Ilocos police boost Yuletide Season security

By Liezle Basa Inigo

CAMP FLORENDO, La Union – The Police Regional Office-1 (Ilocos) has ramped up security as Christmas and New Year’s Days approach.
    PRO-1 chief Police Brig. Gen. Lou Frias Evangelista inspected transportation hubs and bus terminals in San Fernando, La Union and Vigan City, Ilocos Sur to ensure peace and order for people returning home for the holidays.
    Evangelista ordered the police here to step up traffic management on major thoroughfares in the city. 
“As the holidays approach, always prioritize safety. Safety ng community at higit sa lahat ang inyong kaligtasan lalong lalo na at kayo ang nasa frontline,” he said.
    Evangelista inspected firecracker stalls in Bacnotan and Balaoan, La Union. 
    He said these security measures are embedded under the operational guidelines of “Ligtas Paskuhan 2023,” including the implementation of the law against the illegal manufacture and sale of firecrackers and pyrotechnics.
    We encourage our ‘kababayans’ to report to the nearest police stations any untoward incident or crimes that may occur in your respective localities. Magtulungan tayo para sa isang secured na Kapaskuhan!” he said

Read more...

1,999 cops deployed in Cordi for X’mas season

CAMP DANGWA, La Trinidad, Benguet -- The Police Regional Office Cordillera deployed more than a thousand cops to ensure the safety and security of the public in observance of the major holiday celebrations and activities from Dec. 16 to Jan. 6, 2023, the regional poli e information office said.
    Based on data from the Regional Operations Division, a total of 1,999 PRO Cordillera police officers were deployed in Cordillera.

    To ensure the safety and security of major thoroughfares, 887 PRO Cordillera cops were deployed for road monitoring including those manning terminals in the region. 
    In places of convergence and commercial areas, 1,082 personnel were deployed to secure public markets, parks, malls, and places of worship. 
    A total of 545 augmented units and force multipliers were also mobilized as part of security and crime prevention measures during celebration of the long holidays, the PIO said.
    PRO Cordillera urged to stay alert and be vigilant to avoid untoward incidents and accidents from happening while enjoying activities prepared for the Christmas and New Year celebrations.

Read more...

Pangasinan to provide Coast Guard resources

By Gabriel Cardinoza

LINGAYEN, Pangasinan -- The provincial government announced on Monday, Oct. 9, it was ready to provide resources to the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) to help protect the West Philippine Sea.
    "Gov. [Ramon] Guico had decided that we provide a space, or perhaps a hangar for the PCG Aviation Force when we finish the construction of an airport in Bolinao [town]," said Vice Gov. Mark Ronald Lambino.
    That way, Lambino said, there would be a nearby PCG air unit that could monitor the West Philippine Sea and the coastal waters of western Pangasinan.
    The nearest Pangasinan airport to the West Philippine Sea is located in this capital town, but it can only accommodate small airplanes because it has a short runway.
    "It is also timely that we received a copy of a resolution from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (Provincial Board) of Aurora province urging the different sanggunian in the country to express collective support for the national government's effort in protecting the West Philippine Sea," said Lambino.
    Last month, Guico said the provincial government would build an airport in Bolinao to boost the town's economy and tourism industry.
    Bolinao remains Pangasinan's top tourism site because of its white sand beaches, majestic waterfalls, and popular resorts, but it can only be accessed from Metro Manila through a five- to six-hour drive.
    Lambino said he had not been informed yet of the airport's exact location, but he said the runway would be about 2,000 meters long, enough for an Airbus 330 to land.
    The airport is expected to be completed next year.
    During its regular session on Monday, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan passed a resolution to formally inform the PCG of the provincial government's plan to provide them with resources.
    The resolution will also be sent to the Office of the President and the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
    Last Wednesday, October 4, in a special session, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan also passed a resolution expressing "a deep sense of sadness" over the death of three fishermen from Subic in Zambales province after their boat was accidentally rammed by a commercial ship in the open sea.
 

Read more...

PBBM wants safeguards for online gov’t procurements

President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. wants the government to put up safeguards if it wants to implement an online procurement system.
    “There will still be an element of accreditation because we cannot just open the market to anything…. (What if) you buy something, you get nothing. A box with nothing inside. ‘Yung ganoon,” President Marcos said during a sectoral meeting in Malacañang on Tuesday.
    “So, to safeguard against that, kailangan accredited ‘yung kausap natin,” the President stressed.
    The President also warned about overpricing, which will be disadvantageous to those buying products and equipment through the digital platform.
     Secretary Arsenio Balisacan of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) told the President that it is difficult to calculate product pricing because if goods are quite heterogenous, not homogeneous, the price differences could also reflect quality differences. 
     “We know that… goods that might be overpriced. There are already some exploitation of market power by preventing competitors from coming in,” he said.
     The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) announced on Tuesday that the Procurement Service - Department of Budget and Management (PS-DBM) will pilot an e-Marketplace under Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS) for government procurement of motor vehicles.
     PhilGEPS is the electronic commerce service owned and operated by the PS-DBM, serving as the central portal for all procurement information and activities of the government.

 The budget department presented to the President during the Cabinet sectoral meeting in Malacañang the proposed amendments to Republic Act No. 9184, or the “Government Procurement Reform Act.” 

 The GPRA was envisioned to address the lack of transparency and competition, eliminate collusion and political interference, and lessen delays in the procurement process.

 With the rapid transformation in technology over the past two decades and with onslaught of the coronavirus pandemic, the public relied heavily on digital transactions, compelling authorities to consider making government procurement more attuned to the changing times. -- PND

 

Read more...

