ROTARY'S UNRELENTING PASSION FOR SERVICE

On February 23, 1905, when Chicago attorney Paul Harris and three of his business friends met in a small office "to create a club of professionals and businessmen for friendship and fellowship," nobody anticipated that this small gathering would ultimately bloom into the most prestigious service club in the world. Over the years Rotary, so named initially to recognize its rotating meeting locations, grew into a global network of 46,000 clubs with 1.4 million members in 200 countries, who dedicate their time and talent to tackle the world's most pressing humanitarian challenges. A standout among many significant contributions to humanitarian causes around the world, and among Rotary's major accomplishments over time was its highly successful attempt at eradicating polio, a program the organization launched in 1985. Within twenty-five years of its inception Rotary amassed $900 million in contributions to the cause, which helped to support the immunization of two billion children worldwide. With financial assistance from the "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation," and through the massive involvement of Rotary's international network of volunteers around the world, polio cases, over time, were reduced by 99%, leaving only Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria still reporting cases today. Rotary's vast network of like-minded volunteers has proven to be instrumental in support of addressing multiple causes and challenges in many parts of the world. Its response to the humanitarian crises resulting from the current war in Ukraine is a case in point. The organization, headquartered in Evanston, Illinois, under guidance of John Hewko, whose mother was born in Kharkiv, one of Ukraine's most embattled cities, began focusing on the consequences of Russia's invasion within days of the start of hostilities on February 24. As General Secretary and CEO of Rotary International, Hewko, an actual member of the Rotary Club of Kyiv, used the reach of his organization to coordinate reactions to the need for humanitarian relief for refugees from the very beginning. Literally within days, Rotarians contributed $14.4 million to help financially support regions that assisted Ukrainian refugees or other victims of the war. Ukraine's 62 clubs, with an estimated 1,100 members, which, with the exception of a few now in Russian controlled areas, continue to meet regularly. They are active in war zones, even in cities like Kharkiv, they help refugees adopt to their new realities, help people evacuate to safe zones, prepare and deliver hot meals, and function as distributors of supplies provided by clubs from surrounding countries. Across Europe, Rotaract members, a younger group of Rotarians, use digital tools to share information and coordinate assistance to people affected by the war. Iryna Bushmina, a member of the Rotaract Club of Kyiv-City, after fleeing with her sister and three month old nephew - journeying to Vienna - organized a huge scale relief effort and an online platform to find shelter for thousands of Ukrainian refugees. The point is this: Rotary has become a very significant international force for humanitarian relief efforts. The organization does go out of its way to insist that it is not politically motivated. In effect, when asked about its interest in the military operation in Ukraine, Rotary International responded: "As one of the world's largest humanitarian organizations, we have made promoting peace the cornerstone of our global mission. Our call for an immediate ceasefire and a restoration of diplomatic efforts is not about politics, it's about safety and humanity." While, internationally, Rotary's reach and coordinated involvement is significant, local clubs, while supporting international efforts, are doing their best to be relevant to their own communities as well. Watsonville Rotary, one of seven clubs in Santa Cruz County, is celebrating it's 95th anniversary this Sunday, May 22. As reported in the Register-Pajaronian, the Rotary Club of Watsonville received its charter on May 21, 1927. While the initial twenty-five charter members hoped that this occasion would earn them headline coverage in the paper that day, the honor bestowed by Rotary International on our community received second billing to "Lindbergh Lands Safely in Paris" that same day. A coincidence old-timers never forgot. Membership in the local club, which meets every Wednesday for lunch at the Elk's Club on Martinelli Street, averages between 70-80 Rotarians. Over the years the club has substantially contributed to a wide variety of community as well as international philanthropic efforts. Its Community Trust program, serving Watsonville youth and local non-profits, has distributed well over $500,000. The club's "adopted" schools - E.A. Hall, Renaissance, New School and Cabrillo - benefited to the tune of $160,000 for scholarships and equipment. Projects funding literacy programs, health education, medical supply needs and water sanitation projects in Guatemala and Peru received more than $200,000. over time. Job shadowing events for Watsonville High students, speech contests, support for foreign exchange students and weekly student achievement recognition at informative luncheon meetings round out inclusive, well thought out programs. The club's 95th anniversary and its legacy of productive empathy represent a well deserved milestone in the Watsonville and Pajaro Valley community. Theo Wierdsma

