Sliding into Oppression – USA Gov Policy

In the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, many believed that the former totalitarian state would become more like the western democracies. A similar view was expressed when the Clinton Administration ended most restrictions on trade with China.

Those hopes have been clearly dashed. Even more disturbing, it is the United States that is changing, increasingly resembling in its economics and in the unethical conduct of far too many leading politicians, those two socialist giants.

Politics in America, as in all other nations, is a tough practice, with frequently vicious name-calling and occasionally underhanded practices. Never before, however, have the powers of the federal government been so openly deployed for partisan purposes. Never before has the use of outright lies been so accepted a practice.

There is a specific reason why this has occurred. In the past, the press has always acted as a safety valve when one side or the other broke the rules. The wrongdoers were exposed, and the abuses were curtailed. That safeguard has been abolished as the overwhelming majority of news, search engine and even entertainment outlets have openly and vehemently abandoned both bipartisanship and respect for accuracy or honesty.

The current crisis began during the Obama Administration. To a far greater measure than had ever occurred previously, the 44^th president used the assets of the federal government to suppress and attack contrary views. The IRS assaulted the Tea Party. The Department of Justice attacked critics of the president. In what may be one of the most controversial programs ever initiated by a federal agency, the Federal Communications Commission attempted to commence an effort entitled “critical information needs” (known as CIN) involving Washington oversight of broadcasters and journalists throughout America. It would have placed government employees in the private internal conversations and meetings of journalists, media organizations, and even internet sites. The message was clear: you must agree with the Left or face the consequences. Fortunately, the attempt was defeated.

Lies that would have humiliated any other President were wholly ignored by the media. (Remember “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?”)

The flip side of harassing opponents of the Democratic Party leadership was in allowing that party’s leaders to violate the law and ethical practices with impunity. Hillary Clinton destroyed federal evidence, profited from the sale of uranium to Russia, and lied about Benghazi. She was given a free pass for practices that would have landed any other American in federal prison.

Groups supportive of the Left received a free pass. Antifa and Black Live Matter activists burned buildings, looted stores, took over police precincts, established “Autonomous Zones,” and assaulted innocent bystanders. Even as fires raged in the background, network reporters assured viewers that these were “peaceful protests.”

These practices did not reach its inappropriate and unlawful crescendo, however, until the election of 2016. What has now been completely proven to be an utterly false narrative was, with the assistance of biased members of the FBI, a former CIA head, and Department of Justice partisans, gleefully foisted on the public by the media. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Ca.) assured all that he had “incontrovertible evidence” of a link between Donald Trump and the Kremlin. When it became evident that Schiff clearly lied, and that officials of the FBI and the Department of Justice acted falsely, few press outlets called for their prosecution, or at least their public humiliation.

Those same media, political, and Democrat Party officials deluded the public in the 2020 election. The voters were assured that their candidate, Joe Biden, was a moderate who failed to campaign in the usual manner due to COVID concerns. It has become evident that mental health issues which should have disqualified his candidacy were being hidden. His administration’s policies are the most extreme in U.S. history. Voters thought they were getting an old-time, experienced centrist. What they got was an administration devoted to the principles of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Freed from the exposure an honest media would provide, the language of oppression is getting more severe. Parents who seek to stop the use of Leftist propaganda in schools are labelled “domestic terrorists.” Speakers not devoted to Leftist ideas are chased out of public forums, sometimes violently. White House officials openly mock reporters who ask probing questions.

Despite the unprecedented failures of the Biden Administration, the press continues its completely partisan stance of downplaying its overwhelming disasters at home and abroad.

Putin puts his opponents in jail. The Chinese Communist Party “disappears” dissidents. The U.S. media simply ignores facts, refuses to report the truth, and overlooks the abuse of federal power to harass Administration opponents. It may not be long until those more violent practices from the Kremlin and Beijing are employed here if current trends continue.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.