EDCA: Strong commitment to protect the Philippines

 COMMENTARY

Sheila Mae Viernes

This is in relation to the issue on the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) especially on the additional sites in Northern Luzon particularly in the province of Cagayan Valley that was approved by the National Government.
    With hindsight, EDCA was designed to supplement the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty and the 1999 Visiting Forces Agreement which was approved last 2014. This agreement aims to develop individual and collective capacities by improving the interoperability of the two country’s armed forces, promoting long-term Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) modernization, helping maintain and develop maritime security, and expanding humanitarian assistance and disaster response.
    EDCA is said to be executed for 10 years only and this year is its 9th year being implemented in the country but still, it faces many challenges. Recently, a prayer rally was conducted to oppose the installation of additional EDCA sites in the province and at the same time, a resolution from the League of Municipalities of Cagayan was released stating the approval of some of the Local Government Officials supporting the EDCA in their province.
    The exercise has its pros and cons but looking closely, it was considered to improve the competence of the AFP and the US Armed Forces in the conduct of not just conventional military training but also with civil military initiatives focusing on reaching out to priority communities. It would also deal with internal and external dangers as well as enhance the nation’s capacity for disaster response.
    Thus, EDCA further aids the AFP in fostering its ties with communities and the local government entities in their areas of responsibility. There is also the active participation of the LGUs as well as the NGOs in terms of conducting community-based activities in relation to EDCA. In short, the community will be the ones benefitting from the exercise because the facilities or projects that will be conducted in the area will be turned-over to them.
And as a native from Region 2, I believe that the presence of EDCA sites will not only promote tourism but will increase the economic status in our region because our “visitors” will have the opportunity to explore our place and will have the chance to discover the things that our region is proud of such as the beautiful sceneries and tourist spots.
    From what I have sought, the Philippines and its defense treaty ally will work together thru EDCA to further bolster their individual and collective defense capacities. I know that the present administration knows what they are doing and that their decision should be supported. After all, it will not be implemented for nine years already if the Filipinos did not benefit from this exercise at all.
    The goal of a more powerful Philippines should be shared by all Filipinos if there is unity. -- (Sheila Mae Viernes is based in Cauayan City, Isabela).
 

Read more...

1,120 cops secure Holy Week in Cordillera

CAMP DANGWA, Benguet – The Police Regional Office-Cordillera deployed 1,120 policemen to secure Holy Week in the region.
    Brig. Gen. David Peredo Jr., Cordillera police director, said police were deployed in major thoroughfares and transportation hubs.
    They were strategically deployed to increase police presence and ensure order in malls, parks, markets, and areas where religious activities were held.
    Peredo instructed police chiefs in the Cordillera to coordinate with their local government units in providing traffic management assistance, particularly Baguio and Benguet where an influx of people are expected for the solemn occasion.
    Peredo met key PRO-Cordillera officers to lay out security plans and conduct coordination with other concerned agencies for the Holy Week.
    The Armed Forces of the Philippines, Bureau of Fire Protection and volunteers were also deployed to assist police in securing Holy Week in Cordillera.

Read more...

Carnage in America

PERRYSCOPE

Perry Diaz

THE MASSACRE that killed nineteen students and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas last May 24, has sent shockwaves across America.  The killer was an 18-year old kid, Salvador Ramos—a high school dropout—who barricaded himself inside a fourth-grade classroom before fatally shooting 21 people.   According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, the shooter walked into the elementary school ‘unobstructed’ through a door that was apparently unlocked and nobody confronted him.   
    It all began when the shooter posted on social media that he shot his grandmother in the face.  Then posted saying he’ll shoot up an elementary school without naming the school. Within 15 minutes he drove to Robb Elementary School where the shooting occurred.
Bloody timeline
The gunman took his grandmother's truck and crashed it just outside of Robb Elementary School.  At around 11:30 a.m., he took an AR-15-style rifle and a backpack with him and went to enter the school. Another rifle was later discovered in his truck.  The shooter was wearing a plate carrier but not ballistic armor.   
    At the school, the shooter first encountered school resource officers but made it inside the school through a back door.  He walked down the hallways before entering a classroom.  The gunman then began firing at the students.   It’s not clear how many students and teachers were killed at that point.
    At 11:35 a.m., two school police officers and five Uvalde officers rushed inside the school.  Bullets grazed two of the officers.  The door was closed at that point.
    At 11:37 a.m., 16 more shots were fired. A few seconds later, police heard another shot.  More shots were fired at 11:38 a.m., 11:40 a.m. and 11:44 a.m.
    At 12:03 p.m., a terrified teacher called 911. She was inside room 112, she whispered.
    By that time, there were as many as 19 officers inside the building.  At 12:10 p.m., the teacher called back. The gunman had killed several of her students.
    She called again, three minutes later, and again at 12:16 p.m.
    Eight or nine of her students were still alive, she said.Minutes later, at 12:19 p.m., a child in the adjacent classroom called 911. The call was brief: she ended it when another student told her to hang up.
    At least two more calls came in over the following 22 minutes. The last one, from a student, lasted several minutes as the child stayed on the line, trying to quietly whisper updates to the dispatcher.
    By then, frantic parents had gathered outside the school, urging police to act. Instead, video showed officers preventing parents from trying to get to the school, and in some cases, handcuffing parents.
    Inside the school, officers searched for a janitor so they could get a master key to open the locked door, and waited for more highly trained, heavily armed SWAT operators from Border Patrol’s elite BORTAC squad.  Why didn’t the police force their way inside the classroom?  Nineteen armed police officers didn’t have the courage to do so?  They ought to be fired!
    At 12:21 p.m., the gunman fired three shots; the sounds were audible in one of the 911 calls dispatchers received.  It was at that moment when members of Border Patrol’s BORTAC unit arrived, with ballistic shields.  But still, officers took no action.
    At 12:43 p.m., the girl who had remained on the line told dispatchers that the gunman shot the door.  Students could hear the police next door, she said.  She pleaded with police to come help.
    At 12:47 p.m., after more than an hour huddled in terror among the bodies of her murdered classmates, the girl made the same plea again.
    “Please,” she said, “send the police now!”
    Police finally unlocked the door at 12:50 p.m. and killed the gunman. They began pulling students out moments later. But 19 students lay slaughtered, along with two teachers.  Seventeen others were seriously injured; and in the days after, the husband of one of the murdered teachers would suffer a heart attack and die, leaving their four children orphans.
Spate of killings
The massacre was the deadliest shooting at a U.S. grade school since the massacre that killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut, a decade ago.  Ten days prior to the Texas shooting, a gunman killed 10 Black people at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York.
    The spate of killings has raised concerns that too many assault rifles are in circulation across the nation, which led someone to say, “If Children Aren’t Safe at School Where Are They Safe?”  All too often, school children are being killed across America and nothing is being done.  Congress refused to act, all because they don’t want to touch the Second Amendment.
    Texas authorities on Wednesday said they were still seeking answers about a possible motive and what sparked the attack from a man who had no criminal adult record and no known mental health history. 
    It was revealed that the gunman recently purchased two semi-automatic rifles on separate dates, on May 17, the day after he turned 18 and on May 20. He also purchased 375 rounds of 5.56 ammunition, and seven 30-round magazines.  Four days later he murdered 21 people. 
Abbott’s press conference
At a press conference, Texas Governor Gregg Abbott insisted that since Texas became a state it’s been legal for 18-year-olds to buy long guns. 
    But long guns of today are often semi-automatic, which did not exist 200 years ago.  What we have now are “killing machines,” not hunting rifles like they used then.
    Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter Jaime was murdered in the Parkland school shooting, blasted Abbott, saying, “The governor seems completely unable to understand that he can easily make a distinction when you’re talking about whether an 18-year-old should buy an assault rifle or not. And all he cares about is a century of history in Texas on long guns. We didn’t have AR-15 style assault weapons back then.  He can easily make a distinction and say, ‘you can go hunting, here are the rifles you can do, you can buy, you can possess – and here’s an assault-style rifle.'”
    “If he (Abbott) thinks that people are stupid and unable to understand that there is a clear distinction between a killing machine and a hunting rifle, that he’s taking us all for fools.”