PUTIN'S "BIG BROTHER" BARRIERS

Recent press reports of polling results indicating that upwards of 71% of Russians say they support Putin's war in Ukraine caught many by surprise. After all, Western media continue to cover the horrific effects of military activity Ukraine is daily exposed to in great detail. However, these statistics should not astonish anyone. While, internationally, as a result of imposed sanctions, Russian society has become more or less isolated, domestically, Vladimir Putin has spared no effort putting up barriers to insure it is insulated from unwanted and unsanctioned outside sources of information. Staying true to autocratic leadership principles, Putin has had 22 years to wrest control over Russia's communications channels. In today's Russia all major media outlets are controlled by the state. The Russian government owns 60% of newspapers and all national television stations. Russia's system of "Operational Investigatory Measures" requires telecommunications operators to install hardware provided by the FSB (formerly KGB), which allows the agency to unilaterally monitor users' communications and content, including phone calls, email traffic and web browsing activity. Besides, according to a 2016 Rand Corporation report, Russia's propaganda machine broadcasts "incredibly large volumes [of propaganda] via text, video, audio, internet, social media, satellite TV and traditional radio and television broadcasting." So, why do so many Russians say they support the "special operation" in Ukraine? The government controls the media and the message. It consequently controls the collective mind of the citizenry. Putin has taken the edict from his favorite historic mentor, Joseph Stalin, to heart: "The press must grow day in and day out - it is our party's sharpest and most resourceful weapon." This sentiment was restated by one of Stalin's successors, Nikita Khrushchev, who also believed that "the press is our chief ideological weapon." Many influential leaders, in Russia and beyond, have since repeated this point of view. One of the most poignant articulations came from Malcolm X, who expressed the opinion that: The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that is power, because they control the mind of the masses." Putin developed governmental control into a science, managing to either block, sanitize or drown out interpretation, commentary and criticism that conflicted with officially sanctioned coverage of news content. In light of the military conflict in Ukraine, the government passed laws criminalizing "discrediting" the Russian military, spreading "fake news" and mentioning in the press that the Russian invasion of Ukraine amounted to war. Penalties for disobeying these laws can add up to 15 years in prison. Thus far, well over 15,000 dissidents have been arrested. For many, the mere expression of unsanctioned thought begins to feel like a criminal act. What Russians are hearing from their government every day are statements like: There is no ongoing war; The special operation held in Ukraine is aimed strictly at the military infrastructure of the fascists who seized power in Kyiv to intimidate and oppress the nation; We fight for our freedom and the freedom of the Ukrainian people; The Ukrainians welcome the Russian army, the only ones resisting are Nazi groups and military forces controlled by the fascist Kyiv regime; Russia has not started the war, it has come to end it; If it had not been for the Russian operation, NATO and the Nazis would have attacked us imminently to proceed with the genocide of the Russian and the Ukrainian nations - and so on. (Robert Coalson, Radio Free Europe). After being subjected to this persistent propaganda blitz and the reality of the government's uncontested control over official media outlets, polling results are not at all surprising. Combine these influences with the liberal use of leading questions, like: "Do you support a battle against Nazism?" and the caution expressed during virtually every interview that answers are recorded for "quality control," and the fix is in. No wonder Putin's popularity exceeds 80%. Who dares to dispute that? In March, Maxim Katz, an opposition politician in Moscow, with a team of researchers, commissioned a poll on public attitudes towards the war. Out of 31,000 people contacted, 29,400 ended the conversation as soon as they heard the topic. The sociologist Iskander Yasaveyev has suggested that "many Russians understand that they are being lied to, that they are getting propaganda, but they want to be deceived. It is simpler for them to suppress their inner conflict." Seventy-three years after George Orwell published "1984," "Big Brother" is still watching. Theo Wierdsma

WAR CRIMES - LEGAL CONCEPT OR OXYMORON?

