United States
Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene WAS the female darling of the Republican far-right. No longer. The new girl on the block is 31-year-old Laura Loomer who is so far to the right that right-wing Ms Greene has called her “mentally unstable and a documented liar.”
Ms Loomer is also emerging as a confidante of Donald Trump. She travelled on his plane to the 10 September presidential debate in Philadelphia and is said to have fed him the story about immigrants eating pets in Ohio.
She continued with the former president to New York and was with him when he attended the bipartisan services to commemorate the 9/11 terrorist attack. This despite the fact that Ms Loomer has claimed that 9/11 was an “inside job” perpetrated by the Deep State liberal elite.
Laura Loomer loves right-wing conspiracy theories. In her playbook the mass shootings at Last Vegas, El Paso and Parkland were all staged by the anti-gun lobby. The winter storm that disrupted the Iowa caucus was created by meteorologists hired by Deep State Democrats to help Republican candidate Nikki Haley.
Ms Loomer proudly identifies as an “Islamaphobe.” When told that 2,000 Muslim immigrants had drowned while crossing the Mediterranean, she tweeted: “Good. Here’s to 2,000 more. “
Facebook, Instagram and Twitter have all banned her for spreading hate speech and misinformation, although Elon Musk reinstated her account. She has also been banned by the online banking services Paypal, Gofundme and Venmo. The taxi services Uber and Lyfft have barred her from using their vehicles because of her attempts to ban Muslim taxi drivers. She is suing all of the above – unsuccessfully.
Twice Ms Loomer has run for Congress for a Florida seat. Twice she lost and twice she was endorsed by Donald Trump. She has written for Alex Jones’s Infowars; The Geller Report which pushed the Obama birther lie; Rebel Media which describes as a counter-Jihad platform and Veritas, a major broadcaster of conspiracy theories.
Ms Loomer denies that she is a White Supremacist but proudly admits to being a White Nationalist. She is not a Christian nationalist because she is Jewish and has been the target of death threats from the anti-Semitic wing of America’s far right.
Her loyalty to Donald Trump is rock solid. She told the Washington Post: “If Trump doesn’t get in I don’t have anything. Ms Loomer attacked Florida governor Ron de Santis and his wife for daring to challenge the former president and has advised Trump that he should make a list of those who have challenged him in the courts and elsewhere and, when re-elected president, “execute them for treason.”
United States – more
What if Trump loses? Will there be a repeat of January 6 when rioters stormed the US capitol in a vain attempt to block the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory?
Unlikely. But only because this time around Biden – not Trump – controls the security apparatus. And he has put in place an array of measures to protect not only the capitol building, but the entire metropolitan area of Washington DC.
No. If there is a threat to the election it will be in the voting booths, the counting rooms, the election boards and the courts.
As in 2020, Trump is planting the seeds for a legal challenge in case the vote goes against him. This time his objections will be based on illegal immigrants voting for Harris. He told a rally in Las Vegas this summer that “the only way they can beat us is to cheat.”
In the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin the Trump-controlled Republican National Committee has put 102 election deniers on local and state election boards. In Georgia, for instance, the election deniers control the state-wide board and have already introduced rules that allow them to delay voter certification while they conduct “investigations” into “unspecified irregularities.”
In fact, the Republican National Committee, is not waiting for the election to start its challenges. It has already launched more than 100 lawsuits over election rules. Most of them involve attempts to purge voters from voting lists. In August the RNC sued North Carolina’s election board twice in one week, claiming that it had “once again failed in its mandate to keep non-citizens off the voting roll.” The courts found that the allegations had no foundation.
The Georgia board’s new rules have already clashed with Governor Brian Kemp (a Republican) who responded by setting a deadline for state-wide certification of December 5. But the Trump supporters have indicated that they are prepared to ignore the Governor’s ruling. If that happens the election ends up in the courts.
Both Republicans and Democrats are prepared for courtroom battles. The two parties have hired hundreds of lawyers to fight anticipated legal challenges. Chris La Civita, a key adviser to the Trump campaign, said last month: “It’s not over on election day. It is over on inauguration day.”
Ukraine
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and US President Joe Biden faced a stark choice when they met in Washington this week: Is it riskier to escalate or not escalate the war in Ukraine? The decision will not be made immediately.
Forcing the West into this difficult decision is Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky’s increasingly strident requests for long-range missiles to hit targets in Russia.
