SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
keir starmer
Putin Warns of 'Direct' War as US Mulls Letting Ukraine Use Long-Range Western Missiles
"It is a question of deciding whether or not NATO countries are directly involved in a military conflict," said Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Sep 13, 2024
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday that if the United States and the United Kingdom allow Ukraine to strike deep inside Russia with Western missiles, "it will mean nothing less than the direct involvement of NATO countries."
"This is not a question of allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not. It is a question of deciding whether or not NATO countries are directly involved in a military conflict," Putin told Russian state TV. "This will be their direct participation, and this, of course, will significantly change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict."
Putin's remarks came amid reports that U.S. President Joe Biden appears poised to let Ukraine use long-range missiles against Russia, signaling a perilous new phase in a deadly war that has dragged on for two and a half years since Russia's invasion in February 2022.
According toThe New York Times, "President Biden appears on the verge of clearing the way for Ukraine to launch long-range Western weapons deep inside Russian territory, as long as it doesn't use arms provided by the United States."
"The issue, which has long been debated in the administration, is coming to a head on Friday with the first official visit to the White House by Britain's new prime minister, Keir Starmer," the Times reported Thursday. "Britain has already signaled to the United States that it is eager to let Ukraine use its 'Storm Shadow' long-range missiles to strike at Russian military targets far from the Ukrainian border. But it wants explicit permission from Mr. Biden in order to demonstrate a coordinated strategy with the United States and France, which makes a similar missile."
Ahead of the decision, the Pentagon pointed to Iran's alleged transfer of ballistic missiles to Russia as further reason to bolster Ukraine's military capabilities. A spokesperson for Iran's foreign ministry said in response that "the publication of false and misleading reports about the transfer of Iranian weapons to some countries is simply ugly propaganda to conceal the large illegal arms support of the United States and some Western countries for the genocide in Gaza."
Ukraine, which has received roughly $55.7 billion in military assistance from the U.S. since February 2022, has already launched repeated drone attacks deep inside Russia, but Western permission for Kyiv to use long-range missiles could be a dire escalation.
As Politiconoted, Moscow could retaliate against a long-range missile strike on Russia by hitting "a target inside NATO, such as the critical weapons supply hub in the Polish city of Rzeszów." Such an exchange could result in direct conflict between the nuclear-armed powers.
"Military experts argue any guidelines agreed for the British weapons at the two-hour summit in Washington could also then pave the way for the Ukrainians to fire U.S.-supplied ATACMS—a tactical ballistic missile system—at airfields and army bases deep inside Russia," the outlet observed.
The potential intensification and spread of the war comes as the prospect of a diplomatic resolution appears nonexistent, at least in the near term.
Aída Chávez, communications director and policy adviser at Just Foreign Policy, wrote for The Intercept earlier this week that members of the U.S. Congressional Progressive Caucus were "pilloried" over an October 2022 letter urging Biden to "make vigorous diplomatic efforts in support of a negotiated settlement and ceasefire, engage in direct talks with Russia, explore prospects for a new European security arrangement acceptable to all parties that will allow for a sovereign and independent Ukraine, and, in coordination with our Ukrainian partners, seek a rapid end to the conflict and reiterate this goal as America's chief priority."
Today, Chávez wrote, the progressives who signed the letter—which was ultimately withdrawn by the CPC leadership—"look more prescient than ever."
"Since the ill-fated letter, the war has ground on—with devastating results for the people of Ukraine," Chávez continued. "Ukraine is not in a position to win the war, nor does it have a stronger bargaining position in talks than it did in late 2022 when the CPC letter came out."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Austerity Is Labour's Choice': Outrage as Starmer Cuts Winter Fuel Allowance
"Cutting winter fuel allowance is not a tough choice," Jeremy Corbyn said. "It's the wrong choice—and we will not be fooled by ministers' attempts to feign regret over cruel decisions they don't have to take."
Sep 11, 2024
Progressive critics and lawmakers are expressing outrage after the U.K. Parliament on Tuesday voted to cut a winter fuel allowance for millions of Britons, calling the move by the ruling Labour Party, which took power in July, a continuation of the Conservative Party's austerity policies.
The measure turns the allowance, which provides £200 to £300 ($262 to $293) per year to senior citizens for heating bills, into a means-tested program in which only the poorest will qualify. It's expected to reduce the number of people receiving the winter payment from 11.4 million last year to 1.5 million this year. Prime Minister Keir Starmer called it a "tough choice" that was necessary because of the poor state of the British treasury.