    Yesterday, Vice President Kamala Harris called on Congress to pass assault rifle legislation.  But with the grip the National Rifle Association had on Republicans, it is doubtful if it would ever come to pass.  
Assault rifles were once banned in 1994 when then-president Bill Clinton signed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.  But Congress let it expire after the 10-year sunset was reached. Congress let the bill expire because many Democrats that supported the ban didn't have the majority they needed for a vote.
    At the end of the day, it is hoped that the Uvalde massacre would awaken America. It’s time for Congress to take the bull by the horn and pass legislation banning the use of assault rifles.  It’s time to stop the carnage in America. (PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

Roe v. Wade under siege!

Perry Diaz

IT ALL BEGAN WHEN a Supreme Court draft opinion leaked out that Roe v. Wade will be stricken down.  Justice Samuel Alito’s "sweeping and blunt draft majority opinion" striking down Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion remains the Supreme Court's "only circulated draft in the pending Mississippi abortion case."  And there are no dissenting draft opinions circulating among the justices, which means that national abortion rights appears imminent.
    With six conservatives on the high court right now, it’s conceivable that Chief Justice John Roberts—usually a swing voter—would cast a dissenting vote that would end in a slim majority 5-4 vote.  However, he could introduce an amendment that would water down the ruling and lessen the impact of the decision.  He might even be able to convince another justice to go along with his amendment; thus, ending up with something that is palatable to the liberal justices. That’s just the way politics at the Supreme Court work.  But still it’s politics at play.
Roe v. Wade was a landmark decision passed in 1973 in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. The decision struck down many U.S. federal and state abortion laws.
Alito’s draft opinion
In Alito’s 98-page argument, he wrote that Roe v. Wade should be overruled because the Constitution “makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional amendment, including the one on which defenders of Roe … now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
    Alito then went on to differentiate between abortion and other rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, writing that the procedure is “fundamentally different … because it destroys ... what the law now before us describes as an ‘un-born human being.’”
    Clearly, the mention of abortion would immediately spark controversy, regardless of which side you’re with.   Majority of American women are very protective of their reproductive rights while a small minority driven by their religious beliefs are against abortion and they are as well pretty vocal about it.
Abortion rights bill fails
In an attempt to pre-empt Alito’s anticipated opinion, Senate Democratic leaders introduced a bill—Women’s Health Protection Act—that would enshrine abortion rights in federal law.  The bill failed in a 49-51 vote with all 50 Republican senators, along with Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin opposing.  But even if all the Democrats had voted for the bill, it would still fail to pass because it didn’t have enough support to overcome the 60-vote filibuster threshold.  If passed, the bill would have protected abortion access across the country and ensured the procedure remains legal in every state without additional restrictions.
    Manchin, an abortion opponent who represents a conservative state, said he voted against the bill because it went further than just codifying Roe v. Wade into federal law.  He said the proposal “expands abortion.”  He said he had been “pro-life all my life” but did believe in some exceptions to abortion bans.  “And with that, that's not where we are today," he said. "We should not be dividing this country further. We're already divided."  He just divided it by voting against the bill.
    Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who said they support abortion rights and have offered a more narrowly tailored piece of legislation to codify Roe, also voted against Wednesday's bill.
The vote demonstrated the Senate’s inability to pass important legislation like the Build Back Better bill, which failed on a 49-51 vote that didn’t require a 60-vote filibuster threshold.  Again, it was Manchin who dealt a blow.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, 13 states with so-called trigger laws, poised to go into effect if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade, the time of restricted access to birth control is unfolding in states that narrowly define when life begins.  Some states are even considering legislation that would limit the kinds of birth control residents can acquire.
    Some conservative lawmakers wasted no time signaling they were looking into restricting or banning certain types of emergency contraception, such as Plan B and certain types of intrauterine devices—IUDs—could be restricted, or other morning-after pills that can be used within 72 hours of intercourse to prevent pregnancy.
In Louisiana, legislation was introduced that would classify abortion as a homicide and define “personhood” as beginning from the moment of fertilization.  Anything that would prevent a fertilized egg from turning into a pregnancy and being born into a baby could be considered a homicide.   And abortion providers would be prosecuted as criminals.
    With all the maneuverings in the Senate, the Women’s Health Protection bill doesn’t have a chance of seeing the light of day.  It has unnecessarily become too controversial that Republican women senators junked the bill.  So what’s next?
    At this point in time, it doesn’t seem that Congress would ever pass anything that resembles the Women’s Health Protection bill, which means that the Supreme Court’s draft opinion to strike down Roe v. Wade will soon be deliberated by the justices.  And unless Chief Justice John Roberts can come up with a anti-abortion ruling that can get the support of one more justice, which would give them a slim 5-4 majority decision. Otherwise, if the Supreme Court fails to fashion a palatable anti-abortion decision – like something that would legitimize abortion of pregnancies caused by rape or incest.
    At the end of the day, unless the Senate gets its act together, Roe v. Wade will soon cease to be the law of the land.   Yes, Roe v. Wade is under siege in America!
(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

Quo vadis, Donald Trump?

