THE RUSSIAN WAR ON UKRAINE -- PRELUDE TO WORLD WAR III?

I have always thought that I was born 600 or 20 years after my time.  An earlier birth would have placed me in the days of armored knights, gentle ladies, Gothic spires, and illuminated manuscripts.  A later birth would have enabled me to grow up in the dance band era and go to the last good war, if any war can be called good.  I think some can.

 

I compensated.  I read Malory’s Le Morte D’Arthur and listened to the big bands—Basie, Ellington, Goodman, Miller, and many others.  I read histories of both periods.  I have a special affinity for the Second World War, most of which I lived through and some of which I remember: barrage balloons flying over our house and heading for the Flats along the Cuyahoga to protect Cleveland from the imagined threat of German bombers; ration books; and Arthur Godfrey’s broadcast of Roosevelt’s funeral procession up Pennsylvania Avenue.  I augmented my recollections with books and films about the war.  I thrilled to the air battles in the Battle of Britain and admired the RAF, which made the protection of England the prelude to victory.  A British ex-pat told me that, in his day, when an old man with an RAF lapel pin walked by, people stopped and applauded; he and his fellow fighter pilots were gods on earth.  I was stirred by the critical Battle of Midway, which, in five minutes, changed US war strategy.  In that astonishing moment, Navy pilots sank three Japanese aircraft carriers, ended the threat of an attack on the West Coast, and allowed Roosevelt to turn east to focus on defeating Germany.

 

And now there is the war in Ukraine—another “Battle of Britain,” another Churchill.  There is almost a pre-war European fecklessness about it.  Despite the 1919 Treaty of Versailles and the 1938 Munich Agreement—“peace in our time”—, Germany re-occupied the Saar in 1936, invaded Austria in 1938, and occupied German areas of Czechoslovakia in 1939.  Seeing the inaction of the League of Nations and the countries of Western Europe, Germany attacked Poland on 1 September 1939.  By not heading off Germany in 1936 (probably to preserve the Olympic Games in Berlin), the West allowed Germany to arm for war and to initiate it.  But for a heroic stand by England, Hitler might have won.

 

No lessons learned.  Since 1991, Russia has initiated or involved itself in fourteen separate conflicts, most on its borders.  It invaded and seized Crimea and other parts of Ukraine in 2014.  Western European countries and the US did very little about it.  Their inaction hardly justified further Russian aggression but clearly implied allied reluctance to resist aggression at the periphery.  Following the example of President Obama’s “leadership from the rear,” US allies did little or nothing on their own.  I do not apologize for Trump, but he believed what Putin believed: that NATO was spineless.

 

And then came 24 February 2022.  Without provocation, Russia attacked Ukraine.  To everyone’s surprise, Ukraine, rallied by a remarkable man rising to the threat to his country’s existence, repulsed the attack with weapons at hand.  (How many ironies: a Jewish leader guiding one mainly antisemitic Christian people against another mainly antisemitic Christian people.)  With NATO support, Ukrainians have gone on the offensive, reconquered some lost territory, and resolved to liberate the rest of it.

 

Meanwhile, under President Biden’s leadership, the US has committed political, economic, and military aid to Ukraine.  Biden recognizes that this war is virtually an existential one for democratic countries.  Yet, like Roosevelt before him, he confronts opposition from both sides of the political spectrum.  On the Right, institutionalists support authoritarianism; on the Left, individualists support pacificism.  Both support isolationism.

 

I expect the Right—conservatives, Republicans, and the radical right (Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Three Percenters)—to support autocrats.  During the Cold War, the Right thought that this armed peace froze a conflict between two economic systems: American capitalism and Russian communism.  But the real conflict was less between different economic systems than between different political systems, Western democracy and Russian autocracy.  Russia’s Ukrainian incursion has clarified the nature of this conflict.  It has both accentuated the autocratic nature of Russian government and triggered the impulses of Americans on the Right who believe that autocracy is necessary to ensure the rule of a white, Christian, patriarchal oligarchy.  Thus, the American Right—the Steve Bannons, the Tucker Carlsons, the Steve Millers—has become enamored of autocrats in Russia, Hungary, even Israel, and elsewhere.

 

I expect the Left—liberals, Democrats, and Progressives—to insist that international conflicts can be resolved by diplomatic conversations leading to kumbaya moments of reconciliation and transformation.  They so much want peace that they believe that everyone else wants peace and peaceful living.  But no law of nature or politics says that the Left cannot be as naïve, ideological, and resistant to the lessons of history as the Right.  Among them are the facts of Russian culture and history.  Its culture is exalted for its ballet, music, literature, and architecture—the sum of its contribution to civilization.  The rest, its history, is barbarism.  Russia has never had a political philosophy; a concept of the individual, of society, of their political relationship; only a practical rule that might makes right, with “right” a misnomer for the wishes of the mighty.  Instead of the rule of law upheld by a system of justice, its laws are merely the edicts of the mighty whose control of Russia is effected by violence, imprisonment, torture, execution, or exile.  As power seeks more power and fears its loss, Russia has always been imperialistic, paranoic, untrustworthy.  It honors promises, conventions, and treaties only as long as compliance serves its interests and as non-compliance would go unpunished.

 

So the Right, enamored of autocratic Russia, wants to help it by reducing or ending US support for Ukraine.  It identifies Russian aggression against Ukrainian democracy as akin to its efforts to undermine or overthrow American democracy, in which whites, though not displaced, will become a minority among minorities.  The Left, enamored of peace at any price, wants to negotiate an end to hostilities.  Its appeal fails to distinguish its position from the Right’s.  It would eventually give Russia what it wants and thereby establish a precedent justifying, if not encouraging, future Russian aggression.  Both sides would leave Russia in possession of Ukrainian people and territory, excuse it for fighting a war of aggression, and abide its war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Its violations include targeting civilian populations, residential areas, and infrastructure; separating children from their parents, deporting them to Russia, and arranging adoption in Russian families; and torturing or killing civilians and POWs alike.

 

Although I oppose the Right, I am appalled by the Left, so eager for peace that it has not bothered to offer a rationale for thinking that diplomatic negotiations can work and a durable peace can be achieved.  Such a rationale would address many questions which it leaves unanswered.  Perhaps the major question is whether any diplomatic resolutions would not merely defer whack-a-mole outbreaks of Russian incursions, again in Ukraine, eventually in the Baltic countries, eventually in the Balkan countries, and likely along its Asian boundaries.  Other questions include:

 

Did Russia violate international treaties and norms by launching an unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine?

 

Is there any justification under international law for allowing Russia to retain control of pre-2014 Ukrainian territory?

 

Should Russia withdraw from all or only some of Ukrainian territory seized and occupied in and after 2014?  If only some, why?

 

Can Russia be contained and prevented from aggressive attacks on its neighbors?

 

What provisions would satisfy concerns about Russian aggression against neighboring states?

 

What is the basis for trusting Russia to comply with agreed-upon terms ending hostilities and with any agreement including assurance of non-recurrence?

 

Should Russia compensate Ukraine for destroying civilian and military infrastructure during hostilities?

 

Should Russia be held accountable for its violations of treaties, conventions, and norms?

 

Should Russia be denied continued membership in international organizations or have its participation in these organizations restricted?  In particular, should it retain its membership on the Security Council or in the United Nations?

 

Until the Left can—the Right cannot—give persuasive, not wishful or ideological, answers to these questions, the only responsible US policy is to give unwavering, generous political, economic, and military aid to Ukraine, and to support post-war arrangements which reduce Russia’s capabilities to undertake aggression.

CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE ABOUT LEGAL DEFORMITIES IN LAS CRUCES

FLASH: City Attorney Jennifer Vega has left office.  Until recently, almost no one knew that she had departed in early November, although the city had posted the opening on 22 December.  The Mayor, a Councilor, or the City Manager may (or not) have noted her departure in a City Council meeting, but, apparently, neither Justin Garcia nor Damien D. Willis, Sun-News reporters, noticed or investigated her absence from the dais.  So the paper failed to report her departure either by resignation (letter submitted) or firing (statement issued) and the reasons for it.  Neither Councilor Kasandra Gandara nor News Director Jessica Onsurez has replied to my questions or comments on Vega’s exit.  Not surprisingly, Vega’s covert departure, once discovered, prompts rumor and speculation.

 

Rumor first.  The 2-year delay in filling the position of Independent Auditor reflected a conflict between Vega and a well-qualified and likely successor.   The reasons for the delay were flimsy.  When further delay became impossible, Vega quit before a rival and potential threat arrived.

 

Speculations second.  One, Vega had something to hide.  Given public knowledge of her successful whistleblower lawsuit, with its $500,000 settlement, and personal knowledge of her as a liar and libeler, I can easily imagine her capable of subversive or nefarious behavior.  Vega skedaddled before a civil or criminal case could be filed.

 

Two, the City had something to hide, like Vega’s incompetent, corrupt, even criminal, conduct now exposing the city to legal risks.  Vega got a pre-emptive settlement, signed a “non-disclosure agreement,” and agreed to skip town to save it more trouble and money.

 

If either or both of these speculations were true, the incoming Independent Auditor is likely to have much to do but will encounter strong resistance from the political powers-that-be because the damage to the city, financial and reputational, would be substantial.

 

Meanwhile, just a week ago, Peter Goodman’s column “Amelia Baca Is Still Dead – Authorities Are Still Silent” appeared in the digital but, unusually, not the print edition of the Sun-News.  Given his previous column on the killing, with its misplaced sympathy for the good people on both sides, I am impressed that Goodman has finally, powerfully confronted the shameful performance of the legal community in this case.  I hope for no unusual omission if he ever again speaks truth to power.

 

Goodman’s column deserves wide distribution.  Yet I have three quibbles: the phrase “In his defense,” the word “curses,” and the phrase “our collective state of mind.”  What Officer Cosper first believed cannot defend his later conduct in the situation, especially after he got information and advice from the family.  “Curses” euphemizes his angry, profanity-laced, five-times-shouted order to “drop the fucking knives” in his encounter with his demented, unaggressive victim and thus fails to provide the proper perspective for viewing his killing.  How “our collective state of mind” bears on what went wrong escapes me, for I do not subscribe to Jungian psychology or Zen Buddhism.

 

Amelia Baca Is Still Dead - Authorities Are Still Silent

Peter Goodman (5 Feb)

 

Amelia Baca is still dead.

 

She was killed April 16^th, 2022, by Las Cruces Police Officer, Jared Cosper. He’s back on duty since November, although not on patrol.

 

The city government has still not explained why Cosper is back on the job. The city has also never explained why the first video the city showed us was a propaganda piece edited to defend the officer – not to share the facts and seek the right course of action. Apparently Cosper’s conduct was acceptable to the city administration.

 

Prosecutors have still not ventured to say whether this killing was a crime.

 

If you’ve seen the video of the shooting, you have an opinion. The video is clear and vivid.

 

It shouldn’t be that hard to watch the video and interviews of Cosper and the few witnesses, review his training, his file, LCPD practices, and the law, and decide whether or not to charge him with a crime.

 

The local task force finished its investigation June 21. Our DA said a decision “could take several days,” then punted to the AG’s Office on July 31.

 

Hector Balderas accomplished nothing.

 

Our new AG, Raul Torrez, I know slightly and respect. Recently Bernalillo County District Attorney, he has ample expertise. I urge him to provide us some response to this very significant public question this month.

 

Cosper approaches the house, gun drawn. In his defense, he had reason to believe Sra. Baca, 76, was demented and might have threatened someone. She was a diminutive Mexican-American lady who spoke no English. As he arrives, he tells everyone to come outside. Her daughter and granddaughter emerge, not appearing frightened. The granddaughter urges Cosper to “be gentle with her.”

 

Amelia Baca stands in the doorway. She’s frightened or confused. Her left hand holds two knives, pointed downward. She never raises either or makes a threatening motion. Nor does she drop them. Cosper shouts and curses. She knows no English. Cosper attempts no Spanish. The other ladies are trying to explain something to him.

 

Ms. Baca does not rush toward him. She probably feels closer to Cosper than she looks on wide-angle video. He has ample room to step back. She seems to take a half-step into the doorway. He fires a shot into her chest.

 

If I seem to be arguing the prosecutor’s case, I’m not. These are basic facts. What they mean legally is for the AG’s Office to say, and then, perhaps, prove to a judge or jury. (If conviction appears even slightly more likely than acquittal, the prosecution should charge Cosper.)

 

I do believe that something went awfully wrong here. Whether or not Cosper’s training, experience, and state of mind insulate him from criminal penalties, something is damned wrong. The problem could be LCPD hiring or training, the LCPD administration, Cosper himself, our collective state of mind, or all of these. We must identify and fix what’s wrong.

 

Not making a clear public statement is a huge insult to Amelia Baca and her family. It’s a huge insult to you and me, and to the male Hispanic lawyer who told me he’d be afraid to report anything to the police. The silence is delaying serious efforts at improvements. Not meaningfully addressing the disproportionate number of questionable killings by Las Cruces police is an insult to all officers and citizens, particularly citizens of color.

 

City and Attorney-General’s Office: please stop insulting us. Honor Sra. Baca. Do your jobs.

SPINDLE THE SWINDLE; CITY LOCATES MY WATER LEAK

I was wrong, and the city was right: I had a leak.  However, my unusual water bills showing large, winter-time fluctuations reflected a rare, anomalous leak.

 

In three previous blogs, I have taken the Water Section of the Utilities Department to task for billing me for water usage fluctuating from 3,000 to 12,000 gallons per month, peaking between January through March, precisely those months when usage is the basis for wastewater consumption fees.  For each of 4 years, its personnel blamed a leak, but no one in the Water Section or on the Utility Board of Commissioners could detect it, large pools, or even patches of wet soil; could explain the fluctuations; or could suggest its location.  The harder I pressed for an explanation, the more suspicious the avoidance of one became and the more doubtful of a leak I became.

 

Two weeks ago, presumably irritated by my three blogs, the Water Section sent out an A-Team whose members thoroughly inspected my house and yard.  By projecting the course of the water line from meter to house, they pointed to the probable location of the leak near some mature vegetation.  I accepted their suggestion and hypothesized the reason for the magnitude, regularity, and seasonality of the fluctuation in my annual billing cycle: tree roots.  They were pushing against the pipe and creating a leak.  In the fall, sap descending into the roots swelled them, increased the pressure on the pipe, and enlarged the leak; in the spring, sap rising from the roots reduced the swelling, decreased the pressure on the pipe, and shrunk the leak.

 

My plumber dug a pit nearly two-and-a-half feet deep before finding the pipe, a damaged fitting, and the source of the leak.  He made the repairs with a more robust fitting, and I have taken additional steps to prevent root pressure from causing a repeat.  My water usage has dropped dramatically.

 

I am pleased to clear the city of my suggestions of a swindle.  But I do not clear the city of some responsibility for my suspicions and doubts.  As the lead member of the A-Team said to me, the Water Section should have investigated my complaint immediately because the fluctuations were anomalous and rare.  I suggested that it should have taken a problem-solving approach instead of a one-size-fits-all response to my complaint.  My take-away: the Water Section has a poor attitude and takes a lazy approach to customer service, and fails to make the extra effort in the first place for everyone’s benefit.

 

To the A-Team, great thanks for a job well—finally—done!

POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY--ASPIRATION UNREALISTIC IN LAS CRUCES

I have bad news for all—the few—Las Cruceans who call for police accountability: there will never, ever, be police accountability in Las Cruces.  It requires something not in its culture or its citizens.