The seemingly unending military confrontation in Ukraine continues unabated. As Russian troops move from areas they controlled to a newly declared front in the Donbas region, they leave behind gruesome evidence of inhumane depravity and savagery, inflicted on a defenseless civilian population. In Bucha, a suburb of Kyiv, so far more than 500 bodies have been discovered: shot, tortured, raped, burned, killed without apparent pretext. For the greater Kyiv area the additional body count already exceeds 1000. Add to these statistics the lethal result of the horrific missile attack on the train station in Kramatorsk, where 4,000 refugees were waiting to escape the fighting, and the more than 20,000 civilians estimated to have been killed in Mariupol and elsewhere, the picture becomes crystal clear: with genocidal intent and its advance successfully obstructed by Ukrainian forces, Putin's military is pursuing a scorched earth strategy, leaving nothing behind. As she was interviewed while exhuming another mass grave in Bucha, Ukraine's Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova observed that, throughout the country, more than 6,000 alleged war crime cases were already being investigated. (Mark Lowen, BBC News, Apr. 14, 2022). Charging the aggressor with committing war crimes helps to define the extent of the war as experienced by the domestic population. However, to have those charges adjudicated, they need to be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Its process is quite time consuming and does not produce swift justice. To make their case, prosecutors would have to establish a direct line of responsibility from the top of Russia's government to the atrocities on the ground - and show they were not just committed, but ordered. The use of the term "war crimes" raises a number of questions. Some would argue that war in itself is a criminal, lawless activity involving ruthless, inhumane violence. If that is true, "war crimes," a legal concept, implying a violation of, supposedly, non existent "rules of war," is really an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. While this may be an academic debate, over time other national actors have attempted to modify the severity of military conflict by establishing "rules of war" that embody the essentials of human dignity. Attempts at civilizing warfare date back at least to the Code of Hammurabi, a legal text created by the king of Babylon around 1755 - 1750 BC. It imposes a code of conduct in the event of war, designed to "keep the strong from oppressing the weak." The Bible and Quran also contain rules of respect for adversaries. Over time, frequently following horrendous exhibitions of genocidal conflict, these rules evolved. In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued a set of rules, commonly known as the "Lieber Code," which introduced a code of conduct for Union soldiers during hostilities throughout the Civil War. This code inspired other countries to adopt similar rules for their military and served as a template for international efforts to codify the laws of engagement during war. Ultimately international treaties were agreed upon, culminating in the Geneva Convention adopted in 1949, dictating what can and cannot be done during armed conflict. Many crimes identified in the protocols adopted by much of the international community responded to horrendous acts of cruelty displayed by feuding armies. These include Hitler's "euthanasia program," murdering newborn infants displaying mental or physical disabilities to cleanse the "Aryan" race of people considered genetically defective, killing at least 10,000; the Holocaust, killing more than 6 million; medical experiments conducted by Japan's Lieutenant General Ishii Shiro, leading to the assassination of up to a half million mostly Chinese and Russian human beings; the genocide of Armenian and Assyrian people, resulting in the death of well over a million; hundreds of thousands killed in the Balkans during the Yugoslav wars at the end of the last century, and many others. The Geneva Convention specifically identifies intentionally killing civilians and prisoners of war, torture, taking hostages, sexual violence, pillaging, genocide and ethnic cleansing as violations of the rules of war. Many of these certifiably apply to acts committed by Russian troops in Ukraine. The International Criminal Court, which was established by the Rome Statute in 1998, nominally assumes jurisdiction over alleged war crimes. The Statute is designed to facilitate and prosecute war criminals before the court and, since inception, multiple heads of state have had their cases tried in this facility. Some of these include notorious defendants like Japan's General Hideki Tojo, Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, Bosnian President Radovan Karadzic and Lybian leader Muammar Gaddafi. The Court's tenure has not been without controversy. It is often accused of only trying cases brought by the winners of military conflict, suggesting these cases result in "victors' justice," in pursuit of revenge. Some question why not all horrific bloodshed was prosecuted as war crimes, such as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The U.S., Russia, China and Israel have not recognized the Court's jurisdiction, although the U.S. participates as an observer. Finally, it is important to recognize that proceedings before the Court can only be brought by a national government or by the U.N. Security Council - in which Russia has veto power. Also, the Court tries people, not countries. While establishing responsibility for the war crimes committed in Ukraine would not be problematic, pointing clearly at the Russian president, to give the allegations their intended effect, Vladimir Putin would need to be apprehended and taken to The Hague for trial, something not likely to happen any time soon. So, yes, "war crimes" is an internationally recognized legal concept. However, unless the world can bring Putin and his chief collaborators to justice, identifying the thousands of openly flaunted violations of this concept, while illuminating, remains effectively symbolic. Theo Wierdsma