Perry Diaz

BEATEN AND DISGRACED in November 2016 by Democrat Joe Biden, former president Donald Trump wants a comeback in 2024.  He’s been holding rallies in various cities around the country, bringing together a cultic following among Republicans. 
    Initially, he managed to demonstrate his hold on Republicans who see him as the leader that would lead them to victory in the forthcoming midterms in November.   But not all Republicans are beholden to him.  
    There is a growing number of Republicans who want to see another Republican lead the GOP to recover the White House in 2024.  And there are at least a dozen presidential wannabes who’ll be running in Republican primaries challenging Trump. 
    While it is most likely at this time that Trump is still the man to beat in the primaries, there is likelihood that one of them would emerge the leader in the pack, which begs the question: Who would that be?
Electability
The answer depends on several factors, foremost of which is: Electability. 
    There are a few at this time who would be considered “electable” someone who could face up to Trump in state primaries.   Two come to mind: Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.  Kinzinger mocked the celebrated MAGA firebrand Representative Madison Cawthorn’s defeat over his defeat by “RINOs”—Republicans In Name Only—in last Tuesday’s primary election in North Carolina.   Cawthorn, a first-time congressman, is a pro-Trump who vowed to defeat the “RINOs” who had set out to defeat him.  Humbled by his defeat, Cawthorn immediately conceded defeat a few hours after the polls closed. 
    However, Kinzinger has been targeted by right-wing Republicans for his criticism of Trump.  He announced his retirement after voting to impeach Trump for inciting the attack on the Capitol.  But he made clear that he’s not running away from the political arena.  “This isn't the end of my political future, but the beginning," he said in his retirement announcement video.
    Kinzinger launched a PAC earlier this year, dubbed "Country First," to challenge the GOP's embrace of Trump's election lies and root out what Kinzinger has described as a "cancer" inside the party.
    Kinzinger is reportedly “actively weighing whether to seek his political fortunes in the Senate, the Illinois governor's mansion or even the White House, despite serious questions about whether there's any future at all for a Donald Trump critic like him in today's GOP.”  But Cawthorn’s defeat promises to elevate Kinzinger’s viable political future.
Declaration of war
Meanwhile, Liz Cheney raised eyebrows when she announced she’s going to New Hampshire in November.  There is only one reason why someone would go to New Hampshire – to test the political water for a possible run for the presidency.
    As early as last April Cheney had left the door open to a presidential bid in 2024. "I'm not ruling anything in or out — ever is a long time,” she said.  Shortly after being removed from her third ranking post in House leadership for her criticism of Donald Trump, Cheney reportedly said she “would do ‘whatever it takes’ to ensure that Trump was not the Republican standard-bearer in 2024.”  Does it seem like it’s a declaration of war?  You bet.
    Trump was angry that Cheney was one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach him for his role in the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.  He has called Cheney a “warmonger” and a “disloyal Republican.”   He has endorsed a primary challenger to Cheney and is promising to defeat her.  
    Cheney has not backed down in the face of Trump's assault.  Instead, she has rallied the GOP establishment.   
    Reportedly, “former President George W. Bush is set to hold a fundraiser to benefit Cheney in October in Dallas and she has also received campaign contributions from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, as well as former House Speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan. Cheney has already raised more than $3.4 million this year and had nearly $2.9 million left in the bank, according to her last campaign finance report.”  Not bad for a warmonger and disloyal Republican, which just shows the deep division among GOP stalwarts, particularly those who don’t want a Trump resurgence leading to 2024. 
    If Cheney wins her primary next year, she would emerge in GOP circles as the one who slayed the Trump dragon.  She will prove that standing up to Trump doesn’t have to be a death sentence for a Republican elected official.
Trump’s Waterloo
As a matter of fact, Georgia might prove to be where Trump would meet his Waterloo on March 24.  Early on, Trump has endorsed former Senator David Purdue against incumbent Governor Brian Kemp, who is leading by 32-point margin against Purdue.  Incidentally, former Vice President Mike Pence has endorsed Kemp, a smart move to line himself up against Trump’s candidate.  Another prominent Republican who is supporting Kemp is former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who will join Kemp in his campaign before the primary.
    Purdue’s defeat would be the latest sign that a Trump endorsement would not guarantee a candidate’s victory.  A case in point was Representative Madison Cawthorn’s primary defeat. The young firebrand lost to state Senator Chuck Edwards after an aggressive attack campaign by Democrats and Republicans alike.  After his defeat, Cawthorn called for “Dark MAGA” forces to take revenge on establishment Republicans.
    Cawthorn reportedly posted a list of people who supported him when the "establishment turned their guns on me."  The list included Trump, who pleaded for voters to give Cawthorn a "second chance" despite "some foolish mistakes," as well as Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., as well as others that Cawthorn said "came to my defense when it was not politically profitable."
    Cawthorn’s supporters should now be wary because the voters could deal them the same fate that he was dealt with.  And as Trump ponders what effect it would have on his own fate, the die would soon be cast against him in 2024.    
    While it is too early to predict Trump’s 2024 comeback, there seems to be a silent undercurrent going on in the Republican Party that could deal him a fatal blow in 2024.   The signs are growing.   After Georgia, what’s next?
But for sure, there will be serious challenges to a Trump presidential nomination.   Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger would be at the forefront and they would give Trump a run for his money.
    At the end of the day, Trump’s endorsed candidates might win in the primaries, but how would they fare in the midterms and general elections?  Will the American people vote for them if they would think twice before electing Trump as president again?
    Quo vadis, Donald Trump? (PerryDiaz@gmail.com)
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

Read more...