 

Accountability means rendering an account of conduct, a reckoning of responsibility based on the facts of that conduct.  The indispensable requirement of accountability is truthfulness, or honesty, a requirement which local government and law enforcement personnel cannot and will not meet.  Whether police misconduct occurs in cases of code violations, misdemeanors, or felonies, these people do not and will not tell the truth.  Instead, they ignore it, twist it, hide it, or deny it; they do not tell it or act on it.

 

Consider officials’ responses to minor violations in my case.  Animal Control Officer Juan Valles charged me with five phony violations.  IA investigator Sergeant Sean Mullen found them unsupported but buried his one-sentence finding at the end of a six-page report made long by irrelevant details.  IA Chief Barbara Kinney closed the investigation with a letter mentioning none of the phony violations.  Police Chief Patrick Gallagher lied that a citizen, not Valles, had made all five complaints, including three about defective paperwork.  Councilor Kasandra Gandara, who knew from the beginning that the charges were false and heard Gallagher lie did nothing about the charges or the lie.  Councilor Johana Bencomo heard City Manager Ifo Pili admit that the charges were phony and that I was due an apology; when she (and all other City Councilors) learned that City Attorney Jennifer Vega had squelched the apology, she and they did nothing.  Vega later lied that the charges were true and “well documented.”  Mayor Ken Miyagishima broke his promise that I could present my case to OIR and persuaded City Council, with Bencomo’s pointed endorsement, to exclude it from review.  In short, false charges, lies, cover-up, dereliction of duty—no accountability.

 

[Political note: Gandara, who will seek the mayoralty, will do nothing about police reform (she is too close to the City Attorney to lead or support that effort).  Bencomo, who talks about accountability either does not know what it means and requires, or knows but is too weak to act—hers is the hypocrisy of preaching, not practicing.]

 

Consider officials’ responses to a felony in the case of Sra. Amelia Baca.  On 16 April 2022, Office Jared Cosper killed Sra. Amelia Vega.  His report of his action has not been released, but, in all likelihood, it more rationalizes than recounts his conduct.  If it is like reports filed by officers in cases involving the use of force or weapons, it is probably false in important particulars.  Police Chief Miguel Dominguez attempted to deceive the public with a PR film biased for Cosper and against Sra. Baca, made no public statement for a week until the PR film had been released, and had no comment when the unedited footage had been released after an IPRA request.  The LCPD charged Cosper with nothing and returned him to duty in November.  Then, in a conflict of interest, Dominguez led five other LCPD officers to a task force review of its “independent” investigation in a direct conflict of interest.  Yet neither the Mayor nor any Councilor demanded answers about this perverse police handling of the police killing of a local citizen.  In short, the Chief’s effort to deceive the public, his failure to inform the public, the delay in and lack of legal action—no accountability.  (For a blistering editorial on the Baca case, see Peter Goodman’s “Amelia Baca and the Authorities,” Sun-News, 23-02-05.)

 

Local government and law enforcement personnel are prone to dishonesty.  It is a mainstay of the culture and the citizenry.  The police are just like us, and we are just like them, so they say.  It is a conventional means to neutralize controversial issues.  It is necessary to avoid offending LCPD police and prevent “blue flu.”  It is necessary to deter law suits or curtail legal costs.  It is built into the organization of city government.  Vega, a lawyer with professional obligations to the law and the truth, ignores dishonesty in fulfilling conflicting roles and responsibilities of the City Attorney: as City Attorney, representing and defending the city in all cases on the one hand; as Risk Manager, reducing or eliminating damage from actual or potential legal liabilities on the other hand.  City Council values her dishonesty because of law suits avoided or settlements abated.

 

In a city government which perverts truth and scorns honesty across a range of cases from the most trivial (like mine) to the most serious (like Baca’s), the likelihood of elected officials, administration officers, or police leaders holding others accountable is zero.  Until citizens realize that accountability requires truthfulness, or honesty, by all parties to a problem, they should realize that any aspiration for police accountability is unrealistic.