FRENCH ELECTION IMPACTED BY RUSSIAN AGGRESSION

In just a few days, about 48 million French voters will go to the polls to select their next president. In what is traditionally a two step process, twelve candidates will face off on April 10. If one of them receives an absolute majority, he or she is elected president. If not, the top two contenders will compete in a run-off election on April 24. Since 1965, when the current direct election system was introduced, every election has gone to a second round. Until recently, the issues dominating the campaign centered on immigration, climate change, the ballooning national debt accumulated in fighting the coronavirus, and the country's troubled anti-terrorist effort in Mali, a former French colony. Once Russia invaded Ukraine, the focus shifted notably. Public debate moved from domestic issues to geopolitics. Campaign coverage almost ground to a halt. Political broadcasts were replaced by TV specials on Ukraine. At the same time the current crisis forced the candidates to rethink their political campaigns, the first time in recent history that they had been hijacked by foreign policy - an issue that is not usually a top priority for French voters. The French election is not only significant for France. The outcome could be consequential for the European Union and for the cohesion of the NATO alliance. France is one of the two largest EU member states. It has the second largest economy in the EU, and it is one of the founding states of the bloc. French leadership matters hugely to the future of the European project, which has continued to evolve since the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. Its continued reliable stewardship during the current conflict is crucial. The country's approach to Russia has always been a significant, although inconsistent, element of presidential election campaigns, generally requiring guidance. Moreover, public support for NATO has dropped recently, from a high of 71% in 2009, to only 47% according to a recent poll. Besides, the French population is currently skewing towards becoming one of the most euroskeptic countries in the European Union. Given these trends, France's current president, Emanuel Macron, still the favorite to win the election, remains Europe's only hope. Macron has been one of the most visible and vocal European leaders responding to challenges facing the 27 member organization. He is openly attempting to fill the void created by the retirement of former German chancellor Angela Merkel. His ambition to lead a progressive revival of pro European liberals against national populists in France and across Europe is largely acknowledged. And his February 7 trip to Moscow in a diplomatic effort to talk with Putin and negotiate deescalation of the current conflict, although unsuccessful, allowed him to look like Europe's de-facto leader in the quest for constructive engagement with Russia. His most prominent opponents may think twice about criticizing their president too blatantly now that there is a war on European soil, for fear of appearing to work against France's interests. What concerns much of the rest of Europe is that Macon's opponents in this election tend to be euroskeptic, and that they have displayed cozy views on Moscow and Vladimir Putin. Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Rally, the odds on favorite to end up in second place behind Macron, has long maintained a special connection to Russia and the Putin regime. Russia even funded part of her presidential campaign five years ago. She has openly proclaimed that she believes Ukraine belongs to Russia's sphere of influence. She intends to withdraw France from NATO's Military Command structure - something Charles de Gaulle did in 1966, but was reinstated by Nicolas Sarkozy in 2009. She does not like article 5 of the NATO treaty, opposes military assistance to Ukraine and continues to be a staunch euroskeptic, even though she served in the European Parliament until 2017. If elected, she would be a disturbing force in European politics. Currently polling in third place, hard-left Jean Luc Melenchon, is radically opposed to NATO, calling it a "tool of subservience to the United States, He wants France to stay entirely out of the fray and he says that he understands why Putin feels threatened by the perceived encirclement of Russia by NATO. The current war has not changed his perspective. Further down the list, but diluting far-right support for Le Pen, sits Eric Zemmour, a TV personality who turned his notoriety into a platform for anti-immigrant venom. He adamantly opposes NATO and, while condemning Russia's aggression, he holds NATO responsible for the war in Ukraine. Putin's aggressive action in Ukraine served to unite and focus the 30 member states that make up the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. At the same time, the war motivated all but one the most euroskeptic European Union member states to sign on to a unified and determined response. The outcome of the French election could potentially disrupt this cooperative approach, not just for the short term, but for the indefinite future, affecting European strategies for years to come, and possibly leave Ukraine and other former Soviet states wondering about an uncertain future. Now that Viktor Orban's April 3rd election victory in Hungary will likely keep that country officially in, or close to, Putin's camp, the stakes are high for the rest of Europe, much of which hopes that Emmanuel Macron pulls out a win and will continue to lead the continent during the next five years. Theo Wierdsma

KICK RUSSIA OUT OF THE U.N.?