Thirty seconds to midnight

PERRYSCOPE

Perry Diaz

SINCE 1947, WHEN THE Science and Security Board (SSB) of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists met for the first time to perform its annual ritual of setting the time on the “Doomsday Clock,” the scientists initially agreed to set the clock to 11:53 PM or seven minutes to midnight.  The SSB is a select group of globally recognized leaders with a specific focus on nuclear risk, climate change, and disruptive technologies.  They hang the clock on a wall in the Bulletin’s office at the University of Chicago to remind everybody how close we were to the threat of global nuclear war.
    Since then, the clock has been set as close or as far as midnight.  In 1972, the clock was set to 11:48 PM or 12 minutes to midnight when the U.S. and the Soviet Union signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
    In 1984, the clock was set once again to 11:57 PM when tensions escalated between the U.S. and the Soviet Union when the arms race intensified.  The U.S. deployed Pershing II medium-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles in Western Europe. 
    In 1991, the clock was set to 11:43 PM or 17 minutes to midnight, the earliest setting since its inception, when the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and the collapse of the Soviet Union thereafter.
    In January 2015, the clock was set to 11:57 PM or three minutes to midnight, the closest we were to doomsday since 1984.  It was due to the modernization of nuclear weapons in the U.S. and Russia, the specter of a new Cold War, the problem of nuclear waste, and the danger of global climate change. 
    In January 2020, the minute hand was moved 30 seconds forward from two and a half minutes to two minutes before midnight.  But the worst has yet to come.  "Humanity continues to face two simultaneous existential dangers — nuclear war and climate change — that are compounded by a threat multiplier, cyber-enabled information warfare, that undercuts society's ability to respond," the SSB said.
Ukraine invasion
On February 24, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “illegal and dangerous” invasion of Ukraine and placing Russia’s nuclear armaments on high alert, which the SSB considers to be the gravest danger to humanity, has set the Doomsday Clock to 100 seconds to midnight, the closest it ever been to apocalypse. 
    By threatening to use nuclear weapons or launching a “First Strike” nuclear attack against the U.S. and her NATO allies if war breaks out between Russia and the NATO alliance, it has brought a nightmare scenario to life, which sets the Doomsday Clock to 30 seconds to midnight.
Biden’s mental paralysis
    But the problem is that President Joe Biden has encouraged Putin – by vowing not to get involved in the Ukraine war -- to flaunt using his nuclear weapons if the U.S. and her NATO allies would send troops to Ukraine.  By playing the threat of “World War III,” Putin has disarmed Biden and tied his hands behind his back.  Biden, the other day even said, “Don’t kid yourself, but once we enter the war, it will be World War III,” which makes one wonder: “If Russia attacks the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania – which would be next after Ukraine -- would America and the NATO countries send their troops to fight the Russians?   How about the two non-NATO countries of Moldova and Georgia?  The other day, the Moldovan Prime Minister requested joining NATO because they know they’re next on Putin’s crosshairs.  Taken aback, Secretary of State Antony Blinken didn’t respond.  He could at least reassure the Moldovan Prime Minister that he’d relay the request. 
    It would seem that the entire Biden administration – Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Blinken, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, four-star General Mark Milley – had succumbed to a debilitating mental paralysis, unable to act when threatened with nuclear annihilation.  But the truth is: America’s leadership’s amnesia has its provenance since Biden hastily withdrew American troops from Afghanistan last year.  It gave Putin the go-signal that he could do anything he wanted to and Biden would just play possum, unmindful of whatever the consequence will be.  But doesn’t Biden realize that he had just pulled the MAD auto-mechanism? 
    Now, all Putin has to do is threaten “First Strike” and Biden would just stare blankly at the nuclear football held by his aide-de-camp… and do nothing.  And suddenly, his semi-senile mind goes into a paralytic state, unable to respond to the nuclear crisis, which he inadvertently and unconsciously abetted by vowing that he would never send the army of the most powerful nuclear power and richest country in history to fight the bankruptcy-bound invading Russians in Ukraine.  What a shame!   
American history
Biden needs to study American history from the time the U.S. entered World War I to the victorious conclusion of World War II.  Never in those two world wars did America ever flinch in the face of defeat, only to emerge the victor who would rule in peace and prosperity until… today.  Today, the great American nation is facing extinction only because she allowed a mad genius to roll his tanks into Ukraine and laid waste to a beautiful and proud country.  Ukraine is bound to lose her sovereignty because America allowed Russian war planes to ravage their land and refused to send NATO warplanes to defend the besieged Ukrainian people who are fleeing -- helplessly and hopelessly – amid the attacking Russian tanks and aerial bombardment.  
    But even if Russia launches a “First Strike” attack against the U.S.’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) based in the continental U.S., it would take 30 minutes to reach their targets.  It would give the U.S. a “Second Strike” counter-attack using her fleet of 14 ballistic missile submarines – known as “boomers” – that are positioned anywhere in the open seas as close as the Baltic Sea and Mediterranean Sea, which would reach their targets in Russia within five minutes.  Each submarine carries 24 Trident missiles and each missile can carry up to 14 warheads.  That’s a total of 4,704 nuclear warheads, more than enough to counter any attack with devastating nuclear power, which would erase Russia from the Earth’s map.  Together, the 14 Ohio-class submarines carry approximately 50% of the total U.S. active inventory of strategic thermonuclear warheads. 
Putin is crazy
Needless to say, Putin knows that he cannot win a nuclear war against the U.S.  He might be crazy but he’s not stupid to realize that once he presses the “doomsday button,” it will lead to MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction.  That means it will destroy the entire mankind, his country first, and possibly blow the planet Earth into zillions of radioactive meteorites.  Only a stupid madman will do that.   But as long as the leaders of America and Russia are aware of the consequences of MAD, they’ll never dare bring MAD to fruition.  And such, no one would ever start World War III.  It’s unthinkable.
    But it would take a sane and calculating world leader to stop this stupid madman from even thinking of pressing the “doomsday button” that would turn his beloved “Mother Russia” into a radioactive nuclear wasteland for the next 1,000 years.  Putin’s descendants would long him as the madman whose stupidity would be etched in every Russian’s mind that he once ruled the biggest empire on Earth only to lose it because he became too ambitious.
    At the end of the day, Putin may only have thirty seconds to midnight to blow the world into radioactive smithereens. 
(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)
 

The Pink Revolution phenomenon

Perry DIaz 

WHAT BEGAN AS one of 97 wannabe presidential candidates has blossomed into one of the five remaining contenders for president of the Philippines. And of the five remaining presidential candidates, Leni Robredo has moved up to the top two candidates with barely two months remaining in the campaign season.  In all honesty, the contest is now down to just two – former senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. and Vice President Leni Robredo, who had hesitated from running for president for lack of funds. 
    But her friends and supporters prevailed in convincing her to run. When Leni finally decided to run for president, her approval rating was one percent.  Little by little her rating increased to 16%.  Within a month, she surpassed everybody except Marcos Jr. who had a fantastic approval rating of 60%, which by any measure would be unbeatable.  It seemed like Bongbong was going to bag the presidency.
    Now, she’s on the cusp of becoming the leader of a nation beset with problems from pandemic to unemployment, from poverty to inequality.  But what is noteworthy – and commendable -- is the way she addressed the nation’s problems.
Leni has been compared to Cory Aquino.  But she said she didn’t deserve to be compared to the “icon of democracy.”  However, there were similarities.  They’re both widows of political figures.  Cory was elevated to the presidency by the EDSA People Power Revolution.   
    And Leni is now riding the crest of her “Pink Revolution,” which has galvanized Filipinos of all ages.   Since she began holding rallies in various cities, Leni had attracted thousands of enthusiastic young people who donned pink shirts and held pink banners.  They attended her rallies, rain or shine.  
Resonant message of peace
"We are faced with issues of terrific scale and complexity. But violence is not the right response to poverty and inequality.  Bloodshed will not solve crime and injustice," she said.
She had criticized President Rodrigo Duterte’s method of fighting criminality and drugs, saying, "Violence is the quick fix that we must prevent and condemn. Violence is a way of cutting corners, where complex problems are met with simplistic but ineffective solutions."
    Leni addressed the millennials, saying, “I believe that millennials, like you, care. I believe that modern technology puts you in the perfect position to protect the greater good. Most importantly, I believe that you are ready to fight this fight, to answer the urgent call for nation-building, no matter how young you are," she said.
     “But when I say 'fighting the fight,' I don't mean that literally. In protecting the Filipino people and the interests of our nation, we must not resort to the brutality of warfare. Our democracy has no room for political intimidation or violence. Progress can always be achieved peacefully," she added.
    Her message has resonated with the people, young and old alike.   It’s populist to say the least.  But she attacked the problem head-on by encouraging the people to use peaceful means of solving the nation’s problems. But one thing she has been doing that I’ve never observed with past presidential candidates is that Leni never attacked her opponents.
    Leni’s call on the youth to join nation-building has been a recurring message she delivered before young audiences.  And the crowd roared with approval.  They’re ecstatic!  They love her!  She projected a mother-image and it hit them in their hearts: a mother telling her children to participate in nation-building.  It’s unheard of before.
Refusal to debate the issues
But Philippine politics is the art of measuring the present against the past.  They get a glimpse of what the future would look like based on the candidate’s past history and present performance.  But all it takes to mess up the calculus is if the candidate fails to address the issues, which could cause his or her campaign to collapse.
    A case in point was former Vice President Jejomar Binay who was leading the polls for sometime until one issue was raised against him.  He failed to address the issue of corruption when he was Mayor of Makati.  And that brought him down.  He placed fourth place in the presidential election of 2010.
    Bongbong’s ratings have plummeted recently, mainly because of his refusal to participate in debates with other presidential candidates.  He’s running on one theme, “Unity,” which is hollow and meaningless.  
In fact, his candidacy has brought back memories of the bloody reign of his dictator father and namesake, Ferdinand E. Marcos, who bankrupted the Central Bank of the Philippines.  
    All the gold reserves were gone!  Where did they go?  Nobody knows but one can surmise what happened to the gold bullions.  What Marcos did was dissolve the Central Bank of the Philippines and create the Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas.  Its bad accounts are still being paid for by taxpayers.
    Bongbong also refused to apologize for the dark period of martial law of which thousands of mysterious deaths – called “salvages” – remained unsolved to this day. 
And then there is the case of unpaid income taxes of some P203 billion, which Bongbong refused to address or pay. 
Kakampinks
Meanwhile, Leni’s grand people’s rallies have brought out thousands of Leni’s supporters, the “Kakampinks.”  The following are some of Leni’s rallies:
February 13, Quezon City, 20,000 attended.
February 25, Iloilo City, 40,000 attended.
March 7, Malolos City, 45,000 attended.
March 9, General Trias, Cavite, 47,000 attended.
March 11, Bacolod City, 70,000 attended.
March 12, Echague, Isabela, 10,000 attended.
March 17, Zamboanga City, 35,000 attended.
March 15, General Santos City, 7,000 attended.
    But what the rallies have shown on the ground, the surveys also have shown Leni’s rising numbers.  In a scenario reminiscent of the 2016 vice presidential election, Leni overtook Bongbong in the latest survey and analysis of at least three credible organizations, two of them global.
    A survey sponsored by Manila Bulletin using Facebook had Leni with 47%, while Bongbong had 44%.  One of the Philippines’ top three broadsheets, the Manila Bulletin reported the results with more than 1,000,000 participants.
    Robredo finally overtook Bongbong in the survey conducted in the last week of January, this year. Results for February have not yet been released as of press time.
    The Bulletin had been conducting surveys on presidential preferences since late last year, and Marcos Jr. came out on top each time.
    In contrast, the Pulse Asia survey that gave Bongbong 60% approval rating used face-to-face interviews on 2,400 respondents.  The survey was taken from February 18 to 23, 2022, which was a month after the Manila Bulletin survey.
    Meanwhile, Leni topped Google Search with 46% followed by Bongbong with 26% on March 11, 2022.
Perception is reality
With two months left in the campaign season, people are beginning to refocus their perception of the candidates.  And like they say, “Perception is reality,” perception is what you project into the future based on the reality you see today.  Let’s apply this to the Bongbong-Leni rivalry.
    Leni’s openness has created a perception of honesty and trustworthiness, while Bongbong’s refusal to discuss issues and debate what he meant by “unity” smacks of secretiveness, willfulness, and deceit.  Many perceive that the reason he refused to participate in debates is that he’d be exposing himself to scrutiny, particularly his family’s unexplained wealth, unpaid income taxes, and disqualification case before the Supreme Court.
    While it appears that Leni Robredo has finally broken Bongbong Marcos’ huge lead in the various surveys, the only solid evidence that Leni’s phenomenal Pink Revolution is bound to carry her to victory on May 9, 2022 were the huge turnouts at the Leni-Kiko grand people’s rallies. 
(PerryDiaz@gmail.com) 
 

