and a few media outlets that have made Russia-bashing their forte. But that's not what's been propelling this story. There needs to be more focus on exposing the brains (or lack of brains!) behind the false stories about Ukraine.

In the U.S., the fabricated story-line about Russia's role has been bipartisanly embraced. Jump back to the Council on Foreign Relations report of 2006. It was titled "Russia's Wrong Direction: What the United States Can and Should Do." The task force that produced it was chaired by John Edwards (D) and Jack Kemp (R). Again, bipartisan.

This is an issue on which the two parties could reasonably disagree. But we find people like John McCain and Hillary Clinton on basically the same page. But, neither they nor their comrades-in-arms can formulate a factual basis for their positions. They rely upon innuendos and allegations based on falsehoods, past and present.

Perhaps the most honest of the bunch is Senator Lindsay Graham. When asked on national TV why he favored sending lethal weaponry to Ukraine, the best he could come up with was the statement, "It will make me feel better." That may have made him sound like a nit-wit, but at least he was honest about it and didn't just offer fabrications a la Clinton and McCain.

But now, however, the stakes are greater than Iraq. We're not talking about just using weapons of mass destruction on a minority population, as bad as that surely is. Now the stakes border on global thermonuclear war.

American University in Moscow president Dr. Edward Lozansky, himself a nuclear scientist, has urged that parties in the Ukrainian crisis "step back from the brink of a nuclear confrontation that would destroy the entire northern hemisphere of the earth." According to the Telegraph, former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev has issued his own warning that "the world is at risk of a 'nuclear war' because of the tensions between Russia and the West over Ukraine."

But yet the drumbeat continues to spread fallacious stories to stimulate fear and to trick otherwise reasonable people to think the unthinkable. Make no mistake about it: sending lethal weapons to Ukraine would be like throwing gasoline on a fire. And that would be just the start of the trouble.

Many have tried to counter the specious accounts about Ukraine. One leading example is Professor Stephen F. Cohen, a long-respected historian who focuses on Russia. His efforts to set the record straight have netted him a hatchet-job attack in the venerable New York Times. For Cohen's standing up for the truth, the Times characterized his reputation as "divisive." Well, to that I say hooray for divisiveness and boo to the Times.

But being vocal about the truth and attempting to correct falsehoods will ultimately not be enough. The lesson of Iraq was not enough. Now it seems that the history of deception is repeating itself. It's being enabled by the Clintons and McCain.

My own senator Chris Murphy has been suckered into the movement. Recently I wrote him and advised, "Think about what you are doing. Do you really want to create a world for your children to inherit based on a dangerous and ignorant mythology, or would you rather champion a more reality-based approach to peaceful U.S.-Russia relations?" He offered no substantive response to that.

In the midst of the Vietnam conflict, at a time when the U.S. and the Soviet Union were butting their nuclear heads, there was a popular song titled, "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?" It bemoans the buffoonish tendency of humanity to repeat a destructive cycle of history that seems impossible to break. The ending line says, "When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn."

I suggest that Mrs. Clinton, Mr. McCain and the rest who are engaged in repeating the mistakes of history listen to that song over and over again, and think about what they are doing. Are the short-term rewards they seek for themselves by misleading the country really worth it? Indeed, will they ever learn?