A vote to overturn the cut lost 348 to 228 on Tuesday after Labour successfully whipped enough its members of Parliament into supporting the cut. Fifty two Labour MPs abstained, at least 20 of whom had expressed opposition to the plan, and one voted in opposition.
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who now represents voters as an independent, condemned Starmer's move.
"Cutting winter fuel allowance is not a tough choice," Corbyn wrote on social media. "It's the wrong choice—and we will not be fooled by ministers' attempts to feign regret over cruel decisions they don't have to take."
"Did he get permission from the Tories to reuse their trademark slogans?" he asked of Starmer in an a Tuesday op-ed in Tribune.
Under the headline, "Austerity Is Labour's Choice," Corybn railed against Starmer and his allies for falling back on the kind of neoliberalism that has dominated the U.K. for decades. He wrote:
It is astonishing to hear government ministers try to pull the wool over the public's eyes. The government knows that there is a range of choices available to them. They could introduce wealth taxes to raise upwards of £10 billion. They could stop wasting public money on private contracts. They could launch a fundamental redistribution of power by bringing water and energy into full public ownership. Instead, they have opted to take resources away from people who were promised things would change. There is plenty of money, it’s just in the wrong hands.
The winter fuel payment was introduced as an unconditional cash transfer in 1997 under then-Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown. Some economists have argued that U.K. pensioners are in better position today than than were then, and thus the payment no longer makes sense; others have noted that in real terms, the payment is far lower than it used to be, due to inflation, and thus had become a relatively insignificant benefit anyway.
However, progressives have called the cuts, which were first proposed after Labour took office and weren't mentioned during the election campaign, far too drastic, given the roughly 10 million people they'll effect. Meanwhile, Corbyn and others have argued that Labour's move marks a loss for universalism and could auger more cuts to come:
A universal system of welfare reduces the stigma attached to those who rely on it, and removes barriers for those who find it difficult to apply (both are reasons why the take-up of means-tested payments is so low). What next for means testing? The state pension? The NHS [National Health Service]?
Some commentators have objected to rich pensioners receiving benefits such as the fuel allowance. Progressives have responded that the money should simply be clawed back through higher tax rates on the wealthy.
"In my view the government should be looking to raise revenues from the wealthiest in society, not working class pensioners," Jon Trickett, the only Labour MP to vote to nix to the cut, said in a statement issued on social media.
Universal programs make it easier to reach all those who need help, progressives argue. The new winter fuel payment will be set up so that only those who receive a Pension Credit or other similar government benefit will be eligible for it. But only 63% of pensioners who qualify for the credit actually receive it, government statistics show. The government has announced a campaign to try to increase uptake of the credit.
Trickett said that he feared it would lead more senior citizens to fall into poverty during what he predicted would be an "extremely difficult" winter for his constituents in West Yorkshire. "After years of obscene profiteering by energy companies, they are hiking bills yet again," he wrote.
Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said the cut would save the treasury £1.4 billion ($1.8 billion) this year. She argues that the Conservatives, who held power from 2010 until July, initially as part of a coalition, left the national finances in a dire state and Labour must fill a £22 billion ($28.7 billion) budgetary "black hole."
Labour hasn't released an official impact assessment of the winter payment measure. Reeves, like Starmer, has said she didn't want to make the cut, but two weeks ago a video clip of her proposing to cut the allowance as an opposition MP in 2014.
Rachel Reeves has repeatedly said she didn't want to cut the universal winter fuel allowance for pensioners but it was a tough decision forced on her because of the financial black hole left by the last govt
Here's Reeves 10 years ago: pic.twitter.com/1BAIL4racv
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) August 28, 2024
Reeves and Starmer have long tried to establish their fiscal prudence and distance themselves from purportedly free-spending progressives in their party. A progressive commentator on Novara Mediacalled their winter allowance cut an "incredible political fumble."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Admission of Guilt': UK Suspends Some Arms Export Licenses to Israel Over Gaza
"Finally—but this is both too little and too late," said the International Center of Justice for Palestinians.
Sep 02, 2024
As governments enabling Israel's devastating war on the Gaza Strip face growing global demands to impose arms embargoes, a U.K. minister on Monday announced the suspension of approximately 30 of 350 weapons export licenses.
"This is not a blanket ban. This is not an arms embargo," stressed U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy, part of Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour Party, which took control of the government after voters ended 14 years of Conservative rule in July.