THE LAST OF THE THREE GREAT ONES: AN ADVANCE MEMORIAL

The Great Ones were the leaders of my pack of dogs and cats—and me, too, after a fashion.  All were males.  In my mind, they were a brotherhood.

 

Malcolm, a Golden Retriever, was the first.  He was my first family’s dog, adopted my son, and showed what love, loyalty, and looks—he was drop-dead handsome—could be in a dog.

Cowboy, a Collie/Chow blend, was my second family’s dog—family being my wife and me only—, a playmate of the dogs and cats, and protector of all.  In his frail, later years, he had the energy to play with and train his successor, who respected him as his elder.

 That successor is Cassio, who came to me as a rescue—all my dogs (and cats) are rescues—who had nearly been beheaded when someone wrapped razor wire around his neck and tossed him over a fence into the yard of a rescue agency.  Scars on his back legs indicated that he had been chained inhumanely in a yard.  It took nearly a $1000 of surgery to save him.  Shortly after I adopted him, he developed sepsis from which he recovered after four days at my veterinarian’s hospital.  When I went to retrieve him, staff said that I could not have him—just kidding, sort of—for they had all fallen in love with him.  For years, as long as those staff remained, they would drop in to see Cassio when I brought him for shots or examinations.  He was as sweet and gentle as a “boss dog” could be.

       Cassio has done what his elder, Cowboy, taught him: play and protect.  When he was young, he played with Whoppo, a friend’s dog, when we neighbors walked together in the field and farmland behind my house.  One day, my cat Edgar on a leash saw Whoppo approach us and tried to run home.  I picked Edgar up and held him while Whoppo approached us.  Then Whoppo stopped, stood, and turned around to follow his owner.  Since Whoppo liked me and was interested in Edgar, I wondered why he had acted as he had.  Then, out of the corner of my eye, I saw the reason.  Cassio was sitting in a posture which conveyed a clear message: “I am on guard, I am watching you, be very careful”—this to his friend.  Needless to say, Edgar adored him; so, too, later, my calico, CleoTwo.

       When young, he fell in love with an old lady.  Knowing the Cowboy’s days were numbered, I found Cassio a partner.  Portia, so I named her, was a Greyhound/Heeler blend, represented as 4 years old but actually 9 years old.  (But what elderly beauty does not lie about her age?)  It was love at first sight.  Cassio and Portia shared a large bed pad.  Before she died at age 14, I got Miranda, an American Foxhound.  After Portia died, Cassio slowly took up with Miranda but, to my amazement, has never shared his bed pad with her.  So he has remained, in his way, faithful to Portia to the end.

Now he is showing his age.  He has hip dysplasia, so both rear legs are only semi-functional.  Nevertheless, he has insisted on walking down a steep hill, going on a 1- or 2-mile walk, and then plodding up the hill.  For the past several months, he decided whether to go on the walks, go on them but take a shortcut, or not go but wait for us to climb up for home.  The spirit has remained so strong, but the flesh has become weak.  Two days ago, he lay down before reaching his usual resting point while a friend and I talk.  I made it a cue: no more field walks, only sidewalk trips around the neighborhood.  So he waits while I walk the other dogs behind the house, then walks happily with me.  But I know what the change is: death walks which will end in a few months.

 

The only comfort which I can take at Cassio’s death is knowing that he lived a good life and knowing that the pain which I feel at his death will have been part of the pleasure which he gave me during his life—that’s the deal, as C. S. Lewis says.  My dying wish is the adage, “if dogs don’t go to heaven, then when I die, I want to go where they go.”  Catch you later, Malcolm, Cowboy, and Cassio.

 

But the end of the Three Great Ones is not the end.  There is now a Fourth Great One, Maggie, a German Shepherd, who has not only broken the “glass ceiling,” but also has proven to be the best of all: “mistress” in her possessive affection for me (75-pound, would-be lap dog), protector of me and every member of the pack, “sister” to Miranda, and foster mother to a teensy-weensy kitten and a teensy-weensy puppy.  Happy days are here again.