With the unrelenting assault by Russian troops on innocent and largely defenseless civilians in Ukraine, short of starting World War III, many of us are contemplating what more we can do to further isolate and punish Putin and his inner circle. According to a recently completed poll by Monmouth University in New Jersey, 81% of Americans support the economic sanctions imposed on Russia thus far. A follow-up survey done by the Pew Research Center suggests that this endorsement is increasing in popularity. Although, surprisingly and regrettably, survey results also indicate that 7% of Americans still appear to think that Russia is justified in its actions in Ukraine. While this show of support remains overwhelming, 52% still think that our response to the Russian invasion has thus far not been strong enough. Seventy-five percent of us back imposing greater pressure on Putin's regime, but stay well short of recommending military confrontation. The suggestion that has recently gained momentum among a growing number of politicians and even some academics is to kick Russia out of the United Nations, or, at a minimum, off the Security Council. Nine Republican senators are currently already drafting a resolution to that effect, which they hope will put the entire Congress on record saying so. While this approach may be tempting, the questions that emerge are: "can we?" and, perhaps more importantly, "should we?" Iryna Zaverukha, an associate professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, reiterated President Volodymyr Zelensky's call on the U.N. to expel Russia from the Security Council. In an impassioned op-ed, published in the Los Angeles Times, she charged that "the U.N.'s main purpose is to maintain international peace and security, but it did not prevent the full-scale brutal war now happening in Ukraine, nor did it prevent or punish Russia's unlawful seizure of Crimea and its occupancy of Donbas in 2014." Under Article 6 of the U.N. charter, members who persistently violate U.N. principles, upon recommendation of the Security Council, can be expelled by a 2/3 majority vote of the General Assembly. According to Article 5 of the charter, the offending country could have its rights and privileges of membership suspended. In either case, the Security Council would need to initiate these actions. Russia, which has veto power, actually presided over the Council when its troops invaded Ukraine on February 24. Needless to suggest that either action would likely face a Russian veto. No country has been expelled from the U.N. since its founding in 1945. There is, however, a potential path forward that does not require consensus on the Security Council. In emergency session, the General Assembly could follow what is called the "Uniting for Peace" resolution model which was first adopted in 1950. This resolution states that, in any cases where the Security Council, because of a lack of unanimity among its five permanent members, fails to act as required to maintain international security and peace, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately and may issue appropriate recommendations to U.N. members for collective measures, including the use of armed forces when necessary, in order to maintain or restore international security and peace. This resolution was first put in place when we were on the brink of the Korean War, after the Soviet Union vetoed U.N. action four times. It has been invoked 11 times since. Nevertheless, it would still not get rid of Russia. Relative options are few. Diplomats could vote to suspend Russia from participation in the General Assembly, which does not require Security Council buy-in. This move would strip Russia of its right to speak or vote, but would allow it to retain membership. This was done in 1974 when South Africa was suspended for its "apartheid" system. Members could also remove Russia from the Human Rights Council, or refuse to recognize a Russian backed government in Ukraine.There is even an argument emerging that suggests that Russia is not a legitimate member of the organization, since there has never been a formal decision to admit it as a member after the demise of the USSR. However, the same goes for Ukraine after it transitioned from a Soviet Socialist Republic to the current independent state. Professor Zaverukha and others are proposing that the Ukraine crisis offers an opportunity for the U.N. to preserve its relevance and reshape itself in a way that would provide security for the entire global community. No matter how tempting some of these recommendations are, the simple fact is that it is not possible to expel Russia from the organization, nor would it be wise to shut down a communication channel during this time of high tension. Theo Wierdsma

UKRAINIANS AT THE GATES OF HELL

In September of 1938, former British prime minister Neville Chamberlain concluded an appeasement pact with Adolph Hitler, proclaiming "Peace for our time." A year later, the Nazis invaded Poland, facing no military opposition from either Britain or France, both of which previously "guaranteed" the integrity of the Polish state. Nazi Germany's invasion triggered World War II, leading to years of Fascist domination, killing 15-20 million in Europe alone and affecting millions more for generations to come. Today, in Ukraine, we again stand at the precipice of a world war. But this time our weapons are considerably more lethal, capable of potentially erasing all of civilization as we know it. Taking a page from Chamberlain's book, French president Emanuel Macron and Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett each spent hours at the Kremlin unsuccessfully negotiating for a peaceful solution to a military conflict manufactured by Russia's criminally deranged, malignantly narcissistic autocrat Vladimir Putin. Claiming that Ukraine in fact does not exist, Putin is exhibiting his appetite for wholesale genocide as his troops attempt to annihilate all of Ukraine to counter unexpectedly strong opposition. This is a strategy he has used before, when, while subduing a separatist uprising in Chechnya in 1994, he flattened its capital Grozny, and again, a decade ago, when he did the same to Aleppo in Syria. The daily, often hourly, graphic depiction of the deterioration of the situation on the ground in Ukraine, and the unending plight of close to two million evacuees to date, are giving my tear ducts a workout. To secure my sanity, I have been advised to limit watching the news. However, I can't erase from my mind that, even when I turn off social media, entire families, including women, children and the elderly, are being slaughtered slightly more than 6,000 miles from here. It is difficult to wrap your mind around what has happened in the short period of time during which a democratic country of 44 million people transitioned from a relatively peaceful existence to facing total annihilation at the gates of hell. Feeling helplessly overwhelmed by emotion, the tendency is to try to make sense of all of this and to figure out how this catastrophe might end. It is pointless to focus on the Russian political system. We are dealing with a consummate autocracy. And virtually all analytical models used by political scientists assume they are working with rational actors. Putin defies rational analysis. Although some descriptions of him may make us feel better, they won't help us. Senator Mitt Romney describes him as "a small, evil, feral-eyed man who is trying to shape the world in the image where once again Russia would be an empire." Others have already branded him a "war criminal." Alex Konanykhin, a Russian businessman based in California, has offered a million dollar bounty for anyone who arrests Putin as a "war criminal" under Russian and international law. Mincing even fewer words, Senator Lindsey Graham openly suggested that "the only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take him out." Malignant narcissists tend to be unpredictable, irrational, ruthless, sadistic and paranoid. If cornered, or when they don't get what they want, they tend to destroy whatever gets in their way - essentially what Putin appears to be doing already today. Emotions are running high and the concern that he won't stop with Ukraine are growing by the day. Vladimir Sorokin, writer in residence at Stanford University, who is intimately familiar with the Russian dictator, cautions that Putin's end goal isn't Ukraine - it's Western civilization - which he hates. Patrick Mulroy, national security analyst for ABC, agrees that the risk of this conflict escalating beyond Ukraine is very high. It could morph into World War III, especially because multiple NATO members surround the current theater. President Biden has been adamant that "the United States will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full force of American power." Since Putin has already defined the sanctions imposed on his country as "acts of war," he probably won't need much more to convince him to venture out. His seizure of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, Europe's largest, could also easily develop into a continent-wide cataclysmic event. While most of his western European supporters are now either recanting their pro-Putin stance or laying low, in our country some vocal admirers have regrettably not changed their tune. Fox News host Tucker Carlson openly continues to side with Putin, suggesting that "only a war-mongering liberal obsessive would fuss over Mr. Putin's prosecution of the faraway conflict." As expected, former president Donald Trump also chimed in, praising Putin, calling him "smart" and suggesting "he is playing [President] Biden like a drum." For the sake of all who are brutally led to the brink of extinction in Ukraine and for the sake of very brave people who are not only fighting for their own survival, but who are putting their lives on the line for all of us, for our way of life, for the democratic principles most of us grew up with, we must stop this calamity at all cost. Our empathy alone won't stop this assault. We must go beyond economic sanctions. They do have an effect and could possibly generate revolutionary pressure within his circle of oligarchs, but they won't stop a cornered madman who feels threatened and is known to employ anything and everything to get his way. The consequences of appeasement as employed by 1939 European governments ought to be compelling. We have no time to waste. Tomorrow could be too late. SLAVA UKRAINI Theo Wierdsma

THE FALSE FLAG FACADE

Recently Western media outlets have adamantly suggested that Russia plans to employ a "false flag" operation intended as an excuse to invade Ukraine, which is now almost entirely encircled by upward of 190,000 of its troops ready to attack. To the uninitiated and for current purposes, a "false flag" event or action (typically political or military in nature) intentionally organized against Russian interests and made to appear as having been perpetrated by opposing forces or terrorists, would give President Vladimir Putin a pretext for military action. Indicators have been that the Russian media has already been laying the groundwork for such a move by trying to convince its public that Ukrainian forces are ready to attack in East Ukraine, the "Donbas," an unrecognized pro-Russian breakaway region, largely controlled by Russian-backed separatist militia units. To raise the stakes, the "Duma," the lower chamber of the Russian parliament recently approved a resolution asking President Putin to recognize the two terrorist controlled territories as independent, pro-Russian, states. The concern has been raised that if he signs this resolution the chances for a provocation will be significantly elevated. Putin has promised in the past that Moscow is ready to protect Russians outside of its borders, many of which live in the area. "False flag" operations, used to justify the initiation of military conflict, are not new. The practice dates back to a time when pirates and privateers used the tactic - flying the flag of a neutral country - to deceive other ships into allowing them to move closer before attacking. Subsequent to the "golden age of piracy" - generally accepted to have been somewhere between 1650 and 1720 - rules of naval warfare were adopted. It remained perfectly legal under Maritime Law to fly a "false flag" to chase an enemy ship or to try to escape. However, it was universally agreed that immediately before an attack a vessel had to fly its national flag. Over time, while the descriptive term stuck and the political necessity to justify aggressive actions grew, the concept morphed into a military tactic. Russia has made use of this method numerous times, most prominently when it secured control over the South Ossetia region in Georgia in 2008, and when it annexed Crimea in 2014. In 2014 masked soldiers in unmarked green army uniforms, carrying modern Russian weapons, occupied and blocked the Simferopol International Airport, most Ukrainian military bases on the Crimean Peninsula and the region's parliament. While Putin claimed that these were local militia, spontaneous self-defense groups, a Russian general soon after confessed that these were actually Russian Spetsnaz troops preparing the area for annexation. The recent media focus on potential "false flag" operations in Ukraine may have given the impression that the practice is typically Russian. Nothing could be further from the truth. The technique has been employed by multiple countries throughout history. Many people still insist that the explosion that destroyed the USS Maine in Havana Harbor in 1898 was in fact a "false flag" operation to give the United States a pretext for the Spanish-American War. The armor plates inside the battleship were blown outward, not inward. Sadly, 255 crew members died. On August 2, 1964, the destroyer USS Maddox was fired upon by three Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin in the South China Sea. Two days later, our National Security Agency fabricated a second, "false flag," attack. Subsequently Congress passed the "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which led to the deployment of ground troops in what would become the Vietnam War. Twenty-five years earlier, covert Nazi operatives, dressed as Polish soldiers, stormed the Gleiwitz radio tower on the German-Polish border. They broadcast a short anti-German message and left behind the bodies of a pro-Polish German farmer and several Dachau concentration camp inmates dressed up in German uniforms. The Nazis used this fabricated "attack" to justify Germany's invasion of Poland the next day. The most famous "false flag" operation was the burning of the Reichstag on the night of February 27, 1933. A lone communist sympathizer, Marinus van de Lubbe, was arrested, charged and executed for setting fire to the German parliament building. Adolph Hitler and his propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels used this excuse to purge Germany of opposition, especially the communists. The sweeping emergency powers Hitler and the Nazis seized after the fire convinced many people that the Reichstag was burned by the Nazis themselves. And between 1979 and 1983, the Israeli secret service instigated a series of car bomb attacks in Lebanon, claimed by the terrorist organization "The Front for the Liberation of Lebanon." Later an Israeli general admitted that the bombings were carried out by his country to justify invading Lebanon. These days most mainstream sites prefer using "conspiracy theories" to "false flags." To many on-line conspiracy theorists the biggest "false flag" operation of all times was the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Many believe that these attacks were deliberately carried out by the U.S. government to justify the subsequent attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. (see: "The Truth About "False Flags" from Nazi Germany and the Vietnam War," Sky History TV Channel). Given the volatile situation surrounding Ukraine, the activity on the ground may well have changed by the time this column is published. But, no matter what happens, the Biden administration's apparent strategy to release intelligence information as it becomes available could keep Putin from employing surprise justifications for a more aggressive posture. If the Russian strongman is at all interested in maintaining any measure of international credibility, he should drop the facade and negotiate for peace. Theo Wierdsma