There is no doubt that such a move would have a positive impact for Ukraine. So far, the Russian people have been largely shielded from the effects of the war. Ukraine’s military excursion into the Kursk salient has forced the evacuation of thousands and pushed the Russians into the uncomfortable truth that the what is happening in Ukraine is much, much more than a mere “special military operation.” Sending long-range missiles across the border into Russia will reinforce that message and undermine Moscow’s credibility.
But at what price?
Vladimir Putin is backing away from the nuclear sabre-rattling of the early days of the conflict; probably because of Chinese objections.
But the Russian leader made it clear that supplying Ukraine with long-range weaponry is a dark red line which the West crosses at its peril. To underscore, this, Putin has thrown out six British diplomats whom he accused of spying. He then said Ukraine’s use of NATO long-range missiles required data from Western satellites, and that only NATO service personnel could input that data.
This would mean, said Putin, “that NATO countries… are fighting with Russia.”
He said Russia’s response to such a situation would be two-fold. First, Russia would substantially strengthen its missile defense systems. This would probably mean breaching existing arms control agreements. It would also be difficult to achieve because of the vast expanse of Russian territory.
Next, Putin said that Russia would supply similar long-range weaponry to countries opposed to the US and other NATO members. Some of the likely beneficiaries could be North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and possibly factions in Libya, Sudan and West Africa. This is both conceivable and achievable and leaves NATO with the uncomfortable prospect of conflicts on multiple fronts in order to support Ukraine.
Failure to provide Ukraine with long-range missiles also has its consequences. There is a very real possibility that Ukraine will lose the war unless it can force Russia to the negotiating table from a position of strength. The ability to attack targets deep within Russia could give them the required negotiating leverage.
Ukraine is fighting the West’s war. It has the spirit to win but lacks the means. If it loses then Ukraine will effectively become a puppet state in the thrall of Moscow. Russia will have effectively expanded up to its border with Poland and its increased influence will be felt throughout Europe. Putin will also be emboldened to continue to expand into additional territories in Europe and Central Asia.
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and author of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain". To subscribe to his email alerts on world affairs click here.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Morecambe and Wise and Leonard Rossiter
Full slate of Lib Dems in council by-elections
Getting things done - West Port #dundeewestend
Payback time
Katharine Pindar
David Warren
David Raw
19 Comments
What might be the theoretical and practical differences between Russia effectively expanding its border if Ukraine looses this war and the U S A effectively expanding its presence/presence by proxy if Ukraine loses this war?
Might this war have been avoidable?
Might a negotiated settlement be possible?
After the Helsinki 2018 summit Trump tweeted that the USA was to blame for the parlous state of relations with Russia,,,
When questioned about his tweet, despite US Intelligence claims that Russia had interfered in the US, Trump said, “President Putin says it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be.”
Putin must be praying for a Trump win.
@Steve. You ask if this war might have been avoidable. Yes, it would easily have been avoidable: All that needed to happen to avoid it was for Putin to choose not to invade a sovereign country. A negotiated settlement should also be possible: It just requires that Putin withdraw his invading troops out of Ukraine, and stop bombing homes and other civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, etc.
I’ve no idea what you mean by the US expanding its presence by proxy if Ukraine loses, since the US is not currently in the process of invading any other countries.
For example, might any country in NATO have an American presence?
Was/is there forms of American presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Gaza, etc?
Do American forces stationed in Britain count as an A American presence?
>”an American presence”
According to Putin, that’s America providing (remote) weapons targeting support to its friends…
Obviously, also according to Putin, the supply of ballistic missiles by Iran to Russia, is something totally different. I hope NATO takes a long time to make up its mind about extending the use of American weapons to reach targets in Russia, as it is clear Putin is looking at using this as an excuse to deploy his new weapons.
Given the gradual closure of US bases across Europe over the last few decades, American troops exiting Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. and the mood music coming from the Whitehouse, I don’t see a desire for America to expand its permanent presence overseas; unlike some other nations…
The real issue of creeping Americanism, is the resupply of NATO, we (ie. the world outside of the USA) need to ensure we can build our own weapons and not be beholden to whosoever occupies the Whitehouse.
Well yes, American forces stationed in the UK is an ‘American presence’ – but so what? They are here by invitation as part of mutual defence treaty, and are completely benign. You seem to be trying to compare that with Russia invading a sovereign nation, having its troops murder, rape and torture its civilians apparently little more than for the fun of doing so, and indiscriminately bomb civilian targets. They are not at all the same thing.