While describing himself as a "friend of Israel" and "a liberal, progressive Zionist," Lammy said that "it is this government's legal duty to review export licenses" and "the assessment I have received leaves me unable to conclude anything other than that for certain U.K. arms exports to Israel, there does exist a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law."
The targeted licenses are for "equipment that we assess is for use in the current conflict in Gaza, such as important components which go into military aircraft, including fighter aircraft, helicopters, and drones, as well as items which facilitate ground targeting," Lammy told the U.K. Parliament. The remaining exports "will continue" and "the government will keep our position under review."
According to the Financial Times:
The move will not affect components for the multinational F-35 joint striker fighter program, except regarding parts sent directly to Israel.
U.K. officials determined that suspending critical components within a global pool of spare parts could harm the maintenance and operations of F-35s in other nations.
"When Israel is carrying out a genocidal assault in Gaza, we shouldn't just ban a small fraction of arms licenses to Israel,"
said Zarah Sultana, a Labour Party member who represents Coventry South in Parliament. "This ban still allows the U.K. to sell parts for F-35 fighter jets, known as 'the most lethal' in the world. The government needs to ban ALL arms sales."
Stop the War Coalition
called the suspension "an admission of guilt" and similarly stressed that "we need a full, comprehensive ban on arms sales to apartheid Israel—not this half-hearted approach."
Lammy's announcement came as the Danish news outlet
Information and NGO Danwatch connected Israel's use of an F-35 stealth fighter to a July 13 attack on an Israeli-designated "safe zone" in southern Gaza, which killed scores of Palestinians and injured hundreds more.
In a statement responding to both developments, Sam Perlo-Freeman, research coordinator for the Campaign Against Arms Trade,
said:
The government's statement today that it is suspending 30 arms export licenses to Israel is a belated, but welcome move, finally acting upon the overwhelming evidence of Israeli war crimes in Gaza. But exempting parts for Israel's F-35 is utterly outrageous and unjustifiable.
These are by far the U.K.'s most significant arms supplies to the Israeli military, and just today we have confirmation that they have been used in one of the most egregious attacks in recent months. The government has admitted that there is a 'clear risk' that Israel is using fighter aircraft among other weapons to violate international humanitarian law. How can this 'clear risk' not apply to the F-35s? The only right and legal course of action is to end the supply of F-35 parts to Israel, along with the rest of U.K. arms sales.
Although the suspension is not as bold as critics of Israel's bombardment have called for, it was still seen as another positive step under Starmer, whose government has also recently resumed funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and dropped a challenge to the International Criminal Court prosecutor's request for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant as well as Hamas leaders.
While Gallant said he was "deeply disheartened" by the U.K.'s latest move, Dearbhla Minogue, senior lawyer for the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), declared that "this momentous decision vindicates everything Palestinians have been saying for months."
GLAN and Al-Haq on Saturday had threatened the U.K. government with new legal action if it failed to engage the suspension mechanism following revelations in The Guardian and The Telegraph regarding communications between Attorney General Richard Hermer and the Foreign Office about weapons sales to Israel.
"The U.K. government was backed into a corner," Minogue said Monday. "Our most recent letter showed that a suspension was the only right and legal thing to do. This is a truly historic victory for Al-Haq and for Palestinians. The exhaustive evidence we filed in mid-August showed that there was only one legally sound decision available to the government—that it is against the law to supply Israel with weapons for use against Palestinians in Gaza."
Both groups are now considering their next actions. Fellow GLAN lawyer Charlotte Andrews-Briscoe emphasized, "Now that the government has taken this important step, it must do much, much more, and abide by its obligations under international law to do everything in its power to prevent the commission of genocide."
Israel faces an ongoing South Africa-led genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its nearly 11-month assault on Gaza, which has killed at least 40,786 Palestinians, injured another 94,224, and forcibly displaced most of the enclave's 2.3 million residents, who are struggling to find food, water, shelter, and adequate medical care.
The Associated Pressreported that "British firms sell a relatively small amount of weapons and components to Israel compared to major suppliers such as the U.S. and Germany. Earlier this year, the government said military exports to Israel amounted to £42 million ($53 million) in 2022."
Still, the suspension could increase pressure on other allies of Israel to take similar action and
strain relations with the U.S. government—which, under President Joe Biden, has showered Israel with weapons and diplomatic support since the current escalation of the decadeslong conflict began in October.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular