JK22

Defense Express has obtained photos of a newly discovered new type of Shahed-136 loitering munition, taken down by Ukrainian air defense. Besides the standard equipment, the drone has a camera and a 4G wireless access point. While these novelties deserve a separate analysis, more importantly, one of the photographs features a device with all factory marks physically erased and instead, DGPS inscribed along with a series of numbers. Most probably, this drone was equipped with a DGPS, or Differential GPS, a technology that could improve the accuracy of Shahed attacks on Ukraine. In more detail, the Differential Global Positioning System is a technology that improves the precision of locating a satellite navigation device. The DGPS is used in both military and civilian domains, for example in agricultural machinery to facilitate even and precise field operations. Open sources also provide the following description to the working principle of the DGPS: it requires two receivers, one of them is stationary which is deployed in a spot with well-known coordinates, while the other is on the move. The data received by the former helps the mobile receiver to tune up its own navigation in real-time. If the hypothesis about russians using DGPS on Shahed-136 is correct, then the purpose of the camera and internet access point on the same drone, originally thought to help at adjusting the current location data, becomes less clear. The camera-network unit either complements the DGPS module or duplicates it, in a sort of experimental way to find out which is better. Shahed-droneflyet har utstyr som gjør at det kan tilkobles et navigasjonssystem - og et 4G trådløst internettlink sammen med et kamera som betyr i virkeligheten at droneoperatøren kan være i kontakt med droneflyet som under normale omstendigheter er autonomt, og kan benytte kameraet for å orientere seg og finne sitt mål, sannsynlig med videolink som kan sendes ut. DGPS-utstyret hjelper droneflyet med å finne seg fram mens droneoperatøren kan bruke det som en gigantisk FPV gjennom en trådløs forbindelse - som er umulig; det er flere hundre kilometer mellom operatøren og hans mål, da er satellittbasert internett det eneste alternativet. Internettdekning i Ukraina er notorisk upålitelig om man ikke er tilkoblet satellittene.

Shahed-136 Potentially Got DGPS Navigation Units: Why russians Install Them and What Advantage They Offer | Defense Express (defence-ua.com) Dette er definitivt ikke russiske satellittkommunikasjonsutstyr. Russerne hadde gått så langt at de slettet bort alle identitetsmarkør på utstyret som er av vestlig opprinnelse, i Shahed-dronen som trolig var skutt ned med en VAMPIRE som bare ødela motoren - og deres SATCOM bruker ikke trådløs internett. Russisk SATCOM er minst en generasjon bak vestlig SATCOM, de har ikke den nødvendige teknologien eller kunnskap om hvordan å skape samtidskommunikasjon på et begrenset område. SuperCam-droneflyet er bygd på benyttelse av vestlige komponenter og har derfor vært sjeldent sett i Ukraina, de hadde uteblitt helt til desember 2023 da ukrainerne skjøt ned et slikt dronefly. Siden har OSINT notert at mange av opptakene i februar-mars så ut til å være med kamerautstyret for SuperCam, som er simpelt for liten for større ombygging - som Kahuna spekulere, et enslig komponent av mindre størrelse kan være tilstrekkelig. Russerne trenger terminaler for å kunne kontrollere disse bevegende dronene og deretter sende ilmelding til forberedte enheter som kan stå klar med oppstilt våpen for øyeblikkelig benyttelse. Og; da de ukrainske motoffensivene gikk galt pga. manglende Starlink-dekning i 2022, var det sagt at det ikke finnes dekning i den okkuperte Ukraina og Russland - men i 11. februar 2024 kom det ut at det er Starlink-dekning i Russland som forbli utappet fordi man må ha terminaler for å koble seg på Starlink. Rett fra munnen på Egon Musk. Ifølge ukrainerne hadde russerne benyttet Starlink i flere måneder først for kommunikasjonsbenyttelse - og det var fram til Musk i twitter/X kom med denne innrømmelsen den 11. februar offentlig sagt at det ikke var dekning i verken den okkuperte Ukraina eller i Russland. Så kom det fram at det ER Starlink-dekning også i Krim-halvøya, selv om ukrainerne ikke kan bruke Starlink der. Muligheten for at Starlink brukes som våpen mot ukrainerne bare vokser, funnet i Shahed-dronevraket gjort det klart at de har internettforbindelse mellom et dronefly og en droneoperatør, noe som ikke tidlig var sett fordi Shahed er autonome droneflyer. Hvis et intakt speiderdronefly med Starlink-utstyr blir funnet av ukrainerne og undersøkt av Pentagon-representanter, kan dette utløse alle tidenes største forræderiskandale i USAs historie. Spesielt ettersom Starlink skulle ha formelt overført ansvaret for det ukrainske dekningsområdet til det amerikanske militæret som definitivt aldri ville ha tillatt en slik utvikling.

Uansett må de gjøre det. Disse terminalene som russerne har fått tak på, må nøytraliseres snarest mulig. Ettersom disse terminalene har adresser som gjør det mulig å finne dem på Starlink, skulle det ikke være vanskelig å lokalisere disse i den russiskokkuperte territoriene i Ukraina.

Men først må man finne ut hvordan russerne hadde slik ufattelig suksess på mindre enn en måned. 2 angrep på NASAMS. 2 angrep på HIMARS/HIMARS attrapp. 1 angrep på Patriot. 4 angrep på komponenter av SAM-batteri som S-300. Dessuten har ukrainerne mistet altfor mange panserkjøretøyer og artilleri i det siste, minst to Archer SP fra Sverige er slått ut. Dette tyder på at russerne har fått så avansert ISR kapasitet at dette er kommet meget overraskende på alle, dette bryter helt med russisk modus operandi. Problemet er ikke bare dronefly, det er sett at et enslig angrep kunne ha flere forskjellige opptak som kan tyder på at ukrainerne kunne skyte dem ned, men de små SuperCam droner er vanskelig å oppdage med sovjetiskbygde radarutstyr og de ser ut til å komme ut i et stort antall. Problemet er at reaksjonsevnen er altfor raskt, mye raskere enn det ukrainerne var vant til som sett da de var gjentatte ganger tatt i overraskelse. Og det er kjent at ukrainerne har jammingsutstyr som fungert godt mot Shahed-droner, spesielt mot speiderdronefly dypt inn i egne luftrom. Disse droneflyene var ikke i det minst plaget av jamming; hvilken bare kan tyder på satellittbasert datalink som Starlink, som ikke kan jammes. Med Starlink er det mulig å få øyeblikkelig observasjon og hvis man kan ha Starlink til tilgjengelige enheter - minst tre forskjellige våpensystemer; Iskander, Tornado-3 og luft-til-overflate missilvåpen er sett - kan man få øyeblikkelig reaksjon. Hvis det er Starlink som hadde gjort russernes suksess mulig, må man finne ut hvorfor SpaceX ikke hadde deaktiverte Starlinkadresser i den okkuperte Ukraina. Dette er høyforræderi om det ikke var tatt affære.

De kan jo bare lage "tønnebomber" eller IRAM som sett under den syriske borgerkrigen hvor rakettseksjonen med drivstoffet monteres med et improvisert stridshode.

Dette må granskes raskest mulig. Shahed-vraket er en seriøs vekkelse om at noe er meget galt her, og det som har hendt så langt med tapet av to Patriot rakettramper, et HIMARS kjøretøy, oppdagelsen av en HIMARS attrapp og angrepet på et NASAMS batteri - og nå tapet av to kamphelikoptre - har hendt i et for kort tidsrom til dette kan ansees som tilfeldigheter - dessuten har det blitt ganske hyppige Lancet-angrep som har kommet veldig overraskende på ukrainerne i det siste; selv om russernes materielle tap er fremdeles større, har det vært sett at færre ZALA droner var observert, ennå er det sett en økning i suksessfulle Lancet-angrep slik at flere dusin stridsvogner, SP og panserkjøretøyer har blitt slått ut (heldigvis er de fleste bare skadet, mindre og raskere Lancet varianter var benyttet...). Russerne er kanskje suicidale og enfoldige mennesker med trellementalitet, men de er ikke dumme - de ville ikke ha skaffet seg Starlink om de ikke kan bruke dette, og de ville ikke ha monterte kamera og SATCOM-utstyr basert på vestlig originalitet i sine Shahed-droner om det ikke finnes et fungerende konsept å benytte dem med. Reaksjonsevnen i det siste er altfor raskt, mye raskere enn det er normalt hos russerne. Mer lik det man vil finne hos ukrainerne med Starlink.

Utviklingen er i ferd med å bli utålelig, to Mi-8 helikoptre har blitt ødelagt takket være det mystiske droneflyet som er i stand til å operere uten å bli oppdaget av de ukrainske radaroperatører. Det kommer til å bli helt umulig å bruke HIMARS, SAM og annet som SP skyts i møte med russerne så lenge ukrainerne er uten av stand til å forhindre disse droneflyene. Ifølge OSINT-bataljonen er det snakk om små dronefly av type SuperCam som egentlig skulle ikke være vanskelig å oppdage. Noe er veldig galt her; det er ikke bare dronefly, det er altfor liten tid mellom lokalisering og angrep - og dessuten er det noe viktig å merke seg; hvordan kunne russerne ha sine dronefly akkurat der tidsnok? Dette må betyr at de har vært i stand til å finne og peile inn kommunikasjon knyttet til strategiske styrker, noe som de aldri tidlig hadde kapasitet for. Det er kommet spekulasjoner om at Starlink kan ha vært involvert. Det spekuleres at russerne med adgang på Starlink kan finne Starlink-operatører på ukrainsk side. HIMARS, Patriot SAM og helikoptre er tilknyttet satellittkommunikasjon - mest notert Starlink. Da et vrak etter en Shahed var undersøkt, ble det oppdaget til ukrainernes overraskelse at den hadde en "Differential Global Positioning System" (DGPS) - og 4G wireless internettforbindelse som bare er mulig med Starlink-liknende nettverk gjennom satellitter! Med dette utstyret kan droneoperatøren navigere seg og "se" med kamerastyring fordi det monteres kamerautstyr på droneflyet slik at det i praksis bli en gigantisk FPV. Dette har ukrainerne ikke vært i stand til å utvikle fordi det ikke er mulig å bruke satellittbaserte internettforbindelse i Russland. Men her ser det ut at russerne har våpen og droner som kan bruke akkurat denne kapasiteten. Congress tells SpaceX: Explain how Russia got Starlink • The Register Det virker som at det er slått alarm i Pentagon, slik at kongressen har kommet på banen for seks dager siden og nå ser det ut at suksessen russerne har hatt, kan ikke skyldes stealth dronefly eller improviserte C3 ordning - men Starlink. Starlink terminals are reportedly being used by both sides in Russia's war against Ukraine, but now Congressional representatives want to know why. In a letter addressed to SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell, a pair of Democratic reps asked SpaceX to provide a better explanation than what was provided on Twitter last month for how Russia may have obtained and operated Starlink terminals. The letter, penned by Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD), ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and Representative Robert Garcia (D-CA), ranking member of the Oversight' Committee's Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs. The pair claim Starlink's use by Russian forces was alarming, and potentially a violation of US sanctions and export controls. "According to Ukraine, the misuse of Starlink terminals is 'systemic,' raising additional questions about the efficacy of your company's safeguards and compliance with U.S. sanctions and export controls," Raskin and Garcia said. "We are concerned that you may not have appropriate guardrails and policies in place to ensure your technology is neither acquired directly or indirectly, nor used illegally by Russia." Both SpaceX and CEO Elon Musk denied supplying Starlink technology to Russia shortly after reports emerged in early February. "SpaceX does not do business of any kind with the Russian Government or its military," The company said on X. "Starlink is not active in Russia, meaning service will not work in that country." Musk has already called claims that SpaceX supplied terminals to Russia "categorically false," and stating "to the best of our knowledge, no Starlinks have been sold directly or indirectly to Russia." "Starlink satellites will not close the link in Russia," Musk added in a February X post. Talk about dodging the question While Musk and SpaceX both assert Starlink won't work in Russia, that's not what Ukrainian officials have claimed, nor what the letter from Congress accuses it of allowing. On February 11, 2024, Ukraine's Main Directorate of Intelligence released intercepted audio communications between Russian soldiers that indicated Russian forces "illegally deployed and activated Starlink terminals in certain Russian-occupied areas in Eastern Ukraine," the Congressional letter states. Neither Musk nor SpaceX have addressed claims that Starlink is being used by Russian forces in occupied territories - the actual question. SpaceX has not responded to requests for comment. The possibility that Starlink is being used by Russian forces isn't out of the question given SpaceX's coverage map of Ukraine, which shows significant overlap with territory Russia has controlled since its invasion of the country in 2022. SpaceX has been providing the Ukrainian military with Starlink service since Russia invaded the country, albeit at times under duress. While some of the easternmost portion of Ukraine, including the hotly-contested city of Donetsk, aren't covered by Starlink, other regions are. There is no formal accusation that SpaceX is doing business with Russia directly - only that it might be failing to properly police redirection of its equipment to sanctioned entities like the Russian government. "Ukrainian intelligence officials assert that Russian forces have obtained Starlink terminals illegally through third-party actors via neighboring countries," Raskin and Garcia wrote in the letter. "the Departments of Commerce, the Treasury, and Justice repeatedly issued … guidance to U.S. private industry, specifically noting Russian efforts to illegally obtain technology and items through obfuscated third parties." The question is whether SpaceX is actually paying attention to that guidance. Raskin and Garcia asked Shotwell to explain whether SpaceX has received complaints regarding illegal acquisition of Starlink terminals by Russia and whether it's examined those reports, as well as what sort of policies SpaceX has in place to prevent illegal acquisition or trade of Starlink hardware, among other things. "Russian procurement of, use of, or interference with Starlink terminals each has the potential to advance Russia’s brutal and illegitimate invasion of Ukraine," the letter states, which "poses a serious threat to Ukraine’s security, Ukrainian lives, and U.S. national security." The representatives have asked SpaceX to respond to the letter and provide a briefing on the matter by March 20. We reached out to the Committee and the representatives, but haven't heard back. Tilfeldigheter finnes ikke i krigstid. Shahed-vraket har en DGPS som tillatt satellittkommunikasjon - og dette er IKKE standard SATCOM-utstyr av russisk originalitet. Med dette er internettforbindelse og navigering mulig - helt presist hva man vil finne på ukrainske våpen som benytter Starlink. HAR SPACEX BEGÅTT FORRÆDERI? Det skulle ikke være vanskelig å finne ut om det hadde vært uautorisert bruk av Starlink i Ukraina!

MAGA Devours the GOP With the election of Lara Trump and Michael Whatley to the Republican National Committee, the MAGA movement now has significant control of the Republican Party, according to multiple commentators. The former president's daughter-in-law was elected co-chair of the RNC on Friday alongside long-time Donald Trump supporter Whatley. The changes came after Ronna McDaniel, who was backed by Trump to lead the RNC in 2017, resigned after being blamed for a series of funding issues. She was also criticized for the Republicans losing multiple elections since 2020. Since then, according to Politico, which cited two unnamed people close to the Trump campaign and the RNC, more than 60 RNC staffers who work across the political, communications and data departments are being asked to resign. The website reported that in a letter to some political and data team staff, Sean Cairncross, the RNC's new chief operating officer, said that the incoming leadership was "in the process of evaluating the organization and staff to ensure the building is aligned" with its vision. "During this process, certain staff are being asked to resign and reapply for a position on the team," the communication read, per Politico. Meanwhile, according to one source quoted by The New York Times, the party only had about 200 people on the payroll at the end of last month. Newsweek was not able to verify this independently and contacted an RNC representative by email to comment on this story. Speaking to Newsmax on Saturday, Donald Trump Jr. celebrated MAGA's strength within the GOP. He said: "I think the RNC is going to be a bit more of that old-school establishment, that Republican Party frankly no longer exists outside of the D.C. beltway, but it takes a little while to make that transition. "But again, I think the moves that happened today, I think that's the final blow, people have to understand that America first. The MAGA movement is the new Republican Party, that is conservatism today." Writing on X, formerly Twitter, political commentator Richard Hanania said the changes to the RNC showed the "MAGA night of the long knives." Turning Point founder and political commentator Charlie Kirk called reports of the layoffs a "bloodbath" in a post on X. "This is excellent," Kirk added. "The anti-Trump sleeper cells all have to go. The RNC is getting ready to win." Former Trump aide Olivia Troye urged Republicans on Saturday to "stop donating" to the RNC, alleging that it was becoming a "Trump legal defense fund." Adam Kinzinger, a former GOP Illinois representative and a vocal critic of Trump, said changes to the Republican governing body showed it was becoming "Trump's toilet." "The RNC, in deciding to become Trumps toilet and slush fund, is going to do real damage to down ballot races," he wrote on X. "They deserve it for capitulating... how far they have fallen." MAGA Devours the GOP (msn.com) The Freedom Caucus Has Been Wreaking Havoc On Washington. Now It’s Exporting the Chaos to the States. Since its founding in 2015, the hardline House Freedom Caucus has been a polarizing presence, using confrontational and obstructionist tactics to push Congress, and the Republican Party, to the right on a variety of issues. In the process, the group ousted a Republican House speaker and became a far-right conservative power center of its own. But it’s come at considerable cost to the House as a legislative body, and created an even more factionalized and dysfunctional chamber. Now, those same issues are surfacing in statehouses across the nation where in recent years the Freedom Caucus has exported its model. Many of the 11 legislatures with state-based Freedom Caucuses have seen their Republican majorities splinter and descend into bitter conflict with the application of the Congress-honed tactics. “It’s the same kind of battles that are going on with the Freedom Caucus in Washington, D.C.,” said South Carolina state Rep. Jay Kilmartin, who has been a member of the South Carolina Freedom Caucus since 2022. “We ran because we got frustrated with what we were getting out of our state Republican Party for so long.” Few states have experienced as much intraparty turmoil as South Carolina, where state Freedom Caucus members and more mainstream GOP leaders have clashed over a wide variety of issues, leading to litigation and sparking numerous primary challenges. Freedom Caucus members have used the state budgeting process to bring up social issues like diversity initiatives within universities, spoken out against what they call government handouts to private companies and pushed for more restrictive bans on gender-affirming care. “They are a ‘let’s govern by bumper sticker’ entity,” said South Carolina state Rep. Micah Caskey, a Republican who is an outspoken critic of the caucus. “I have a general contempt for what I see as the lack of integrity and honesty with which they approach legislating.” Freedom Caucus-aligned legislators who spoke with Nightly said that their support came from grassroots activists, but they also receive significant help from the State Freedom Caucus Network, a D.C.-based group that is helping the upstart caucuses go toe-to-toe with the established GOP order. The network pays the salaries of state directors who help legislators read bills, do policy analysis and act as a kind of connective tissue for ideologically similar lawmakers across the nation. That organization launched in December of 2021 in connection with the Conservative Partnership Institute, a rapidly growing conservative group tied to former Donald Trump chief of staff and Freedom Caucus co-founder Mark Meadows. Andy Roth, the network’s president, said that the idea for the network came from state lawmakers who were interested in pursuing the “business model” of the D.C.-based House Freedom Caucus in their own states. Roth said the eventual goal for the group is to have Freedom Caucuses in all 50 states. “State lawmakers are often part-time, they don’t have an office, and they have very little when it comes to support to help read bills and do policy analysis,” Roth said. “We basically just provide another set of eyes and ears to help these lawmakers.” The effect, however, has been to sow the seeds of division in places like Wyoming and Missouri, where there’s already bad blood with a Freedom Caucus outpost that was only officially formed in January. Missouri Republican leaders were so frustrated by the caucus’ tactics that they stripped members of committee assignments and even certain choice parking spots. “The year started off with the Freedom Caucus being attacked before we even stepped foot in the building,” said Freedom Caucus member state Sen. Nick Schroer. Schroer was the one behind an attention-grabbing draft rule change in January that would have permitted dueling between state lawmakers to settle disputes. He said that he circulated the rule to make a point about the incivility that had taken over the chamber. Caskey, the South Carolina Republican, laments that the Freedom Caucus tactics are stunts that, in the end, don’t enable lawmakers to pass more conservative legislation. “They are an emotional annoyance and a nuisance more than anything,” he said. “But they all stay on message, and that has allowed their insurgency to metastasize.” The Freedom Caucus Has Been Wreaking Havoc On Washington. Now It's Exporting the Chaos to the States. - POLITICO De to artikler avslører at det er borgerkrig innad i GOP for tiden mellom de konservative republikanerne og MAGA fanatikere som er i full gang med å ta kontroll gjennom finansielle støtteordninger til dise "Freedom Caucus" i 11 delstater, og i RNC er det kommet signaler om at de vil deretter bare støtte "lojalister" gjennom noe som kalles "election integrity division" som skal settes inn i alle komiteer over hele USA. Dette er noe som skremmer mange i USA, fordi i 2020 hadde Trump prøvd å overstyre republikanerne etter han klarte å ta kontroll over RNC som valgt å samarbeide med ham i forkanten av valgene i november 2020 - for å avverge disse som ikke er i samsvar med hans lojalitetskrav fra å søke politiske stillinger. Siden januar 2021 hadde Trump arbeidet med å ta kontroll over valgstøtteordningene. Republican Party Co-Chair Lara Trump: RNC's "Election Integrity Division" Seeking Volunteers To Prevent Cheating In 2024 | Video | RealClearPolitics Newly installed RNC co-chair Lara Trump (wife of Eric) speaks with FNC's Maria Bartiromo about her plans to lead the party into the 2024 election. "I can guarantee you that, over the next eight months, you are going to see things happen at the Republican National Committee unlike you have ever seen before, because this is a must-win election," she told Bartiromo on FNC's "Sunday Morning Futures." "We're going to expand all of it -- a nationwide network of volunteers, whether it's poll watchers, trained poll workers. These are people who can physically go in, count ballots that are coming in, know how many are coming in, how many are going out. Volunteer and paid attorneys. If you are an attorney who wants to volunteer, we want you." Trump har stjålet til seg GOP, nå er han i full gang med å ødelegge partiets integritet. McConnell hadde prøvd å nærmere seg Trump, som den typiske feigingen han er, men angrepet på Johnson tyder på at han også har sett skriften på veggen; at partiet han er så lojal mot, er i ferd med å gå under.

Hvis ukrainerne kan sende ett hundre dronefly per natt inn i Russland, er det gode nyheter. Nå som de fleste raffineriene innenfor avstanden er slått ut med dels unntak av St. Petersburg, burde flybasene og rustningsfabrikker være de neste målene snarest mulig. Nå som det er mulig å lage termitt- og fragmentsprenglegemer i små størrelse burde det ikke være vanskelig å sette disse inn for bruk mot flybaser samtidig som man burde ha dronefly med ildpåsettelsesbomber for bruk mot fabrikker. Men det er ikke nok med bare dronefly, de må ha bakkestasjonerte kryssermissiler med større "bang". Spesielt rettet mot Shahed-fabrikken i Alabuga, Yelabuga som ligger 1,200 km fra Ukraina. Angrepet på Ryazan oljeraffineriet avslørt at dette er store enveisdroner av type Lyutyy bygd av Antonov, som har klarte å integrere TB-2 teknologi inn i et eksisterende dronekonsept; Antonov AN-BK-1 Horlytsia fra 2016 - som forstørres og videreutvikles inn i en "lillesøster" av den tyrkiske TB-2. Dette kan betyr at Antonov bygger en familie av forskjellige enveisdroner basert på det samme konseptet med assistanse fra andre som tyrkerne. Kanskje en "storesøster" med 1,500 km er underveis, da det ser ut at Lyutyy-droneflyet i dag har en rekkevidde på 1,000 km. Uansett burde ukrainerne ha et våpen som kan frakte 500 kg sprengstoff på 2,500 km rekkevidde for å kunne angripe alle militære viktige mål og industrimål.

Misnøyen med Johnson er nå så stor at et par "discharge petition" kampanjer startes - utvilsomt som respons på Orbans erklæring på at Trump vil ikke "gi en øre til Ukraina" - men det er ikke sikkert om det føres fram, fordi det er ikke som i andre land hvor delegater kan gi deres samtykke til slike prosesser for å tvinge gjennom avstemning fordi det har blitt bygd inn kompliserte mekanismer som gjør at enhver kongressmedlem må bli sittende med konsekvenser, spesielt i møte med sitt egne parti. Fravær på partiledelse i USA betyr i praksis at man har mobbveldeprinsipper der en "mobb" kan tvinge fram lojalitet, og dette sette den enslige representanten i stor fare. Mange som tidlig har stått fram, har opplevd å bli trakassert på det groveste. En republikaner vil slutte den 22. mars slik at plassen vil bli tom fram til juni så det bare er to flere seter i møte med demokratene. Fra 30. april vil republikanerne bare ha et flertall med kun et enslig sete mer enn demokratene, når en kongressplass i New York utlyses for valg. I andre land er mobbpraksis endog ulovlig, da man anså dette som intimidasjonstaktikk. Buck som vil slutte 22. mars; “It is the worst year of the nine years and three months that I’ve been in Congress. And having talked to former members, it’s the worst year in 40, 50 years to be in Congress,” Han mener bestemt at Trump og MAGA er eneansvarlig. Forhåpentligvis vil flere slå følge med Buck eller går ut av GOP som er i seriøs trøbbel. I selve Texas har det kommet en overraskelse hvor senator Ted Cruz synes å ha mistet de eldre stemmegivernes støtte slik at en demokratisk utfordrer kan gi ham en skikkelig kamp under et gjenvalg. Explainer-Can Ukraine supporters force a US House vote on foreign aid? (msn.com) Denne prosessen var innført for et århundre siden da en speaker i mange år hadde nektet å tillate populære reformforslag komme gjennom for avstemning, men siden hadde dette unntaksvis vært sett da fremtidige speakere foretrakk å unngå slike handlinger og siden 2002 hadde det bare hendt to ganger at kampanjen lykte. Annetsteds er det kommet opplysninger om at man har planer om "defeating the previous question", som betyr at forslaget kan tvinges fram gjennom flertallsstøtte, ikke 218 stemmer som trenges for "discharge petition". 'I'd Rather Sit Down With Hannibal Lecter': Johnson's Grip on Speakership Slips Further (thenewcivilrightsmovement.com) Nå som nedstengningstrusselen er avblåst for tiden slik at bare 22. mars omkring militæret gjensto - og militæret har signalisert at de må ha hjelpepakken for å ha penger for å erstatte egne krigsmateriell verdt 10 mrd. dollar - samtidig som Johnson nok en gang tvunget gjennom en "ferie" på to uker som frustrere alle - er det sett at tålmodigheten med den unge kristenfascisten er oppbrukt. Demokratene innser nå at ingenting av hva de gjør fører noe sted med denne mannen som mange nå mener er en Trump-fanatiker - som har klarte å hisse på seg "alle" fraksjoner som har sett seg lei på hans tendens for å prate i munnen på andre uten å mene et ord. McConnell er synlig sint; dette tyder på at han har startet hans angrep for å fjerne Johnson, som kan risikere å bli ringforaktet med ødelagt karriere. Han og senatorene - selv disse som hadde stemt mot hjelpepakken med få unntak - var oppbrakt over ideen om å "låne ut" våpen og annet til Ukraina. “said he’d actively work against any and all discharge petitions to bring a bill to a vote.” Dette hadde Johnson sagt før kampanjene startet, som bare tydeliggjøre at han er for steil. Altfor steil. Og han har gjort meget mange republikanerne sint. Da han tvunget gjennom en ferie i januar, mente tradisjonen at kongressmedlemmene skulle retirere til et feriested for videre politiske samtaler - og disse var utsatt for seremonier og arrangementer som var Johnsons ansvar, som ikke falt i smak på flesteparten; det var for sterkt religiøst og for ensidig for dem. Nå vi Johnson sende dem på ferie, og det kom fram at færre enn 100 medlemmer har signalisert at de vil dra, resten vil ikke - “’I’d rather sit down with Hannibal Lecter and eat my own liver,’ var kommenten fra en som nektet. Republican lobbyist and former Jeb Bush campaign senior advisor Al Cárdenas, the former chairman of the American Conservative Union (ACU), the group that puts on CPAC, was quick to weigh in. Calling Congressman Buck a “fine servant of the people,” Cárdenas surmised: “If 3 more gop members resign; then leadership of the House changes and we can vote on budget; aid to our allies; border security and immigration reform. Sad but true that the gridlock at a specially critical time is a Trump-Johnson maneuver. Rep Buck did the right thing short term; although the best are leaving and that means more of an effort to rebuild the place later on.” Trump må kastes ut av kongressen. Selv Trump-lojale senatorer hadde signalisert at McConnells etterfølger vil ikke være en Trump-lojalist.

Dominoeffekten i Sørøst-Asia var høyst reelt fordi det var kommunistaktivitet i alle sørøstasiatiske land i 1960-tallet; Malaysia så vidt unngikk en statsoppløsning takket være en britisk militærsintervensjon og Indonesia var i Suhartos tid fram til 1965 et vennligstemt land sett fra sovjetisk og kinesisk perspektiv. Thailand opplevd væpnet reisning i tillegg til de evinnelige studentkonfliktene som hjemsøkte thailendingene i lang tid. Det var beviselig at sovjeterne og kineserne hadde et militært samarbeid til tross for konflikten mellom dem, hjemmet på ønsket om kommunistisk spredning. Men dette forledet amerikanerne til å tro man hadde å gjøre med en felles front, som i 1969 først slå sprekker så snart nyheter om en kinesisk-sovjetisk grensekonflikt kom ut på eteren. Inntil da hadde Kennedy, LBJ og Nixon vært i troen om at man hadde en reell trussel som bare kunne motarbeides med aktiv støtte til sine allierte. Den gang var kommunismen nært knyttet med nasjonalisme og sosialisme i kultur hvor sosialstøtte utgjør en del av de nasjonale kulturene, som bevitnet med Ho Chi Minh i Nord-Vietnam som klarte å forlede hans folk til å bortse fra de onde impulser av kommuniststyret. Saken omkring Iraks masseødeleggelsesvåpen selvsagt var basert på løgn fremmet av et lite klikk som kalt seg neokonservative, men enhver her som er gammelt nok til å huske Saddam Hussein vet hvor provoserende og upålitelige denne mannen var, og hvordan han oppførte seg som en ekstrem gatebølle uten anledning for sivilisert atferd selv etter de lokale normene den gang. Saddam Husseins problem i 2002, da han prøvd å unngå invasjonen ved å samarbeide med FN og deretter åpne opp lokaler for våpengranskere, var at ingen - absolutt ingen - stolte på ham, selv ikke hans egne nære familie, og en viktig årsak bak kollapset av det irakiske forsvaret i 2003 var at han hadde massakrert hans egne svigerbrødre - og sønner i en sanseløs massakre som fikk "alle" til å flykte vekk i slutten. Det var et nidingsverk av den verste sorten. Bush junior kunne lansere invasjonen ved å misbruke USAs makt - og begikk en av de største utenrikspolitiske tabber i USAs historie - fordi motparten var "perfekt" som syndebukk og skurk. Det er ingen dominoeffekt omkring Putins territoriale ambisjoner som er todelt; for det første å gjenreise det russiske imperiets territoriale dominans med Ukraina, Belarus og Baltikum, for det andre å skape en interessesfære hvor man kan gjenreise Warszawapaktens tyranniske systemet hvor Sovjetunionen hadde enerett på intervensjon i andre lands interne affærer som gjentatte bevist helt fram til 1989, med det ungarske opprøret i 1956 og Tsjekkoslovakiainvasjonen i 1968 som de meste kjente eksempler; det var rett og slett fjernstyring med bruk av militærmakt, et imperium etter de antivestliges kriterier. Da Frankrike gikk ut av NATO, gjort USA ingenting. Da amerikanske fly skulle bombe Libya i 1986, hadde flere NATO-land sagt nei til overflygning, USA gjort ingenting. USA gir sine allierte selvbestemmelsesrett i meget sterk kontrast til Sovjetunionen/Russland som mer betraktet sine allierte som vasaller. All løgn under Ukrainakonflikten kun kom fra Putins side, som har befestet hans stilling som det meste løgnaktige statsoverhodet i moderne historie.

Veldig merkelig. Vi har et opptak som avslørt at to Patriot rakettramper med rundt åtte missiler kanskje var ødelagt i tidsrommet 5. til 8. mars 2024 under et sjokkerende angrep som ukrainerne ikke så kommende; og nå dette opptaket av en sint luftvernoffiser som antyder at dette var ikke første gang hans S-400 batteri kom under angrep; som vist hele 12 S-400 missiler mot angivelige to GMLRS/GLSBD artilleriraketter. Et S-400 missil er dyrere enn et Patriot missil, og her ser det ut at de ikke engangs klarte å stoppe innkommende angrep. Ærlig sagt; S-400 har ikke stor effektivitet mot ekte artilleriraketter, langt mindre flygende bomber. Luftvernoffiseren vist ikke hva som var truffet; men han bannet på at han var truffet - igjen - som tyder på at det var ikke første gang han opplevd angrep. En god nyhet i det minst; Biden vil sende våpen verdt 300 eller 400 mill. dollar til Ukraina. Opplysninger om at gamle ATACMS missiler er inkludert; kan betyr en "spottpris-avtale" ved å levere svære kvantiteter av ammunisjon for kanskje bare en tidel av den egentlige verdien da det er snakk om ammunisjon som skulle utrangeres - som ATACMS - gamle AMRAAM - og klaseammunisjon for 155mm skyts. Jeg håper på minst tjue granater per granat i spottpris. Fra Ivanovo nordøst for Moskva kom det opptak som vist et Il-76MD som krasjet; det var under avgang, som betyr at motorsvikt er svært farefullt - men her ser det ut at pilotene klarte å stabilisere flyet og hadde situasjonen under kontroll - helt til den brennende jetmotoren helt uventet falt av. Den slags bare ikke skjer. Tapet av motoren hendt i en delikat fase da man skulle jevne ut for å lande, så den plutselige ubalansen fikk flyet til å tippe ned i bakken. Muligens var transportflyet tungt lastet selv om det skulle være "på trening". Disse gamle D30-motorene er ganske robust, men her ser det ut at ildslokningssystemet hadde ikke bare feilet, men også at brannen spredt seg opp i vingen og kanskje inn i skroget. Alle jetmotor har innbygde slokningssystem ment for å hindre brannspredning. Det virker ikke i Il-76MD flyet. Fra feltet ser man at FPV-droner nå bruker termittsprenglegemer som kan selv ved minst berøring sette kjøretøyer i brann, og dette kan ha rammet minst en eller to Buk-M1 SAM som skal ha blitt ødelagt av ukrainerne. Russerne erklært å ha ødelagt en HIMARS, men opptaket avslørt at "kjøretøyet" trolig var en falsk attrapp - ennå er det meget bekymringsverdig at det russiske droneflyet kunne finne attrappen og lansere et raskt angrep på det.

The GOP can't leave MAGA — "Americans must electorally mercy-kill the Republican Party" (msn.com) Norm Ornstein: " - Of course, it is increasingly obvious that Trump is facing significant mental decline. And we know from those who were close to him but are no longer, that this is not a new problem. But that issue is eclipsed by the other reality: this is a narcissistic sociopath who will stop at nothing to create a vicious, dictatorship built on retribution, racism, corruption, and sadism. He doesn’t cushion it, or try to hide his motives, and neither do those he will clearly rely on if he were to assume the presidency. Invoke the Insurrection Act to put down demonstrations against him with violence and brutality. Blow up the federal government by firing tens of thousands of civil servants and replacing them with obedient flunkies. Create concentration camps to house millions before deporting them. Weaponize the Department Of Justice (DOJ), including the FBI, to go after his enemies and critics. Blow up every alliance and replace it with ties to the most vicious dictators in the world. What is especially unsettling, though, is how are key, mainstream, journalistic outlets, like the New York Times and the networks, shrug their shoulders at all of this, and treat him like he is a normal presidential candidate. It is no wonder that so many voters have no idea what a monster he is. If this were a healthy democracy, we would have a healthy Supreme Court. We don’t. It is corrupt and not to be trusted when it comes to Trump. If this were a healthy democracy, we would have a press corps that would put a spotlight on what is real and not “both sides” everything while focusing on the horse race instead of the consequences of the election. President Biden needs to use the power of his bully pulpit to focus, over and over and over again, on the consequences of electing this monster for our democracy and the fundamental health of our country. That the media are focused on Biden‘s age, while ignoring Trump’s infirmities is absolutely maddening. As James Fallows pointed out, in the New York Times there were headlines on Super Tuesday’s outcomes that Trump romped and Biden has trouble while Biden got a significantly higher percentage of votes than did Trump, which tells us all too much about media bias. Mainstream media may not consciously want Trump to win, but you wouldn’t know it from the frame of the coverage - ". Darrin Bell: " - Trump seems to be deteriorating quickly. I’m old enough to have seen several loved ones overcome with dementia at around his age, and it seems obvious he’s in the throes of that. The stress of the campaign, the court cases, and the civil judgments against him are compounding to make him a person dangerously unfit for office. Apparent dementia, plus sociopathy, plus a cult-like following, combined with vindictiveness, a persecution complex, a love of autocracy, and an entire far-right ecosystem bent on turning America into one, is a formula for the end of our democratic republic. That might sound hyperbolic if his cohorts hadn’t been inviting right-wing dictators to the Conservative Political Action Conference and issuing a manifesto called Project 2025 that details their plans to turn us into something akin to Russia or Hungary. If we were a healthy democracy and society, Congress would impeach Clarence Thomas, and impeach (for lying under oath) every Supreme Court justice who said Roe v. Wade was settled law or a “super precedent,” and then voted to overturn it. The DOJ would prosecute at least three Supreme Court justices for bribery and corruption, for accepting lavish gifts and vacations from billionaires, some of whom had business before the court. Gini Thomas and several members of the House would be indicted for their roles in the Jan. 6 insurrection. The courts would declare gerrymandering to be unconstitutional. We’d pass an amendment declaring “the right to vote shall not be abridged,” and throw everyone involved in voter purging schemes in prison. We’d pass a federal law against book banning in libraries and school districts, we’d make organizing to silence minority authors a hate crime, we’d pass laws rescinding federal funding from any school district that whitewashes the history of race in this country, or that eliminates civics courses. President Biden and the Democratic Senate would read the damn Constitution and, upon learning that it says nothing about Congress being allowed to set the size of the Supreme Court and nothing about the limit being nine (it doesn’t even specify that a vacancy has to occur before a president can appoint a new justice), they would expand the Supreme Court to 15 members and appoint six new justices. We would eliminate every weakness in our system that contributed to the ability of an unhinged con man ever being in a position to overthrow our system of government. But because we’re NOT a healthy democracy and society, that’s not at all what WILL happen. The Supreme Court and Judge Cannon will delay two of the most consequential trials until after the election, and Republicans in Georgia may use the travesty we just witnessed in a Georgia courtroom to remove Fulton County DA Fani Willis from the Georgia case whether the judge does or not — and replace her with a MAGA DA who’ll drop the charges or cut Trump a deal, avoiding a criminal conviction. Republicans will be energized, Democrats will be demoralized, some independents will begin to believe the lack of convictions means Democrats WERE persecuting Trump without good cause, and enough Democrats may stay home to hand Trump the election in November. At which point the insurrection and the documents cases will vanish, and Trump’s transition team will prepare for Inauguration Day, where they’ll be able to do what they’ve promised to do: use their power to punish everyone who’s “wronged” Donald Trump, from prosecutors to politicians to his critics in the media. Eight years ago, Les Moonves said of Trump’s run, "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS.” Mainstream media is focused on Biden’s age for two reasons: The race being a dead heat is good for ratings, and they have a fetish for bothsidesism. That fetish often leads them to exaggerate Democratic politicians’ foibles and minimize or normalize Republicans’ treasonous or downright crazy behavior. The Republican Party has been committing treason on a regular basis ever since Richard Nixon persuaded the South Vietnamese to walk away from the Paris Peace talks, so he could prolong the Vietnam War in order to harm Democrats politically. The party’s been systematically denying Black people the vote for decades now, to maintain their power. They’ve bent the knee to a would-be tyrant with dementia, facilitated an attempted coup, became accomplices after the fact when they refused to convict Trump during his second impeachment and then promoted his Big Lie, and now they’re actively sabotaging Ukraine in its war against a tyrant they love, who’s clearly trying to win now a Cold War we thought his nation had lost generations ago. The Republican Party is doing all that, yet the media continues to cover them as if they’re a political party and not an organized crime syndicate infested with fifth columnists that poses an existential threat not just to our democracy, but to the entire Western world. “But Biden is old” is a quick and easy way to make sure the polls remain as tight as possible and their ratings remain as high as possible, because if they were to honestly cover what’s going on, the race wouldn’t even be close. 4. As always anything else you would like to add given your specific concerns. If the left stays home and lets Donald Trump win because we’re unhappy with Biden’s failures, just wait until we see Donald Trump’s version of “successes.- ". Rich Logis: " - The presidential election in November is near-literally life-or-death for Trump. The mythology of business genius he has cultivated for decades is unraveling, and he knows that attaining 270 electoral votes could be the difference between remaining a free man or dying in prison. We are observing with Trump, in real-time, how life-or-death duress accelerates one’s mental decline, and pushes one further into a “nothing to lose” corner. Trump (allegedly) did what he did, on January 6, in Georgia and the purloining of classified information because he never (or minimally) feared legal consequences. He hedged a bet and lost; to keep up mythology appearances, he must continue to lie that he is innocent, has absolute immunity and, of course, that he’s being persecuted by President Biden and Fani Willis—which means it’s MAGA Americans who are being persecuted. Trump dismisses his legal problems because it is how he compensates for the sheer quantity of self-inflicted stress—stress that even the strongest-willed human being would rapidly wilt under. Does Trump actually believe all this? Probably not. His lawyers are no legal eagles, but even they must know that their defenses are more than absurd. Deep down, Trump is more petrified than he’s ever been; I’m not qualified to make that assessment, admittedly, but I’m virtually certain of it. Why? Because if I was guilty of the crimes he’s alleged to have committed, my brain would overheat and go haywire, too; confusing Nancy Pelosi and Nikki Haley, middle-of-the-night rage tweets and continually delving deeper into conspiracy abysses are symptomatic of his life-or-death realization. As an ex-MAGA activist, my team and I are building a community for the Trump remorseful, or are having doubts, called Leaving MAGA. I respect that some may disagree, but both parties share culpability in creating the opening for MAGA and Trump (although, the GOP is far more responsible); and I continue to emphasize that frustration with our two-party system, and sentiments of being left behind, were valid reasons for originally getting behind Trump’s campaign. Those reasons, however, are no longer valid. MAGA Americans are responsible for their own thoughts and actions; it would also behoove us to acknowledge that many of them have been exploited and manipulated into believing that Trump’s “last stand” is also theirs. Trump and MAGA continue to politically traumatize millions into states of desperation and panic—that Trump is all who stands between losing, or preserving, their/our country. This is a toxic martyrdom unlike any seen in American history. The majority of MAGA Americans are good people, who have allowed themselves to be led astray. I don’t want to see them sacrifice themselves at the altar of the Trump golden calf. I try to avoid hyperbole; but when my personal and political epiphany resulted in leaving MAGA, I concluded that I permitted myself to become someone I’m truly not. Trump would burn down our nation to rule over her ashes because that outcome is preferable to a jailed twilight of his life. For all the public debates and discourse over whether Trump should be barred from running for office, what has, somewhat surprisingly, been overlooked is that it’s the GOP that should have barred Trump from appearing on the ballot. As a private entity, the Republican Party can prohibit anyone from receiving the nomination. The potential constitutional crisis facing the nation—a likely-imprisoned felon elected president who pardons himself, like a monarch, and is, possibly, affirmed in his decision by our U.S. Supreme Court—is a quagmire that the GOP is solely responsible for. The Democratic Party would be well-served to ask—not tell—the American people if a convicted felon president will put their careers, businesses, children’s education, economic mobility, quality of life and future entitlements on upward trajectories. And do you think the political party who nominates that convicted felon has your, and your family’s, best interests in mind? People are moved and motivated by issues that affect their lives; MAGA is antithetical to a bruised and battered — but, I believe —still alive American dream. The health of our democracy is gauged by how many of our fellow countrymen and women feel invested in it; the fewer, the likelier Trump is re-elected. The “liberal media” mythology is gospel in MAGA. I believed it until I left MAGA; and everyone I knew in MAGA did, too. We also used to mock polls. Pollsters and our national press—incestuous in their relationships—will never recover from the shock of so egregiously missing the 2016 grassroots appeal of Trump. Now that the national press has (as usual) been bullied by the right-wing into running myriad “Biden’s age” reports and punditry, the media is in its own sunk-cost fallacy, and will only intensify efforts to cast doubts on Biden’s ability to serve, with a well-meaning, but delusional, obsessive yearning to save the GOP. Stories about Trump’s age and cognitive confusion are far fewer and between, compared to Biden stories. Polls are as useless as a winning lotto ticket on a deserted island; but a quick glance of the “liberal media” will show that the press and pollsters have a vested interest in reactionary, horse-race coverage. While in MAGA, I knew well a paid political director for the 2016 Trump campaign. On many occasions, we discussed that polls were political pablum, buttressed by the press to shape public perception, drive traffic to news and opinion sites and generate contributions to political parties. This was true then and is true now. If Trump were to be re-elected, the national press would say that it listened more to Trump voters than in 2016 and 2020. To the credit of The New York Times, they ran a piece earlier this week that featured Biden voters’ reasons for supporting him. In the five stages of GOP grief, anti-Trump Republicans are in bargaining/depression; soon they’ll be at acceptance—the final stage. At acceptance, the vast majority of Nikki Haley voters will shuffle right back to Trump once he’s nominated. Maybe, then, our national press will, finally, resign itself to the fact that there is no messiah arriving to salvage the GOP. I pay for much of the media I critique because I believe it still produces a net-positive. But the wish to be liked by those who refer to them as the “enemedia” needs to be retired. The U.S. is undergoing another historical transformation. We’ve undergone several in our history, ranging from our earliest days; our Civil War; women’s suffrage; World War 2; the 1950s and 60s; Sept. 11; former President Obama’s election and re-election; and, now, MAGA. The question is whether we continue our liberal democracy progress—the continued perfection of our Union—or, whether we regress illiberally. A second Trump presidency will irreparably damage our democracy; it will mean the right-wing has won. And reversing their win will not be so easy to do, democratically; I am not advocating for political violence, but right-wing tyranny has never, in world history, been diplomatically, and peacefully, resolved. Americans must electorally mercy-kill the Republican Party; not because we should desire a one-party nation, but because one of America’s two major parties will nominate someone who helped orchestrate a coup d'état against the Constitution—which Trump swore to defend and protect—and the American people—whom he swore to defend and protect—to remain in power. Yes, I admit: I’m catastrophizing. I also did so in 2016, when I thought the Democrats and Hillary Clinton posed existential threats to our nation, and to my family, my livelihood and I. Ignorant I was; now, I’m clearer-minded, and acutely understand MAGA because I actually lived it. No civic savior is coming; we are the stewards of our republic. Det er ikke bare Melby som er sint på de amerikanske mediekanalene.

Trumps tidlige stabsfolk advarer nå republikanerne på det sterkeste om å ta Trump inn i varmen; Bolton sier nå rett ut at han er en trussel mot det amerikanske demokratiet. ‘A 1939 moment’: Jim Sciutto on Russia, China and the threat of war (msn.com) At CNN in Washington, Jim Sciutto’s dimly lit office is both man cave and shrine to a foreign correspondent who has reported from more than 50 countries. A typewriter he bought on Portobello Road during a decade in London. Photos he took in Afghanistan and Ukraine. A Vietnamese newspaper account of the time he rode over the South China Sea on a US spy plane. A corked bottle of water from his trip to the North Pole in a US nuclear submarine. A fragment of the Black Hawk helicopter destroyed in the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden. “I’m not sure I should have that,” Sciutto confesses, “but I do.” here is also an important fragment of newspaper, a gift from Sciutto’s grandfather containing a quotation from the author and journalist Eric Sevareid: “What counts most in the long haul of adult life is not brilliance or charisma or derring-do, but rather the quality the Romans called ‘gravitas’: patience, stamina and weight of judgment. The prime virtue is courage, because it makes all other virtues possible.” When Sciutto’s father died, the quotation was on the funeral mass card. It was during an assignment that the idea for a book came to Sciutto, 54, CNN anchor and chief national security analyst. As Russian tanks rolled across the Ukrainian border and missiles fell on Kyiv, he sensed a clean break from the post-cold war world he grew up in. He remarked, live on air, that this was a “1939 moment”. What did he mean by those ominous words? “You have a territorially aggressive leader in [Russian president Vladimir] Putin who’s willing to use force to change borders, and has done,” says Sciutto, who this week publishes The Return of Great Powers: Russia, China, and the Next World War. “You have some in the west who recognise that and others who say just give him this much and it’ll be fine. “It does have echoes of 1939 and you’ve already experimented with this where you give a little bit of Georgia, you give a little bit of Ukraine and then he calculates, ‘I can take more’ and even when he fails, he tries again. He’s trying again in Transnistria now, to take a little slice of Moldova.” Then there is China, which also feels wronged by history and the west. “If you look at Putin’s maps of Europe, the echo is [Chinese president] Xi [Jinping’s] maps of Asia, the nine-dash line. It’s just made up historical justifications for territorial aggression. Then on our side of it you have folks who say: ‘That’s not our war, it’s too far away, just give them a little bit, actually we can work with him.’ “There’s a bit of [1930s British prime minister] Neville Chamberlain in that. Listen, should we all understand why folks don’t want to get in a bloody war with Russia? Absolutely. Or send their sons and daughters to die? 100%. Chamberlain saw world war one and said: ‘I don’t want to have another,’ and you get that. The trouble is, can you actually have peace in your time given the track record, or are you just waiting for the next war, the next land grab?” A strand of leftwing thought opposes the military industrial complex (a phrase coined by a Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower) and points to misadventures in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. But now an allergy to foreign entanglements is all the rage on the populist far right, led by Donald Trump, who espouses “America first” isolationism. Keeping the US out of a third world war has become a staple of his campaign speeches as he seeks to regain the White House. For Sciutto, there are echoes of Charles Lindbergh, the celebrated aviator who became the leading spokesperson of the America First Committee in the build-up to the second world war. “You could quote directly from Lindbergh’s speeches and it seems almost verbatim to what you hear today,” Sciutto says. “I get the argument that no one wants a war and, God knows, you don’t want a nuclear war with either [China or Russia]. On the flip side, there’s no intellectual consistency to that rightwing Republican view because what you’ll often hear them say is: ‘Well, Ukraine’s not our war but maybe China is.’” Many Republicans are turning their backs on Ukraine but vowing to defend Taiwan from a Chinese invasion. Sciutto continues: “The trouble is, China is watching the response to Ukraine. What’s the fundamental difference? If it’s about sovereignty, you have a sovereignty argument in both places. “If it’s about trying to stand up to taking territory by force, you have it in both places. Explain to me the difference there. Or even if you relate it to Israel, there’s no intellectual consistency. What’s the argument to defend one but not the other? I suppose looking for intellectual consistency in Washington is a big ask.” Even worse, he argues, is a false narrative about the Ukraine war. “I’ve had these conversations on the air with some GOP lawmakers. They’ll be like: ‘Listen, there’s a lot of killing on both sides here.’ I was like: ‘Do you remember how did the war start? Who rolled across the border?’ ‘Well, if we arm them, lots of people are dying here.’ ‘You do remember how this war started and what the fundamental conflict is over?’ A lot of the arguments just don’t stand up to the facts.” ••• Republican intransigence on Capitol Hill is having consequences on the battlefield as Russia makes territorial gains and Ukraine runs low on ammunition. The White House describes the situation as “dire”. Last month, Politico reported: “Four American senators recounted a story Ukrainian officials told them at the Munich security conference: a soldier in a muddy trench with Russian artillery exploding nearby, scrolling on his phone for signs the US House would approve military aid.” Sciutto has been in contact with soldiers, families and others in Ukraine. “They were absolutely terrified that they’re going to be abandoned,” he says. Based on conversations with Ukrainian and European sources, he believes there is a “real danger” Ukraine will lose the war if the US cuts off funding. Such an outcome would be followed intently in Beijing and Taipei. In his book, Sciutto writes that a war over Taiwan would look very different. Instead of tank battles, artillery barrages and trench warfare, planners foresee lightning air and sea combat, with rapid waves of missiles, anti-satellite weapons and cyberattacks. Biden has effectively abandoned strategic ambiguity by vowing to defend Taiwan with US troops. Sciutto notes: “Biden has created, in effect, a new red line there by saying the US will defend them militarily. Not everyone believes that and I go to Taiwan and I ask people that and they’re not so sure. But it’s an open question.” Related: The Afghanistan Papers review: superb exposé of a war built on lies What would Trump do? In Sciutto’s book, John Bolton, formerly national security adviser, recalls a stunt Trump would perform in the Oval Office: “He would hold up the tip of his Sharpie pen and say: ‘That’s Taiwan. See this Resolute Desk, that’s China.’” His point was that Taiwan is too small to successfully defend itself and too small for the US to care. As Biden often notes, such debates are putting US credibility on the line. Sciutto had spells in Britain and Hong Kong and was chief of staff at the US embassy in Beijing from 2011 to 2013. During the presidency of George W Bush, he spent a lot of time in Europe. What did he observe about how the world views the US? “There’s an endless US-bashing that goes on. You’re either too weak or too strong or too involved or not involved enough, some of which just comes with being the richest country in the world and the most powerful military that talks a big game about solving all the world’s problems. To some degree, I’ve been hearing this for years, but I will say that the last decade or two hasn’t improved the US record or soft power abroad. I can say that pretty safely.” American polarisation doesn’t help. It used to be said that politics stops at the water’s edge. The world knew more or less what to expect from Democrats and Republicans. But just as Biden and Trump radically differ on abortion, crime, guns, healthcare and immigration, so their foreign policy agendas give any foreign diplomat whiplash. Sciutto observes: “This is the danger. Because foreign policy has become another partisan issue in the country, each election can bring a 180-degree turn in how the US behaves in the world. That has to make our partners say: ‘Right, so Joe Biden is going to abide by article five [Nato’s collective defence clause] but Trump isn’t, where does that leave me? That means we’ve got to make a plan ourselves.’ You hear that more. [The French president Emmanuel] Macron has said it out loud. Others have said it out loud: ‘We’ve got to make our own way.’” In the week that Trump wrapped up the Republican presidential nomination, forcing his former UN ambassador, Nikki Haley, to end her campaign, the stakes have been clarified. In his book, Sciutto notes that Trump has expressed admiration for Putin, Xi and even Adolf Hitler. Presidential elections are seldom decided by foreign policy considerations, but the consequences of who owns the nuclear codes could be incalculably far reaching. “This election has a real and very defined choice for voters as to what role they want the US to play in the world and how they want to react to this great power competition,” Sciutto says, “because whatever you think of the politics, what Trump has said and done in actions during his first presidency and his positions going into this race show that he somehow envisions a friendly relationship with Xi and Putin.” In his book, Sciutto quotes a senior US official, who served under Trump and Biden, as saying that in a second Trump term “the US will be out of Nato”. Bolton agrees: “Nato would be in real jeopardy. I think he would try to get out.” Sciutto adds: “That’s the explicit position of the presumptive Republican nominee, which is the opposite of Biden’s approach to this. That’s a real choice. It’s not going to be a kind of subtle rebalancing. It’s going to be, we’re going to go this way or that way in terms of how we deal with Russia, China and these other places. It’s a real choice.” ••• Sciutto is old enough to remember the fall of the Berlin Wall and the political scientist Francis Fukuyama’s prognostications on the “end of history”. Sciutto’s book leaves no one in any doubt it did not turn out that way. It reports on US concerns in 2022 about the possibility Russia was preparing to use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine. James Stavridis, a former Nato supreme allied commander, tells him America is already engaged in a “hybrid proxy war” with Russia. Sciutto takes no pleasure in playing Cassandra, warning of a world that for all its 21st-century sophistication and irony is backsliding towards Greek tragedy. “There’s a sadness about it for me personally, because I’m far from a warmonger,” he reflects. “The reason I spent the whole last chapter in the book talking to folks around the world about how to avoid open conflict is because I certainly don’t relish it. “I don’t want my kids to fight in a war. I don’t want to live in a place where it’s not safe to go to parts of Europe or Asia, for that matter. I brought my family to Beijing for two years and they went to school there and they speak Chinese. I don’t want it to be a world that is divided along those lines, but the sad fact is that’s where we’re heading unless we find a way to navigate away from it.” * The Return of Great Powers is published in the US by Dutton Trump former advisers sound the alarm that he praises despots in private and on the campaign trail | CNN Politics Former advisers sound the alarm that Trump praises despots in private and on the campaign trail To Donald Trump, Hungarian strongman Viktor Orbán is “fantastic,” Chinese leader Xi Jinping is “brilliant,” North Korea’s Kim Jong Un is “an OK guy,” and, most alarmingly, he allegedly said Adolf Hitler “did some good things,” a worldview that would reverse decades-old US foreign policy in a second term should he win November’s presidential election, multiple former senior advisers told CNN. “He thought Putin was an OK guy and Kim was an OK guy — that we had pushed North Korea into a corner,” retired Gen. John Kelly, who served as Trump’s chief of staff, told me. “To him, it was like we were goading these guys. ‘If we didn’t have NATO, then Putin wouldn’t be doing these things.’” Trump’s lavish praise for Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán while hosting him at Mar-a-Lago on Friday, just days after all but sealing the Republican nomination on Super Tuesday, shows it’s a worldview he’s doubling down on. “There’s nobody that’s better, smarter or a better leader than Viktor Orbán,” Trump said, adding, “He’s the boss and he’s a great leader, fantastic leader. In Europe and around the world, they respect him.” The former president’s admiration for autocrats has been reported on before, but in comments by Trump recounted to me for my new book, “The Return of Great Powers,” out Tuesday, Kelly and others who served under Trump give new insight into why they warn that a man who consistently praises autocratic leaders opposed to US interests is ill-suited to lead the country in the Great Power clashes that could be coming, telling me they believe that the root of his admiration for these figures is that he envies their power. “He views himself as a big guy,” John Bolton, who served as national security adviser under Trump, told me. “He likes dealing with other big guys, and big guys like Erdogan in Turkey get to put people in jail and you don’t have to ask anybody’s permission. He kind of likes that.” “He’s not a tough guy by any means, but in fact quite the opposite,” Kelly said. “But that’s how he envisions himself.” Alleged praise for Hitler Trump allegedly reserved some of his most unnerving praise for Hitler, who led Nazi Germany during World War II. “He said, ‘Well, but Hitler did some good things.’ I said, ‘Well, what?’ And he said, ‘Well, [Hitler] rebuilt the economy.’ But what did he do with that rebuilt economy? He turned it against his own people and against the world. And I said, ‘Sir, you can never say anything good about the guy. Nothing,’” Kelly recounted. “I mean, Mussolini was a great guy in comparison.” “It’s pretty hard to believe he missed the Holocaust, though, and pretty hard to understand how he missed the 400,000 American GIs that were killed in the European theater,” Kelly told me. “But I think it’s more, again, the tough guy thing.” Trump’s admiration for Hitler went further than the German leader’s economic policies, according to Kelly. Trump also expressed admiration for Hitler’s hold on senior Nazi officers. Trump lamented that Hitler, as Kelly recounted, maintained his senior staff’s “loyalty,” while Trump himself often did not. “He would ask about the loyalty issues and about how, when I pointed out to him the German generals as a group were not loyal to him, and in fact tried to assassinate him a few times, and he didn’t know that,” Kelly recalled. “He truly believed, when he brought us generals in, that we would be loyal — that we would do anything he wanted us to do,” Kelly told me. When asked to respond to the allegations from the former Trump administration officials, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung did not comment on the substance of what they told me but stated, “John Kelly and John Bolton have completely beclowned themselves and are suffering from a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. They need to seek professional help because their hatred is consuming their empty lives.” In 2021, a spokeswoman for Trump denied allegations that the former president had praised Hitler. ‘Shocked that he didn’t have dictatorial-type powers’ Trump’s former advisers say he most consistently lavished praise on Russian President Vladimir Putin. Bolton recalled a comment from Trump during the 2018 NATO summit. Following sometimes tense encounters with NATO leaders, Trump said his meeting with Putin, the leader of America’s great power adversary, “may be the easiest of them all. Who would think?” “He says to the press as he goes out to the helicopter, ‘I think the easiest meeting might be with Vladimir Putin. Who would ever think that?’” recalled Bolton. “There’s an answer to that question. Only one person. You. You are the only person who would think that. The shrinks can make of that what they will, but I think it was ‘I’m a big guy. They’re big guys. I wish I could act like they do.’” “My theory on why he likes the dictators so much is that’s who he is,” Kelly said. “Every incoming president is shocked that they actually have so little power without going to the Congress, which is a good thing. It’s Civics 101, separation of powers, three equal branches of government. But in his case, he was shocked that he didn’t have dictatorial-type powers to send US forces places or to move money around within the budget. And he looked at Putin and Xi and that nutcase in North Korea as people who were like him in terms of being a tough guy.” “Trump believed in the power of his personal charisma and diplomacy,” recalled Matthew Pottinger, his deputy national security adviser, who was deeply involved in Trump’s meetings with North Korean leader Kim and Chinese President Xi. “He had almost unlimited faith in it. That was as true with Kim as it was with Xi — but also with allies too.” Trump has continued to praise authoritarians in his 2024 presidential campaign. At a town hall organized by Fox News in July 2023, Trump said, “Think of President Xi: central casting, brilliant guy. When I say he’s brilliant, everyone says, ‘Oh, that’s terrible.’ He runs 1.4 billion people with an iron fist: smart, brilliant, everything perfect. There is nobody in Hollywood like this guy.” In an interview with Fox that same month, Trump lavished praise on Putin as well, describing him as smarter than President Joe Biden. “These are smart people, including Macron of France. I could go through the whole list of people, including Putin .… These people are sharp, tough, and generally vicious,” Trump said. “They’re vicious, and they’re at the top of their game. We have a man that has no clue what’s happening. It’s the most dangerous time in the history of our country.” Trump’s affinity for authoritarians represents a defining issue for the US as the 2024 election approaches. Several of his own former advisers believe, in a second term, he would bring a fundamental shift in the US’ vision of itself and its role in the world, including potentially pulling the US out of NATO and reducing the US’ commitment to other defense alliances. “NATO would be in real jeopardy,” Bolton told me. “I think he would try to get out.” Many veterans of the Trump administration have a similar warning for Ukraine as it battles Russia’s invasion. “US support for Ukraine would end,” said a senior US official who served under Trump and Biden. “The point is, he saw absolutely no point in NATO,” Kelly said. “He was just dead set against having troops in South Korea, again, a deterrent force, or having troops in Japan, a deterrent force.” Jeg tror republikanerne gjør en meget grusom feiltagelse ved å ville skifte om fra Europa - som ligger innenfor den europeiske sfæren som USA tross alt er en del av som et land for europeiskættede immigranter - til Øst-Asia som har for forskjellig kulturelle og mentale preferanser i sammenligning; motivet synes å ligge i en feilslått storhetsstolthet man mente hadde kommet under angrep av suksessrike rivaler fra et meget fjerntliggende kontinent. USAs politikk i Øst-Asia var todelt; kolonisering og markedstilgang, men dette er for lengst utdatert fordi det forutså allianseforpliktelser siden 1945; Koreakrigen og Vietnamkrigen skyldes behovet for å hjelpe sine allierte. Alt tyder på at Trump vil ikke ha slike forpliktelser - det var mye bråk mellom ham og sørkoreanerne, og japanerne var småfrustrert samtidig som Filippinene var i ferd med å bli en alliert av Kina. Republikanerne forstår ikke at det er alliansesystemet som gir USA fotfeste i Øst-Asia hvor de ikke engangs har territorier utover en enslig øy meget langt østover på det store Stillehavet. Hvis de miste det, risikere de da at østasiatene vil vende seg bort fra dem. Sør-Korea og Japan trenger ikke USAs våpen. Taiwan kunne finne på å kapitulere for Kina i verste fall. Hele Sørøst-Asia kan svikte USA til fordel for Kina i slutten; det som gjør at kineserne sliter er fordi regimet i Beijing ikke ennå evnet å fatte at deres kultursjåvinistiske holdninger og Xis aggressivitet gjør dem meget uattraktive. Men hva om Trump klarer å gjøre USA enda mer uattraktiv enn Kina?

Her er jeg helt enig i dette, de amerikanske mediekanalene stadig tabbet seg ut omkring Trump som nå kan i sannheten skyte ned selveste Abraham Lincoln i all offentligheten, men de har et stort problem; manglende inntekter. De kan ikke lenge "selge" i konkurranse med andre medietyper, og altfor mange redaktører hadde blitt pålagte restriksjoner av sine sjefer som knapt bryr seg om annet enn profitt. Trump vil ha all publikasjon uansett om det er godt eller dårlig for ham, for å reklamere seg selv med en uhørt skamløshet som ingen kunne fatte. Dessuten er de tradisjonelle mediekanalene på vikende front, færre og færre ser på balanserte nyhetsdekning og flere og flere har begynte med å bli konspirasjonstroende i slik grad at de tror "de store" som CNN for eksempel ikke er pålitelig. Det som i virkeligheten fremmet den fascistiske utviklingen i det republikanske partiet er den usunne nettavhengigheten, intet folk i vestlig land ser så mye på nettrelative nyheter som amerikanerne, som svært ofte valgt bort de balanserte mediekanaler som bruker betalingsmur og deretter går dit hvor gratis tjenester er tilgjengelig. Det er Internett som er demokratiets sanne fiende.

Hmmm... 1) Ukrainerne får nå mer ammunisjon enn før. Etter Macron gav opp hans motstand er 800,000 ikke-vestlige granater fra Tyrkia, Sør-Korea, Sør-Afrika, India og Pakistan underveis. 2) Det merkes at russerne ikke avfyrer så meget som forventet; på mange steder var glidebomber og FPV benyttet (dessverre med større hell, tjuefem stridsvogner slått ut i de siste ti dager, inkludert to M1A1). 3) Det meldes at ammunisjonsproduksjonen (for artilleri) i Russland har nådd taket. Ukrainerne derimot har litt til før de når det samme taket. 4) Kanonløp er blitt et voksende problem for russerne. Det meldes nå at både produksjon og utbedring er sprengt, og eldre skyts slites ut raskere enn ønskede pga. nordkoreansk ammunisjon. 5) Lancet-droner er fremdeles det meste destruktive våpenet i krigen, kun overgått av FPV-dronen - de materielle tapene er altfor høy, hele seks SP skyts ble slått ut (kun en ødelagt) i bare 24 timer i det siste. Ingenting ser ut til å virke. 6) Glidebomber var forsøkt motarbeidet med Patriot SAM; men to rakettramper med 8-12 missiler har gått opp i røyk, noe annet må til. FAB-1500-M54 er et stort problem. 7) Vi kan ha fått en "HIMARS-Killer" i form av stealth dronefly i tett samarbeid med et "killer team" i form av Iskander-M som kan få meget drastiske følger for krigen - i Putins favør. 8 ) De ukrainske sjødroner dominere nå hele vestre Svartehavet, det virker som at all eskorteoppdrag for russiske sivilskip i russisk tjeneste har blitt stanset. Russerne nå seriøst skjule sine fartøyene i havner og Azovhavet. 9) USA synes å ha sviktet Ukraina for godt. Biden prøver og prøver, men nå er "alle" klart over at så lenge Trump har makten i republikanerpartiet vil det ikke kommer mer. 10) Det meldes at det amerikanske militæret trenger 10 mrd. dollar som de ikke får, for å erstatte stridsmateriell som var sendt til Ukraina, pga. fravær på årsbudsjett - nå i det andre året på rad - er de på sparebluss.

Noe er veldig galt her. Først ødeleggelsen av HIMARS. Deretter ødeleggelsen av en uidentifisert kolonne. Og sist visuell verifisering av et angrep på et NASAMS-batteri. Dessuten var et MiG-29 fly sendt så nær fronten, at det bli skutt ned - trolig var det sett på et eldre opptak med luftmålsmissiler på seg, og det var på den samme fronten som de andre episodene. Dette opptaket viser egentlige uidentifiserte kjøretøyer i en kolonne rundt 35 km fra fronten - slik at det var på vrakrestene det var oppdaget at det var MAN KAT1-kjøretøyer som hadde eksplodert. Etter karakterene på eksplosjonene å dømme er dette rakettbrensel; slik at det finnes bare to logiske forklaringer på dette; om det var ammunisjon for HIMARS - eller M901 rakettrampekjøretøyer for Patriot. Opptaket var offentliggjort ved 9. mars, og sannsynlig var opptil et par dager eldre. Da hadde det meget brått kommet et opphør i de ukrainske meldinger om nedskytninger av russiske fly siden 3/4. mars 2024. Logisk sett må det da betyr at ukrainerne har stoppet all bruk av Patriot - eller rett og slett mistet våpnene for nye angrep. Ukrainske luftvernsoperatører har ikke vært i stand til å varsle sine kolleger om kommende dronefly som hadde kunne operere helt forstyrrelsesfritt, samtidig som det er sett at det er usedvanlig liten tidsforbruk mellom oppdagelsen og angrepet med Iskander-missiler som så ut til å ha blitt avfyrt på "kloss" hold; og det var ikke den ballistiske varianten - den er for upresist med et CEP på rundt 30-60 m - men kryssermissilvarianten, "Iskander-M". Angrepene tyder på mindre sprengkraft og stor hastighet, da må det mene at ett nytt våpen var tatt i bruk. Jeg tror det er "Novator 9M729", som er dårlig kjent, som kan avfyres på "kloss" hold, og deretter når sitt mål svært raskt, trolig med ballistiske bane i den siste fasen. Men våpenet ville ikke ha vært fatalt uten droneflyet som av en eller andre grunn kunne unngå deteksjon - og det har vært snakk om at russerne har "stealth" droner som Sukhoi S-70 Okhotnik-B - som i senåret 2023 skal ha avsluttet prøvestadiet. Ifølge russerne var et S-70 dronefly på kampoppdrag i sommeren 2023, da var det en rekke mystiske angrep dypt inn i Ukraina hvor russerne var i stand til å angripe delikate mål som et tog lastet med vestlige MRAP. Hvordan disse angrepene - minst fem i alt - hendt, hadde aldri vært forklart. Det var først i januar 2024 det kom fram at S-70 hadde vært i Ukraina i akkurat dette tidsrommet. Det hadde opprinnelig vært planlagt at det nye droneflyet vil komme i tjeneste senest i 2025, men i sensommeren ble det plutselig besluttet at S-70 skulle i tjeneste allerede tidlig i året 2024. Da kan det betyr at et meget fatalt våpen - en HIMARS-killer - har kommet i tjeneste i mars 2024. Ukrainerne kan ha oppdaget dette, og det kan ha fulgt til at MiG-29 flyet sendes ut for å stoppe disse stealth droneflyene. Trolig er det bare 2 stykker. Jeg må dessverre konkludere med at det var to Patriot rakettramper og muligens et NASAMS kontrollsenter som kan ha blitt ødelagt av Iskander-M/S-70 "teamet". Dette kan snu hele krigen til Russlands fordel.

Ukrainerne holdt stand på alle fronter med unntak av Ivanviske vest for Bakhmut, det er notert at russerne bare avansert der det finnes massevis av dekning som bebygde topografi, på alt annet har disse blitt strandert og tvunget til å bli værende endog i flere dager uten forsyninger pga. FPV-trusselen, dessuten tok ukrainerne i bruk de små Switchblade-droner på nytt mot dem (de større er trolig forkastet, russisk jamming var for sterk for NATO-standardiserte utstyr). En god nyhet er at det nå er observert mer ammunisjonsbruk enn tidlig på ukrainsk side, det sees at kolonner som tidlig hadde trygt avansert over ingenmannslandet, nå desimeres med granater og kontraskytningen er i gang på nytt; en Archer i løpet av liten tid tok ut et par 122mm D-30 (som bruker nordkoreanske ammunisjon som kun er på 122mm) batterier i Nordøstfronten. Og samtidig virker det som at russerne har fått problemer, det ser ut at ammunisjonsforbruket er blitt noe mindre; muligens fordi den månedlige tilgangen "bare" er på 150,000 til 250,000, en stor del må selvsagt reserveres for senere tid. Russerne har nådd produksjonstaket med 1 mill. per år med 300,000 i tillegg - og medregnet alle kalibre er det sagt at det er "tre millioner" hos CNN som er litt for tabloid. Vesten har en årlig produksjon på 2,4 mill. i alle kalibre trolig fra 20mm eller 30mm til 203mm. Men dessverre er de russiske Phoeinx-kloner fremdeles veldig dødelig, et MiG-31 eller Su-35S klarte å skyte ned et ukrainsk MiG-29 fly med R-37M missiler som er dels basert på det gamle Phoenix-missilet fra F-14 flyet. Det har vært en lang rekke dårlige nyheter for Ukraina i året 2024, de har til nå mistet 4 M1A1 stridsvogner, 47. brigade som holdt stand vest for Avdijivka er svært kraftig utslitt, hele tre kommandanter måtte skiftes ut. F-16 skandalesaken bare fortsetter; det virker som at det ikke er mange nok piloter under utdanning og det er sagt at bare 6 F-16 kan være stridsberedt senest i juli 2024, da er det altfor sent. I høsten var det innsett at NATO har et stort problem med å erstatte piloter og fly i krigstid, og dessverre virker det som at man ikke har gjort meget for å rette på dette. Nedskytningen av MiG-29 flyet i det siste vist at man ikke bare må ha BVR-kapable fly, men også effektiv radarovervåkning som kan tidsnok oppdage MiG-31/Su-35S.

Allikevel kan dette ikke utelukkes hvis Trump skulle vinne valget og inngå en "Doha-avtale" a la Afghanistan eller endog en Molotov–Ribbentrop-pakt rett over hodet på europeerne - som har vært Putins mål nr. 1 helt siden sommeren 2021 da han startet en rekke tilnærminger mot Biden som klokelig sagt nei, vel vitende at det vil få det amerikanske alliansesystemet til å kollapse. Da er den europeiske NATO nødt til å vende sine våpnene mot amerikanske soldater som kan risikere å komme under kommando av en Putin-alliert. Putin ønsker det, og det klarte ikke republikanerne å innse! "If the Americans don't give money and weapons, along with the Europeans, then the war is over. And if the Americans don't give money, the Europeans alone are unable to finance this war. And then the war is over." Orban bryr seg ikke skadevirkninger det vil ha på den internasjonale rettsordningen og det vestlige hegemoniet - men så er det tegn på at han har territoriale ambisjoner mot Ukraina, Slovakia og Romania. Han bryr ikke seg om Putins målsetninger som i praksis betyr at russiske stridsvogner vil stå mot de ungarske grenseposter og at flere hundretusener kommer til å flykte, sammen med økonomisk kollapstilstand som kan få meget alvorlige ringvirkninger for det ungarske folket, som en dag kan oppleve en russisk innmarsj. Om Trump skulle bryte helt med europeerne hvor store deler bestemt mente dette er en eksistenskrise, og deretter yte støtte til Putin i verste fall, kan dette dessuten få meget alvorlige domestiske konsekvenser, da mesteparten av makteliten i USA vil først måpe, deretter eksplodert i pur raseri, noe som kan lede til borgerkrig - spesielt hvis Trump får absolutt immunitet og begynte med å forfølge hans fiender samt arrestere flere millioner mennesker som kan bli kastet inn i konsentrasjonsleirer bare fordi de er immigranter. Da kommer meget mange amerikanerne til å få nok.

13 % er det tynneste som margin etter min mening. Effekten blir dårlig hvis batteriet blir for lav.

Denne CNN-artikkelen er interessant. Opinion: How the Supreme Court got things so wrong on Trump ruling | CNN As our country confronts another crisis of American republicanism unleashed by former President Donald Trump and his followers’ reluctance to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election, we are rediscovering the importance of the Reconstruction-era 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Though ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment laid the foundation of our modern rights in the 20th century and contains provisions to prevent an attempt to overthrow American democracy or compromise democratic governance. The framers of the 14th Amendment meant for it to be binding — if they didn’t, they would not have made it a part of the fundamental law of the country. A constitutional mandate is, most importantly, self-enforcing. It does not require a law or a trial to enforce it. On Monday, the Supreme Court decided unanimously that Trump is not disqualified from the presidential ballot. The Supreme Court was united on the idea that Trump will remain on the ballot in Colorado and that the state cannot remove him off its ballot. But the justices were divided about how broadly the decision should be construed. A conservative 5-4 majority, usually very respectful of states’ rights, said that no state could remove a federal candidate off any ballot — with four justices, including the court’s three liberal justices, asserting that the court should have limited its opinion. Although the 14th Amendment was ratified during Reconstruction, the period immediately after the Civil War, its provisions weren’t just for that historical moment in time, but a safeguard for the future. In ruling that Trump should stay on the presidential ballot of 2024, the Supreme Court has delivered a mortal blow to Section 3 that basically eviscerates its power altogether. In doing so, the court is living up to its sorry 19th-century history of emasculating Reconstruction federal civil rights laws and constitutional amendments. The Colorado Supreme Court, in Trump v. Anderson, had upheld Trump’s disqualification per Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but the high court baldly rejected that: “Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.” But Section 3 does not call for Congress to enforce disqualification for participating or aiding in an insurrection. It only gives Congress the power to remove that disqualification by a two-thirds majority of each house. While correctly pointing out that the 14th Amendment restricted state autonomy, the high court again erred in claiming that the “Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe how those determinations should be made.” To argue that the “States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency” is tantamount to claiming that the states have no power to uphold the Constitution. It bears repeating that qualifications to run for president and the constitutional disqualification of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment are self-executing. The Colorado Supreme Court did not enforce that disqualification; it simply upheld Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In their concurring opinion, the three liberal justices, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued against “a chaotic state-by-state patchwork” that the Colorado decision would allegedly unleash, while chiding the majority for its lack of “judicial restraint” in ruling not just in this case, but for all future cases on the need for congressional legislation to enforce Section 3. While the court’s liberal justices rightly grasped that the majority decision would emasculate the constitutional disqualification for waging and abetting an insurrection against the US government, they wrongly surmised that upholding the Colorado decision would allow each state to go their own way. Just as this decision allows Trump to be on the presidential ballots of all states, upholding the 14th Amendment disqualification would have meant his removal from the presidential ballots of all states. As during Reconstruction, when even Republican-appointed judges went along with undoing federal laws and constitutional amendments, the justices have also left us defenseless against future insurrection attempts. As they conclude, “the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President.” The Supreme Court heard this case on appeal from the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, which in Trump v. Anderson, a case brought by Colorado voters, ruled that Trump is disqualified from the presidential ballot under Section 3. The secretaries of state of Maine and of Illinois had also evoked this amendment clause in their attempt to remove Trump from the states’ ballots. While many of the insurrectionists have been tried for their actions during January 6th, Trump is still on trial for this act of supreme betrayal to his oath of office and other alleged criminal misdoings. Trump, of course, vehemently denies this charge and claims executive immunity from all wrongdoing. He is also fast becoming the presumptive Republican candidate for the presidency. In their decision, the Supreme Court made no attempt to decide whether Trump and his followers did engage in an insurrection or not. The language of Section 3 is clear and unmistakable: Any person who has sworn an oath of office to uphold the Constitution and then participated in or given aid and comfort to a violent insurrection against the government of the United States is barred from holding office unless pardoned by two-thirds of both houses of Congress. The president, like any other federal official who takes such an oath of office on the United States Constitution, is covered by this provision. Trump’s lawyers’ attempts to hold the president of United States above the rule of law and endow him with absolute immunity, even in cases of personal wrongdoing, make a mockery of our republican form of government, a constitutional guarantee and would convert our republic into a monarchy where the king can do no wrong. The Republican Party of the mid-19th century, the party of former President Abraham Lincoln and big government, sought to safeguard the American republic from all future insurrections after the slaveholders’ rebellion that had precipitated a crisis of the Union and Civil War. Historians and legal scholars, who submitted amicus briefs to SCOTUS in Trump v. Anderson, overwhelmingly agreed on Trump’s disqualification, citing copious amounts of evidence from the framers of the amendment and congressional debates. In the interest of full disclosure, I signed one of the briefs and my book was cited in the other. For the conservative majority in the Supreme Court to ignore this historical testimony is tantamount to betraying their own principles of constitutional interpretation, originalism that looks to the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. For them, it’s strict construction for thee but not for me. Not to mention that one of them, Justice Clarence Thomas, is highly compromised, given his wife’s involvement in the events that preceded the January insurrection, and should have recused himself from this case. But even some of the liberal judges, including Kagan and Jackson, put forth a line of questioning that betrayed an outdated adherence to ideas of states’ rights, which should have died on the battlefields of the Civil War, and that has historically allowed the court to ignore the plain meaning of the Reconstruction amendments. If Colorado and Maine can remove Trump from the ballot, why would red states not do the same to President Joe Biden, they mused. But if the Section 3 disqualification had been upheld by the Supreme Court, it would have had a national effect and would not have been confined only to Colorado. Unlike Trump, President Biden faces no such automatic, self-executing constitutional disqualification nationally. Of course, the Supreme Court has a sorry history of political meddling even as it has sought to wrap around itself the robes of impartial jurisprudence. From the Dred Scott decision of 1857, which sought to outlaw the platform of the newly formed antislavery Republican Party and declare African Americans non-citizens, to Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which facilitated racial apartheid in the South, the Supreme Court has played an especially abysmal role in undermining democratic governance and equal justice for Black Americans in the 19th century. The interracial democracy of Reconstruction was overthrown not just by domestic terror in the postwar South perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan and similar racist groups, but also by a series of reactionary judicial decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in cases such as United States v. Cruikshank (1876) that let the perpetrators of one of the worst racial massacres in the South go scot-free, the Civil Rights Cases (1883) that allowed the rise of racial segregation, and Williams v. Mississippi (1898) that allowed southern states to disfranchise Black men using legal subterfuge in violation of the 15th Amendment. Using states’ rights reasoning of “state action” and the state’s “police powers,” the Supreme Court left Black Americans to the tender mercies of ex-Confederates, who inaugurated a regime of disenfranchisement, Jim Crow, convict lease labor, debt peonage (which it finally outlawed in 1905) and racial terror. The court also never implemented the provision of the 14th Amendment that would make southern states suffer a loss of representation in Congress for disfranchising Black voters. This is another sleeping giant in the 14th Amendment that can be activated against states with voter suppression laws today. Only relatively recently has the Supreme Court upheld the equal protections of the 14thAmendment to dismantle Jim Crow and establish gay marriage and reproductive rights for women. But the right-wing majority in the Supreme Court has been steadily walking back those decisions and acting true to historical form in emasculating voting and reproductive rights. The Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade (1973), the right to privacy derived from the 14th Amendment, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) and kneecapped the Voting Rights Act of 1965 enforcing the 14th and 15th amendments in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). It seems the court develops political qualms in enforcing the Constitution only when the fate of American democracy is at stake. With its approval ratings at a historic low, SCOTUS, instead of correcting course, has adhered to the mostly dismal historical record of the Reconstruction-era Supreme Court. There is not substantial case law regarding Section 3, precisely because the country has not been subject to violent domestic insurrections since the slaveholders’ rebellion. Just as the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause for freed people was misused by the courts during the Gilded Age to protect corporations from government regulation, the only time Sec3 was implemented was when it was misused against Socialist Party representative Victor Berger, who opposed the First World War. Berger’s lawyer wrongly argued that Sec 3 had been repealed by the Amnesty Acts of 1872 and 1898 that pardoned all ex-Confederates, as if it were formulated only for them. While Berger was ultimately vindicated and got to serve in the House of Representatives, everyone acknowledges that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a binding, enforceable part of the Constitution. But just as it has gutted the protections and provisions of the 14th Amendment in the past, the Supreme Court has now rendered ineffectual its one provision that could prevent the overthrow of the American republic. Artikkelforfatteren er en av de første som nå har kommet i dybden, og kommet med en konklusjon om at den føderale høyesterettens avgjørelse var galt; dertil på galt grunnlag. Det er åpenbart at de liberale dommernes tilslutning er basert på en logisk kortslutning som selv et barn kan se; for å diskvalifisere Biden må han ha gjort seg skyldig i brudd på Seksjon 3, og det finnes ikke autoritet for å fremme en slik sak uten legal dekning - og ikke minst; dette er føderal lov, ikke delstatlig lov. Hvis en delstatlig rettsinstans diskvalifisere en presidentkandidat, er det med dekning i en lov som dekker alle delstater i føderasjonen. Her valgt de liberale dommerne å gjøre en alvorlig feilhandling, utvilsomt for å unngå et konservativ flertall og splittelse i høyesteretten. Everybody Hates the Supreme Court’s Disqualification Ruling | The New Republic Her er en andre artikkel; Everybody Hates the Supreme Court’s Disqualification Ruling Trump and his diehards aside, many of those who wanted the court to leave the former president on the ballot still think the justices managed to screw it up. The Supreme Court released its 13-page decision in Trump v. Anderson on Monday. In their ruling, which is 9–0 for some parts and 5–4 for others, the justices effectively nullified the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause for insurrectionists as a meaningful factor in American politics. Congress could theoretically revive the clause by passing a law to enforce it, the majority noted. They know full well that Congress is more likely to declare me the archduke of Nevada. I already wrote on Monday about the ruling’s manifold flaws: It disregarded the text of the clause itself, it willfully misunderstood how the Fourteenth Amendment works and how American elections are run, and it went further than necessary to decide matters that weren’t before the court. The ruling is also now receiving criticism from a broad cross section of legal scholars and commentators, including some who actually agree with the ultimate result. Michael C. Dorf, a Cornell University law professor, criticized the court for its mishandling of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court effectively held on Monday that the disqualification clause, which is located in Section 3, is not self-executing. States cannot execute it on their own for federalism reasons, the court concluded, and Congress must pass specific legislation for anyone else to enforce it. “The Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe how [disqualification] determinations should be made,” the court wrote. “The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, subject of course to judicial review, to pass ‘appropriate legislation’ to ‘enforce’ the Fourteenth Amendment.” While that may sound reasonable at first glance, it actually makes no sense if one knows anything about the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 1 of the amendment, Dorf noted, is very famously self-executing. “No legislation by Congress is required to entitle persons otherwise properly in state or federal court to object that the application of state law or policy to them violates ‘due process’ or ‘equal protection,’” he pointed out. The court’s argument makes even less sense when applied to the disqualification clause, in particular. “As [the liberal justices] point out, by authorizing Congress to lift the bar on insurrectionists by a 2/3rds vote, Section 3 implies that the default is automatic disqualification,” Dorf explained. “In a passage I read about a dozen times before giving up and assuming that the per curiam author is simply trolling readers, the Court actually says that the assignment to Congress of an ‘amnesty power’ via a 2/3rds vote somehow ‘reinforces’ its (erroneous) conclusion that Section 3 is not self-executing.” The court’s explanation for this reversal is that the Fourteenth Amendment is ultimately about asserting federal power over the states, and that interpreting the disqualification clause to expand state power over federal officials would “invert” that premise. Dorf noted, however, that the underlying goal of the amendment was to prevent ex-Confederates from seizing power in the South and “for the deeper purpose of preventing the defeated rebels or others who would follow in their footsteps from repeating sins of the past.” “Seen in that broader perspective, there is nothing at all anomalous about state enforcement of Section 3 against federal office holders or candidates,” he continued. “Where those people are insurrectionists, one might better conclude that failure to enforce Section 3 betrays the 14th Amendment’s core purposes.” Ilya Somin, a George Mason University law professor, was also critical of the ruling’s reasoning. Part of the court’s logic was that allowing state-level disqualification challenges to succeed would undermine the uniformity of federal elections. But Somin noted that the states routinely play a role in “enforcing and adjudicating other constitutional qualifications for candidates for federal office,” including age requirements and the natural-born citizen clause for president. “In 2016, there was litigation in multiple states over claims brought by Trump supporters to the effect that Texas Senator Ted Cruz, his chief rival for the GOP presidential nomination, was not a ‘natural born’ citizen,” Somin observed. “State courts in Pennsylvania and New Jersey ruled that Cruz was eligible. But no one doubted that they had the authority to adjudicate the issue.” He also discounted the court’s fears that upholding the Colorado ruling would lead to “chaos” in state election processes. The justices warned that such chaos more or less compelled their result. “An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and states across the country, in different ways and at different times,” the court claimed. “The disruption would be all the more acute—and could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result—if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the nation has voted. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos—arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.” It is hard to take this seriously in a conversation about whether a guy who tried to overturn the last election by force should be allowed to run. But even if one agrees with that assessment, it should not inform how one reads the constitutional text. What the court describes as chaos can also be seen as a by-product of the structural features of American democracy. “Concerns about a potential ‘patchwork’ of conflicting state rulings are ultimately policy objections to the Constitution’s decentralized state-by-state scheme of election administration,” Somin explained. “As the conservative justices (rightly) love to remind us in other contexts, courts are not permitted to second-guess policy determinations that are under the authority of other branches of government or—as in this case—the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution.” Dan McLaughlin, a lawyer and National Review senior writer, opposed disqualifying Trump outright. “Not one justice thought that Colorado had the power to do what it did in a decision full of elastic reasoning,” he argued on Monday. “Only the most deluded figures of the legal ‘Resistance’ ever believed this gambit would work.” To that end, he thought that the court should overturn the Colorado ruling by holding that Trump’s actions on and around January 6 did not amount to “insurrection” as it is used in the clause. But while he agreed with the final outcome, he also found plenty of fault with how the court got there. The justices dismissed, for example, the idea that the election clauses in Article 1 and 2, which allow states to hold elections for federal offices, also allow them to apply disqualifications under the Fourteenth Amendment. “Granting the states that authority would invert the Fourteenth Amendment’s rebalancing of federal and state power,” the court wrote. McLaughlin was unpersuaded. “This is what happens when the court writes too quickly,” he noted. “State courts are bound by the Supremacy Clause, and they are presumptively empowered to enforce the rest of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments (with the arguable exception of Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment). Nobody would argue that state courts can’t enforce, say, the equal-protection clause.” On the policy concerns raised by the court, McLaughlin is also dismissive. “The Court frets that different states could reach different results, possibly due to different state procedures,” he wrote. “But this ignores the role of the Court itself in resolving conflicting state decisions. It is also partly an accidental feature of there being no definitive guidance from the Court on the meaning of Section 3’s operative terms—guidance the Court today yet again declined to provide.” He suggested that the court could have said that Congress could force the states to adopt certain procedural requirements as a backstop, which it can technically still do after Monday’s ruling. McLaughlin has plenty of criticism for the court’s liberals as well. In their concurrence, he sees a desire by them to ensure that “the charge of ‘insurrection’ can be left a suppurating wound to be reopened at the pleasure of Resistance judges—perhaps waving around the vote of House Democrats.” They, however, were not his ultimate problem with the ruling. “But at the end of the day, in the haste of all the justices to put this pre-election dispute to bed, and in the determination of the liberals to leave open an avenue for post-election guerilla lawfare against a potential second Trump administration, the Court failed in its duty,” he wrote. The Supreme Court’s failures in Trump v. Anderson are even more striking when you step back and consider the context in which it made them. The American legal system is defined by its use of precedent. In theory, judges make decisions by looking at how their predecessors decided similar cases and applying those principles to the facts before them. Precedent is binding on lower courts and persuasive authority for other courts. It is the glue that binds the whole thing together. Here the justices had what is now a rare opportunity: They could interpret a provision in the Constitution for the first time. The Supreme Court did not decide any disqualification clause cases during the Reconstruction era, and it has not had a reason to do so since then. The closest thing to precedent that the justices had was a circuit court ruling by then–Chief Justice Samuel Chase acting alone, which is not binding precedent on the full court. For one of the few times in the justices’ careers, they had a blank sheet of paper upon which they could write. They blew it. The court’s framing of how American elections work and whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s provisions are self-executing are not persuasive even for those inclined to agree with the result. And as The Atlantic’s Adam Serwer noted, the self-described originalist justices did not even use originalist principles to reach their decision. If the justices aren’t going to use their preferred method of constitutional interpretation to interpret a provision for the very first time, with no precedent to constrain them, why should they do it for more well-established ones? The natural reaction might be to blame the ruling’s faults on the justices’ haste. Some of these problems may have been correctible if the court had had more time to think them through. But that excuse can only take them so far. After all, the justices made it unusually clear at oral arguments last month that they had already made up their minds on the matter. From that premature decision flowed every other mistake they made. Alt tyder på at høyesterettens avgjørelse var ikke logisk begrunnet. The Supreme Court Butchered the Disqualification Clause | The New Republic The Supreme Court Butchered the Disqualification Clause The justices unanimously ignored the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment to keep Trump on the Colorado ballot—but some of them ignored their oaths as well. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. Anderson is a disaster for the American constitutional order. It paves the way for insurrectionists to run for and hold federal office despite the Constitution’s categorical language that disqualifies them. It decides questions that weren’t before the justices in this case in the first place, and the answers they gave will only immunize these and future insurrectionists from potential consequences. It blatantly twists text and history to reach a preferred outcome. In a case about the importance of oaths of office, the justices seem to have forgotten theirs. In their central holding on Monday, the justices unanimously overturned a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that former President Donald Trump was barred from the ballot by the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause. That clause bars former officeholders who participated in “insurrection or rebellion” from holding future public office. To overturn that ruling, the justices held that the states can’t enforce the clause against federal officeholders. Then the court’s five male conservative justices went even further to insulate Trump from the clause’s language. They held that federal candidates and officeholders can only be disqualified if Congress passes a law to affirmatively enforce the clause. That would appear to forestall disqualification by other means—if, for example, a Democratic-led Congress refuses to count Trump’s electoral votes next January because he is disqualified. The other four justices parted ways with their colleagues on this part. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing only for herself, pointedly argued that the case “does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.” The court’s three liberal justices went even further to directly castigate the five justices in the majority for their overreach. “Although federal enforcement of Section 3 is in no way at issue, the majority announces novel rules for how that enforcement must operate,” Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in their joint concurring opinion. “It reaches out to decide Section 3 questions not before us, and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a Presidential candidate under that provision. In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course.” To understand why Monday’s ruling is so calamitous, one must start with the text of the disqualification clause itself. That clause, which is found in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, reads as follows: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. This clause’s language is thunderous and unequivocal. It is, I admit, somewhat awkwardly written: The drafters made it hard to casually parse by explicitly naming so many offices to which it applies. But the thrust of the amendment is clear. In general terms, no person who previously swore an oath to the United States and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against it can ever again hold another public office at the state or federal level. Only the overwhelming judgment of Congress can remove that disqualification once it attaches. While the clause excluded numerous ex-Confederates after the Civil War, Congress ultimately waived it for most of them in 1873. The disqualification clause then lapsed into irrelevance for the next century and a half—not because it was no longer operative but because the U.S. did not experience another insurrection or rebellion during that time. Only after January 6 did it become relevant once more. William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, two prominent conservative legal scholars, argued last year in an influential law review article that the disqualification clause still carried legal weight. Their originalist analysis led them to conclude that the clause was still active, that it was self-executing, and that it applied to Trump and his co-conspirators. Buoyed by that argument and others, a group of voters sued Colorado Secretary of State Jenna Griswold last year to challenge Trump’s inclusion on the 2024 primary ballot. They argued that he was automatically disqualified from future office for his role in orchestrating the events of January 6 while serving as president. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with that argument last December and ordered Trump removed from the ballot. (They stayed their ruling pending appeal, so Trump’s name is still technically on the state ballot when Colorado voters take part in Super Tuesday this week.) It was clear at oral argument last month that the justices, for whatever reason, did not want to enforce the disqualification clause against Trump. What they struggled to articulate during that session was a reason why it shouldn’t be enforced against him. The disqualification clause’s language—the very constitutional text that they are charged with interpreting—is categorical. The justices could not get around it so easily. Some had suggested, for example, that the disqualification clause did not apply to the presidency. This may have been the simplest escape hatch for the court to choose, but it would have inflicted collateral damage elsewhere. Trump argued that the president did not count as one of the “officers, civil or military, of the United States” because the president is charged with appointing them. Adopting that argument, however, could have excluded the president from the Constitution’s ban on serving in multiple branches of government or its prohibition of religious tests for public office. Other requirements would have flouted the text itself. The disqualification clause does not require, for example, that those who fall under it first be tried and convicted of insurrection or rebellion-related crimes. The ex-Confederates who originally fell under its auspices, from Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee all the way down, faced no such trials or civil processes after the war. They were simply disqualified until Congress said otherwise. So, to avoid disqualification for Trump, the Supreme Court effectively rewrote the clause and ignored how the rest of the Constitution works. Here’s how it normally works: * The Constitution gives states the power to hold elections for House and Senate seats. * State legislatures are also empowered to hold elections to decide their state’s slate of presidential and vice presidential electors in the Electoral College. In some early presidential elections, state lawmakers simply chose electors without public input. As part of that process, the states are also empowered to disqualify candidates who can’t hold the offices that they seek. States can and have excluded would-be presidential candidates who don’t meet various age requirements and who aren’t natural-born citizens, for example. The Colorado Supreme Court logically concluded that participating in an insurrection or rebellion was another one of these requirements and acted accordingly. But the Supreme Court disagreed. “There is little reason to think that these [election] Clauses implicitly authorize the states to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates,” the court wrote. “Granting the states that authority would invert the Fourteenth Amendment’s rebalancing of federal and state power.” There is actually no reason to think otherwise. The Fourteenth Amendment’s drafters operated from the assumption that states had the power to decide a federal candidate’s qualifications. If they wanted to say differently, they would have done so. Aha, the five-justice majority said, but we have an answer to that! They argued that the Fourteenth Amendment’s drafters did just that by including an enforcement clause at the end of the amendment. The Supreme Court rested its argument on Section 5, which contains the usual final clause in many of the post–Civil War constitutional amendments: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” “Any state enforcement of Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, though, would not derive from Section 5, which confers power only on ‘[t]he Congress,’” the court wrote. “As a result, such state enforcement might be argued to sweep more broadly than congressional enforcement could under our precedents. But the notion that the Constitution grants the States freer rein than Congress to decide how Section 3 should be enforced with respect to federal offices is simply implausible.” This interpretation is nonsensical on its face. While the enactment clause allows Congress to enforce other provisions in the amendment, it makes literally no sense if applied to the disqualification clause. That clause already provided a very explicit role for Congress to play in the process: Lawmakers can, by two-thirds votes in each chamber, lift disqualifications that are automatically imposed. To graft the enforcement clause on top of it as well would lead to clearly absurd results, as the court’s three liberals pointed out in their concurring opinion. “It is hard to understand why the Constitution would require a congressional supermajority to remove a disqualification if a simple majority could nullify Section 3’s operation by repealing or declining to pass implementing legislation,” the court’s three liberals wrote. That is an understatement on their part. The Fourteenth Amendment’s framers could not have envisioned such an absurd result, but apparently Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh are willing to impose it to achieve a desired end. How could the court butcher the ruling so badly? The simplest answer appears to be fear. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, for example, wrote a concurring opinion where she opined that the other five conservative justices should not have gone as far as they did by ruling that only Congress can enforce the clause. But she also chastised the court’s liberals for expressing their disagreement with the ruling in more animated language. “In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency,” Barrett wrote. “The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.” The majority’s sense of discomfit is even more explicit. “An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and states across the country, in different ways and at different times,” the court warned in its ruling. “The disruption would be all the more acute—and could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result—if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the nation has voted. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos—arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the inauguration.” There are three problems with the court’s approach and reasoning here. * First, the Supreme Court is essentially caving to threats. A coalition of Republican-led states claimed in friend of the court briefs that some states might exclude other presidential candidates from the ballot if Trump were disqualified. The justices are rewarding those threats of disruption and chaos by using them to give the Republican-led states what they want, no matter how baseless the threats may be. By referring to the “national temperature” and the “volatile season of a presidential election,” the justices appear to be bowing to fear of Trump and his supporters if they rule against him. I do not begrudge the justices their fear of his supporters’ potential for violence—I’m sure that they too noticed the insurrection that was attempted on January 6, 2021, across the street from where they work. But fear does not release them from their own obligations to the Constitution and the rule of law. * Second, this line of reasoning ignores how American elections actually work. Not every presidential candidate is on the ballot in every state, especially when it comes to third-party candidates. As I noted earlier, states are free to not hold a presidential election at all. The Colorado legislature could theoretically vote tomorrow to award all of the state’s electoral votes to Joe Biden, thereby disqualifying Trump by other means. And even the Electoral College breaks down from time to time: The House chose the president in a contingent election in 1824, and Congress effectively decided the winner in the disputed election of 1876. Two of the court’s members worked for George W. Bush’s legal team in Bush v. Gore; one of them helped decide it. To argue that the Constitution created an electoral process inherently free from “chaos” is to be ignorant of it. * Finally, the court’s reference to “nullify[ing] the votes of millions and chang[ing] the election result” by disqualifying presidential candidates is utterly contemptible. If Arnold Schwartzenegger ran for president this year despite being born in Austria, nobody would claim that any of his supporters’ votes were nullified or the election results would be changed when states rightly kept him off the ballot. He was never eligible to participate in the first place. The same reasoning applies to Trump: By inciting an insurrection against the constitutional order, he has forfeited his right to hold office under it. The Supreme Court dishonors itself by falsely equating a constitutional mechanism to exclude insurrectionists from office to what the insurrection sought to do in the first place. Beyond all of this legal language and reasoning, Trump v. Anderson is a case about oaths. The disqualification clause only applies to those who previously swore oaths to serve in public office. Trump swore an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution on January 20, 2017. He violated that oath on January 6, 2021, by orchestrating a violent attack on the Capitol to overturn an election he lost. By misreading the Constitution to prevent anyone from stopping him and other insurrectionists from running for and holding public office, the justices have diminished themselves, their oaths, and the institution they serve. Det er dekning i min påstand om at Roberts har gjort seg skyldig i edbrudd og trukket hele høyesteretten inn i en meget alvorlig situasjon som kan lede til omfattende dissens, som kan i verste fall lede til at høyesterettens immunitet kan kollapse - eller at man vil risikere samme skjebne som høyesteretten hadde i 1857-1865; den idiotiske avgjørelsen "Dred Scott v. Sandford" i 1857 var et forsøk på å bilegge konflikten om slaveriet, ved å gjøre slaver til eiendommer over hele USA og ugyldiggjøre hele stridsspørsmålet om slaven og slaveriet. Høyesterettsjustitiarius Roger B. Taney endt opp med å bli uglesett, isolert og generelt forhatt fram til hans død i 1864, og høyesteretten var helt maktløst da ingen ville lytte eller respektere rettsinstansen. Det skjer forresten mer vanlig enn hva man ante, det var sett gjentatte ganger at hvis høyesteretten kom med uønskelige avgjørelser hendt det ofte at denne utsettes for dissens, som ledet til et brudd som kunne varer i lang tid som da Taney levd fram til hans død. Dagens høyesteretten har mistet meget mye folkelig støtte, så dette kan bli et nytt lavmål som kan lede til isolasjon fram til det konservative FedSoc-flertallet er fjernet.