 

Read more...

How long can Putin stay in power?

 PERRYSCOPE

Perry Diaz

THE RUSSIAN INVASION of Ukraine is now on its second stage: the bombardment of Ukraine.  Without a no-fly zone over the Ukrainian sky, the Russian Air Force is now poised to launch all-out air strikes against Ukraine. But Russian President Vladimir Putin warned any attempt by NATO allies to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine would be viewed as "participation in the armed conflict.”
    Nevertheless, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called President Joe Biden and his NATO allies “weak” for not agreeing to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine.  He said that the “lack of a no-fly zone was putting blood in the hands of the West.”
    In a bitter speech, he renewed his call, telling NATO that "all the people who die from this day forward will also die because of you."  He also criticized Biden for not imposing severe sanctions against Russia and for not stopping buying Russian oil, which makes one wonder: Why?  Why?  Why?
    While Russian President Vladimir Putin has gone all-out on his barbaric and illegal assault on the brave Ukrainian people, Biden seemed to have cocooned himself in Washington DC issuing warnings to Putin that he’ll fight for every inch of NATO territory.  How about a NATO partner’s territory, Mr. President?  Aren’t you going to help a reliable and valuable ally from being slaughtered by Putin?  Don’t you believe in the saying, “A friend in need is a friend indeed”?  Or do you consider Ukraine a “fair weather friend” who is now fighting for her dear life?   Do you treat Ukraine as a second-class ally to be used at your convenience but wouldn’t lift a finger to save her from annihilation? 
    Putin smells blood
    But Putin, who must have sensed Biden’s rigid stand against helping Ukraine – after all, he vowed never to go to war against Russia over Ukraine – is having the best time of his life.  Yesterday, he issued two ultimatums to Biden and NATO: (1) Sanctions against Russia will be considered a “declaration of war,” and (2) Sending weapons to Ukraine will be an “act of war.”
    Is Biden going to withdraw from Europe and surrender Ukraine to Putin?  That’s what Putin’s ultimatums come down to.  Is Biden going the easy way out by following Putin’s dictate?
    While withdrawing from Afghanistan had caused a geopolitical ripple, withdrawing from Ukraine would be tantamount to a “geopolitical catastrophe” far worse than what Putin said in 2005 when he lamented, “The demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”  It would be the end of Pax Americana and the beginning of Pax Russica. 
     It would seem then that Putin is playing his end game with ultimatums.  But Biden’s retinue of retired generals and admirals would probably advise him not to heed Putin’s threats to withdraw or else suffer the consequences of a nuclear war. 
Nuclear war
    A nuclear war?  Heck, the specter of a nuclear war scares the hell out of Biden.  Putin is very much aware of MAD; that is, Mutually Assured Destruction.   But the question is: Does Putin have the courage to end his own life by pressing the Doomsday Button that would fire Russia’s arsenal of nuclear weapons, enough to blow planet Earth to billions of radioactive meteorites?
    Let’s analyze this very carefully.  Putin may be crazy but he’s not stupid.  He is a narcissistic megalomaniac whose self-love strips him of any compassion for people. Like Hitler, he delights in the suffering of people. He reminds me of the movie, “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” 
    But make no mistake; he loves his money.  Actually, he’s rumored to have stashed $200 billion someplace.  Anybody who has accumulated that kind of moolah wouldn’t want to leave it on Earth.  But knowing that he is just a mortal being who lives on borrowed time, it must have stricken him to the core.  So he’s got one option left; that is, to immortalize his legacy.  But he has a problem; he won’t be in the company of the world’s great men and women.  He’d be in the company of the world’s villains.  He’ll be next to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in the Rogues’ Gallery.   But that’s his choice.  He did it on his own volition. 
Path to greatness
He could have taken a path used by such great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Peter the Great.  Some were men of peace and some were men of war.  But none of them had been branded as war criminals. 
    But Putin has been branded as a war criminal for the illegal invasion of Ukraine, which unfortunately killed innocent civilians.  It has also displaced more than 1.5 million Ukrainians in the first ten days of the Russian invasion, dispersing them in the neighboring countries of Poland, Hungary, Moldova, Slovakia, and other European countries.  It is expected that the number would increase to four to five million refugees, mostly women, children, and the elderly.  Men between 18 and 60 years old were not allowed to leave and were encouraged to stay to fight for their freedom.
Call to volunteers