Iraq and Afghanistan are a bit different, but still very different circumstances, and you might note that in Iraq, US forces did leave peacefully after arranging for the people of Iraq to be able to elect a Government of their own choice – something that Russia is deliberately seeking to deny the people of Ukraine.
Because a person tries to apply critical thinking to the actions of their government and/or its allies does not mean that they do not apply critical thinking to those who are not allies.
Both sets of governments have been avoidably uncaring of regular people and their children and of side effects of violence, as the bombing of Libya demonstrates.
Before being bombed by “benign” Western Allies, Libya was one of the best countries in Africa for regular people and their children to live. Now it has slave markets.
https://warontherocks.com/2014/05/the-consequences-of-natos-good-war-in-libya/
You have only to read the UN resolution on the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya Libya: UN resolution on no-fly zone to know that Libya was not one of the best countries in Africa for regular people and their children to live.
Gaddafi’s rule came to an end during the Arab spring when “Inspired by neighbours to the west and east, Libyans rose up against 40 years of quixotic and often brutal rule in early 2011”Gaddafi’s quixotic and brutal rule
The 2011 UN resolution was not vetoed by Russia to the chagrin of Putin who was PM rather than president at the time. Putin has been responsible for sending agents to murder Alexander Litvinenko and the attempted assinations of the Skripal’s in Britain.
The notoriously corrupt former Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, began the violence in Ukraine. Yanukovych has been accused, by Amnesty International among others, of using the Berkut to threaten, attack, and torture protesters Ukraine: A year after EuroMaydan, justice delayed, justice denied. The Berkut, later disbanded on 25 February 2014, were a special police force under his personal command and were accused of defending Russian interests.
Despite having control of the police and Army and an agreement with the EU to hold elections in six months, Yanukovych abandoned his post and fled to Russia with his loot citing fear for his safety. Contrast that with Zelensky, who when faced with numerous Russian assasination squads converging on Kyiv in February 2022 famously said “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride,”
The Putin regime appears to consider itself at war with Britain and Anglo-Saxon countries in general if not the whole of Nato and the West, regardless of support for Ukraine’s struggle or otherwise. The UK government will have to deal with that reality and the criminal regime that has embedded itself in Russia murdering all political opposition in the course of its rule.
@Steve ‘Might this war have been avoidable?’ Yes. You are right AGAIN
On 6 August 2022 you asked: ‘Why does more blood need to be spilled before starting negotiations?’’
The answer: In April 2022, when Boris Johnson visited Kyiv he urged Zelensky, who AOL said on 3 March called for direct negotiations with Putin, to break off talks with Russia because Putin cannot be negotiated with and the West isn’t ready for the war to end.
Steve, you ask: ‘Might a negotiated settlement be possible?’ Yes
Pope Francis should NOW repeat his 11 March 2022 offer to mediate to Putin.
Since the intervention of the West, are the Libyan’s better off, worse of or about the same off, as they were under the rule led by Mr Gaddafi?
Is it riskier to escalate or not escalate the war in Ukraine?
Keir Starmer’s missile bravado could jeopardise Nato’s careful balancing act in Ukraine
Simon Jenkins
Allowing the use of British long-range missiles against Russia would be a mistake of potentially nuclear proportions
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/16/keir-starmer-nato-ukraine-british-long-range-missiles-russia
Steve – you could also ask the same of Syria, in which the West largely refused to intervene beyond providing some humanitarian assistance. Do you think Syrians are better off or worse off now than they were before the West declined to do anything much around 2011? And what about Afghanistan… do you think Afghanis (and particularly Afghani women) became better off or worse off when the West pulled out of Afghanistan?
Things are a lot more complicated than, nasty West intervening = bad.
The peace deal on offer to Ukraine in April 2022 was much the same kind of ultimatums that had been presented in the Minsk agreements. Victoria Nuland in a recent interview explained the discussions held at the time https://unherd.com/newsroom/victoria-nuland-west-advised-ukraine-to-reject-2022-peace-deal/
“Relatively late in the game the Ukrainians began asking for advice on where this thing was going,” said Nuland. “It became clear to us, clear to the Brits, clear to others, that Putin’s main condition was buried in an annex to this document […] and it included limits on the precise kinds of weapons systems that Ukraine could have […] such that Ukraine would basically be neutered as a military force.”
By contrast, “there were no similar constraints on Russia,” claimed the former diplomat. “Russia wasn’t required to pull back, Russia wasn’t required to have a buffer zone from the Ukrainian border, wasn’t required to have the same constraints on its military facing Ukraine.”