Fem timer, minimum. Gjennomsnittlig sett er det egentlig opptil seks timer fordi man må stoppe i mellomtiden - spesielt i ganske monotone omgivelser. Dessuten er den lange kjøreturen og de varierte forholdene avhengig av vær og årstid ikke uproblematisk for en elbil som vil selvsagt ha varierte kraftytelse slik at maks. rekkevidde ikke er gjeldende overalt. En Tesla Model 3 må uansett lades på en slik strekning da det ikke er tilrådelig å komme meget lavt på batteriet selv hvis det er oppgitt til cirka 440 km. Dette forutser reiseplanlegging ettersom ladning er nødvendig. En typisk VW e-Golf har en praktisk rekkevidde på kun 190 km. Volvo EC40 har en praktisk rekkevidde på rundt 350 kilometer. Som et ærendskjøretøy vil bilen kjøres bare et par titalls kilometer eller mer per dag, så det egentlige problemet er at sjåføren må da gi avkall på fleksibiliteten som forbrenningsmotoren gir, da det bare var å fylle på på den første og beste bensinstasjonen man kommer til, elbilen i sammenligning trenger ladeinfrastruktur og deretter mer tid enn forsvarlig fordi hyppig hurtigladning ikke anbefaltes. Det er akkurat der gjennombruddet ligger som nevnt med blybensinen, man må gi elbilen fleksibilitet som kjøperen ønsker seg, for å kunne benytte den og kjøre rundt med den under enhver omstendighet, som fra å kjøre et par hundre meter til nærmest butikk til å kjøre i et halvt døgn på bilferie. Og så snart dette er oppnådd, er det et nytt problem som må løses; Tilgang på nok elektrisitet. Det ikke bare biltransporten, hele samfunnet må elektrifiseres.

I det forrige innlegget om handlet om hvordan forbrenningsmotoren vant, da bensinbilen tok en ubestridelig ledelse, var den siste hindringen hvordan å føre sammen brenselet og motoren til en effektiv enhet med høy funksjonalitet; dette var mulig med blybensinen (diesel kom senere). Hva den batterielektriske bilen trenger er noe tilsvarende blybensinen for at ulempene skulle bli overvinnelig, vi trenger batteri som kan tåle hurtiglading og ha høyere energitetthet for at man kan trøbbelfritt bruke en elbil med minimal tidssløseri og størst mulig effektivitet. Hvis en bil kan lades i løpet av en halvtime og kan benyttes uten ladningsbehov for minst to-tre dager, er man i målet. Enda bedre om batteriet vil ha en lang levetid. Vi har ikke nådd dette stadiet, så elbilen i dag er best i by- og bynære trafikk opptil 50 km i omkrets (per dag), den vil aldri være et ruralt kjøretøy og vil aldri kunne benyttes for langtur som kunne varer i mange timer; en tur fra Kongsvinger til Røros vil være i det meste laget, da er reiseplanlegging og anlegg for tålmodighet en nødvendighet. Vi kan bruke elbiler som et rent ærendskjøretøy for dagliglivet - det er jo hva elbilen først og fremst er ment for. Som nyttekjøretøy kan man ha batteridrift i buss, varebil og lastebil ment for by- og bynære trafikk - og det er der potensialiteten er størst etter min mening, hvis man kan ha nullutslipp på passasjer-, post- og varefrakt i et byområde vil det få meget markante følger, spesielt for lokalmiljøet. Den vinterlige smogluften i Oslo kan bli borte. Når det gjelder lastefrakt på lange avstander er det langt mer utfordrende. Induksjonslading har lenge vært sterkt ønsket for å lade opp biler både ved parkering eller under kjøring, men det har vist seg at bruk av elektromagnetiske felt gjennom asfalten er så utfordrende, at dette er fremdeles i det blått. Det er mange prosjekter siden 2008 som så langt har ikke kommet ut av prøvefasen. Svenskene valgt en litt annerledes løsning, glidesko-løsningen. En bil kan simpelt legge ned en "sko" som da "glide" i kontakt med en glideskinne, men dette tror jeg bare er egnet for buss, varebil og lastebil fremfor personbil. Dette kan allikevel benyttes i korte strekninger for å lade opp nyttekjøretøyer, fremfor å utgjøre en del av en asfaltveg. Men en dag kan en bilsjåfør om han skulle lade opp batteriet, bare kjøre til en bestemt strekning med synlige hvite prikker på asfalten og dermed kjøre i flere hundre meter i behagelig hastighet for å lade opp med 15 til 20 % på en gang, og dermed kan fortsette inntil batteriet begynner å bli lav - og så gjenta det på nytt. Batteriet liker best å bli ladet når det er 40 til 60 %, har jeg forstått.

Det trenges, glidebombene har blitt et meget stort problem for de ukrainske forsvarsstyrkene som holdt stand, slik at vi må ha flere strategiske luftvernbatterier og BVR-kapable jagerfly i stand til å skyte ned fly 50 km dypt inn i fiendtlig luftrom. Vårløsningen med muddertilstand har nå slått til på alvor, slik at russerne ikke lenge kan angripe med tyngre kjøretøyer - noe som blant annet fulgt til en økning i bruk av militariserte golfbiler som nå brenner opp i dusinvis på feltet. I mellomtiden klarte amerikanerne å unngå nedstengning, men Johnson ignorere nå meget åpent det massive presset om å få gjennom hjelpepakken også fra nærmeste hele statsadministrasjonen som gjort det klart at dette skader USAs anseelse internasjonalt sett. Han prøver å tvinge gjennom en låneavtale uten å fatte at denne ikke har livets sjanse. Det er oppdaget voksende bevis på forræderske atferd fra MAGA som tyder på at man vil ha en amerikansk-russisk tilnærming på bekostning av det vestlige hegemoniet, som formidles gjennom sosiale medier - donasjoner til våpen har blitt registrert. Dette bare gjør det verre og verre. Top House Republicans consider separate Ukraine aid bill (yahoo.com) Alt tyder på at Trump og Johnson er villig til å forråde Ukraina. For Johnson har presset gjennom nok en pause - som speaker kan han stenge ned huset i kongressen og tvinge folkedelegatene på ferie, for etter 22. mars vil det bli en "ferie" på to uker inn i april. Dette tok meget mange ille opp, fordi tidsrommet for å få gjennom hjelpepakken krympes og kan utsettes helt ut til april-mai. “aid is better than no aid, but this is not an ideal way of doing it. ... Asking a country to take on tens of millions of dollars of debt that they can’t afford to pay off is a recipe for a significant burden, will hurt Ukraine long term and could lead to economic crises down the road.” Det er korrekt; å låne ut våpen og penger til et land som er alvorlig svekket økonomisk sett, er uansvarlig og snakk om direkte sabotasje som gjør at man ikke vil ha forpliktelser og alliansebånd. Hvis det reduseres til det reneste leiesoldatforholdet, vil det bare avle fram avstand, mistro og uønskede konsekvenser for alle involverte partene. Man ser annetsteds at hvis Trump kommer til makten, vil han drive storstils utpressing av alle allierte for å tvinge dem til å betale; dette vil ødelegge hele alliansesystemet for alltid og ligge NATO død for alltid. Ingen ønsker å være alliert med en uvennlig mafioso. Det er tegn på at det kommer til å forverre seg mellom USA og de ledende alliansemakter verden rundt; man kunne se tegn på voksende sinne og misnøye med det som skjer hos republikanerne som stadig nekte og nekte å innse at deres valg om å holde seg med Trump er meget skadelig for USAs interesser. Alt tyder dermed på at Europa må ruste opp, Scholz og andre fredsopphissere som Støre må ryddes av vegen, og overta støtten til Ukraina på ubestemt tid. Det må dessuten skje at man skal slutte å kjøpe amerikansk innenfor artilleri, luftvern, elektronikk og annetsteds der avionikk ikke er nødvendig. Bare da kommer amerikanerne til å innse skadevirkninger av Trumps galskapsideer.

Det er korrekt, trolig kan bare tredjedelen fritas fra siviloppdrag uten at sivilsamfunnet helt bryter sammen - her må det huskes at det til enhver tidspunkt aldri var mer enn 5 % som gikk i uniform selv i det meste krigerske samfunnet; da Frankrike i 1815 led nederlag ved Waterloo, hadde over tjue år med uavbrutt krigføring desimerte den mannlige andelen så meget, at trolig bare en firedel av den opprinnelige fremdeles var i livet. I de neste femten år var voksne menn i tjueårene et sjeldent syn i mange franske byer. Det er denne som er det meste horribelt med krig; du kan rekruttere så mange som mulig her og nå, ta større risiko enn ønskelig, og kunne tolerere enorme tap så lenge det var nok menn, men du vil ikke merke konsekvenser inntil det plutselig gaper rett i ansiktet på deg. Dette er en demografisk katastrofe på gang i Russland, hvor Putin og hans galninger synes å tro at de menneskelige ressursene er uutømmelig, men det er de ikke. Under 400,000 drepte og alvorlige skadde er meget mye for et land som bare har 144 mill. (mye tyder på at denne er overdrevet, trolig 135-140), av dette rundt 60-70 mill. av hannkjønn i alle aldre. I tillegg hadde flere hundretusener hatt lette skader og senvirkninger som et resultat. 1 million-tallet nærmere seg med stormskritt. Og dette er et tap som selv ikke et krigersamfunn kunne tåle, kloke krigerkonger i eldre tid alltid tenker på det som komme etterpå, på tiden etter krigen - vi ser dette ikke i Kreml. Selv Stalin tenkte på det som kommer etterpå. Istedenfor ser vi en aggressivitet som er helt malplassert med realitetene. Det som skjer i Ukraina er ikke krig. Det er galskap fra begynnelsen til ende.