There should be only one basis for a peace settlement that can be endorded by the International community and that is the UN Charter. The alternative is a world where “Might is right” and that’s the end of the UN and the post-WW2 settlement, if it is not over already.
Here is another viewpoint on the part that the U S A played in removing an elected, if corrupt, Ukraine government, possibly because the U S A has a policy of attacking Russia indirectly.
https://truthout.org/articles/the-ukraine-mess-that-nuland-made/
Perhaps similarly, might the foreign powers have colluded to remove an elected, if Soviet inclined government, in Afghanistan?
The article below indicates that in 1986 the U S A, U K and China supplied weapons to those opposing an elected government.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/asia-jan-june11-timeline-afghanistan
The point I hope to make is that in these conflicts which involve major powers manipulating weaker powers for their own ends is fundamentally cruel, avoidable and globally dangerous.
Might it be that there are no “Good Guys” in such matters, including us?
@John Waller – “Pope Francis should NOW repeat his 11 March 2022 offer to mediate to Putin.”
Let us assume his offer is accepted and an agreement is made; how are we going to ensure it is upheld? Perhaps part of Johnson’s pitch was that peace and keeping the post-conflict peace will have a cost.
>”Allowing the use of British long-range missiles against Russia would be a mistake of potentially nuclear proportions”
Remember the Nato long-range missiles is a distraction from the real story: Iran has supplied Russia with ballistic missiles who’s only purpose is to be used against targets outside of Russia.
As I’ve noted previously, the best scenario is for Nato to take its time over this matter, as Putin is looking for an excuse to use these missiles. However, taking your time, doesn’t prevent Ukrainian’s being trained in how to target these missiles…
In the Ukraine war Russia is the aggressor state that has invaded its neighbour. The territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine was guaranteed by Russia, the USA and UK in the 1994 Budapest memorandum in return for Ukraine transferring its nuclear weapons to Russia. In hindsight that guarantee appears to be worth little more than the piece of paper that Neville Chamberlain got from Hitler at Munich in 1938.
President Putin in an interview earlier this year Poland Angrily Responds to Putin’s Claims About Hitler and World War II appears to have claimed that Poland “forced” Hitler to invade by being “uncooperative” with Nazi demands to take territories including Polish city Gdańsk, then known as Danzig.
“[Poland] rejected Hitler’s demands,” Putin said. “Since [Poland] did not give up the Danzig corridor, the Poles nevertheless forced him. They got carried away and forced Hitler to start the Second World War against them first.”
“Why did the war start on September 1, 1939 precisely against Poland?” he continued. “Because it turned out to be uncooperative. Hitler had no choice but to implement his plans, starting specifically with Poland.”
That’s a viewpoint. Perhaps, one that would have been shared by Sir Oswald Mosley, but not one that the British wartime cabinet shared or for that matter any other Briton that was not a card carrying member of the British Union of Fascists.
All countries act in their own interests. Major powers manipulating weaker powers for their own ends is fundamentally cruel, avoidable and globally dangerous. That is why the UN has adopted an explicit charter and why the UN general assembly has roundly condemed Russias invasion of Ukraine UN condemns Russian invasion ahead of anniversary
@Joe burke – “that Poland “forced” Hitler to invade by being “uncooperative” with Nazi demands to take territories including Polish city Gdańsk, then known as Danzig.”
That is an “interesting” (flawed and worrying) line of justification, which is basically saying: a more powerful nation can make an ultimatum containing conditions it knows can not be satisfied, taking territory from their neighbour, and if the neighbour objects, the more powerful nation is justified in using military force.
We should not forget that Putin’s demands include Nato withdrawing from Poland and from the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania(*), so we can assume he has already declared his view that these territories are part of Russia. Thus the war in Ukraine, like the war in Poland being referenced, is about more than just the “small” piece of Ukraine Russia currently occupies.
Applying this doctrine further afield for example to China.
We can see Tibet was “uncooperative” and thus China had to invade.
It is clear the Territorial disputes in the South China Sea also falls under this doctrine, as does the dispute over the annexation of Taiwan…
(*) It is perhaps noteworthy under the Secret Protocol agreed between Stalin and Hitler, Poland was to be shared, while Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Bessarabia went to the Soviet Union. So this perhaps gives in insight, namely Putin sees the Stalin agreed enlargement of the USSR as Russia…
Ukraine needs to win to ensure a peaceful future. Russia needs to lose to regain some perspective though redress will be painful for its population. China will probably be the overall winner in progressing its strategy of more global influence whatever the American presidential result.