Volunteers have also started coming to Ukraine to join the International Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine.   It is a volunteer foreign legion military unit created by the Government of Ukraine on the request of President Zelenskyy to fight in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  To date, more than 16,000 volunteers have arrived in Ukraine from Finland, Poland, Belarus, Lithuania, and other countries from all over the world as far away as Japan. Incidentally, as Ukrainians are returning to their country to fight, the Russians are leaving theirs so they won’t have to.  Somehow in those dark days we see who is David and who is Goliath. 
    On the battlefield, the Ukrainian freedom fighters have been successful in downing Russian jets and helicopters.  So far, they have downed 44 Russian planes and 44 helicopters in 10 days of all-out war.  On March 5 alone, the Ukrainian Armed Forces Air Command shot down five aircraft and four helicopters including one Su-25 fighter jet, two Su-34 fighter-bombers, and two Su-30 SM plane. 
    As the war progresses into the coming days, the heroism of the Ukrainian freedom fighters is beyond my wildest dream.  Armed with Stinger surface-to-air rockets and Javelin anti-tank guided missiles, which lock on the target before launch, thereby ensuring accuracy.  
    Between the Stingers and the Javelins, the Ukrainian freedom fighters are having a field day downing airplanes and knocking out Russian tanks.  This has caused demoralization among the Russian soldiers who are short on fuel and food, the two most important items in a ground war. 
Putin’s ultimatums
Meanwhile, Biden is faced with ultimatums that could determine the outcome of the Ukraine War.  I hope that he would reject the ultimatums and continue sending weapons to the Ukrainian freedom fighters and impose severe sanctions including banning oil import from Russia.  The reason Putin issued the ultimatums is because weapons provided by the U.S. and her NATO allies are defeating the Russian troops.  
    The Russian oligarchs are hurting, losing 30% of their billions’ worth.  And with the ruble now valued a penny to the U.S. dollar, it’s on the brink of collapsing, which would make the ruble worthless.  And with the sanctions imposed on the Russian banks, Russia’s central bank would be forced to dig into its hard currency reserves in order to bail out the banks and keep them afloat.  It would cripple the Russian economy so it can no longer be able to fund her war machine.
    And if Putin doesn’t withdraw his forces from Ukraine, the Russian generals might be tempted to remove him from power, which makes one wonder: How long can Putin stay in power?
(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

PERRYSCOPE

The emerging Russo-Sino Axis of Power

WHEN RUSSIAN PRESIDENT Vladimir Putin went to Beijing to attend the opening of the Winter Olympics last February 4, little did anyone suspect that it would lead to the beginning of a strategic partnership between Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping.   It was then that the two leaders would fashion out a lengthy 99-paragraph joint statement that detailed how they have come to adopt “shared positions” on a range of global issues.  Or could it be that there were preliminary negotiations before they got together at the inauguration of the 2022 Olympics?   Nobody could have come up with a joint statement that long and had it finalized within a few hours.  

No way!  The crux of the voluminous joint statement boils down to creating a “long-term legally binding security guarantees in Europe” that Russia and China mutually support.  In addition, they “oppose further enlargement of NATO and call on the North Atlantic Alliance to abandon its ideologized cold war approaches, to respect the sovereignty, security and interests of other countries.”   Clearly, what they’re proposing is to prevent NATO from expanding further east that would take Ukraine within its protective umbrella under Article 5, which is “An attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all members.”  

By the same token, Russia supports China’s view of the Indo-Pacific and the illegitimacy of the U.S. role there.  This is manifested in the joint statement, which says that they are “against the formation of closed bloc structures and opposing camps in the Asia-Pacific region and remain highly vigilant about the negative impact of the United States’ Indo-Pacific strategy on peace and stability in the region.” 

ASEAN solidarity
Immediately, one can surmise that this is in reference to the U.S.’s attempt to solidify its relationship with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which is slowly metastasizing into a NATO-like organization, particularly due to the common fear among the ten ASEAN members that the rise of China would sooner or later pose a great danger to their sovereignty. 

    Indeed, ASEAN members have begun to sign defense treaties with one another as well as with the U.S.  Could it be that it’s just a matter of time before ASEAN would evolve into a security alliance, a Pacific NATO?
War on two fronts
The question is: How is the U.S. going to deal with Russia’s aggression against Ukraine while maintaining its obligation to defend Taiwan from Chinese invasion?
I    t’s a tough situation.  However, the U.S. had been there before, fighting two theaters of war at the same time: the war in Europe against Germany and the war in the Pacific against Japan.  And America emerged victorious from both wars.
But it’s not going to be easy.  Casualties from both sides will be heavy.  But U.S. and NATO superiority would prevail over the Russian invaders.  A large contingent of Ukrainian troops – which number around 255,000 active personnel and more than 900,000 reserve personnel – can be deployed immediately.   
    The Russians would also have to deal with armed militias who would have the capability to wage guerilla warfare.  The Russians will be attacked from all sides.
    Today, as war looms ahead in Ukraine and Taiwan, the U.S. is prepared as ever before.  More than likely, war will erupt first in Ukraine where 190,000 Russian troops are poised to break through the border into Ukrainian territory.  In a blitzkrieg fashion, they’d probably reach Kyiv, the capital, within days. 
    Although President Joe Biden promised that the U.S. and NATO will come to the aid of Ukraine if attacked, there is no timeline as to how soon would assistance arrive?  Will it arrive before the Russians take Kyiv? 
    Many are apprehensive that NATO military aid might not arrive on time to prevent the fall of Kyiv.  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky suggested that the U.S. and NATO should send troops now that the Russian troops, tanks, and missiles are just steps away from the border.  He also suggested that the sanctions should start now.  Why wait until the country is overrun?  Biden should – nay, must – act now!  Impose severe sanctions and mobilize NATO forces to cross into Ukraine once Russian invasion has begun.  Or does it seem like Biden is still in “withdrawal” mode, still having a head-banging hangover from what he did in Afghanistan?
Divide the world
In the final analysis, one wonders what are Putin and Xi thinking? Do they want to take over the entire world, just like Spain and Portugal did in the New World, when they signed the Treaty of Tordesillas on June 7, 1494?  They divided the newly discovered lands outside Europe between the Portuguese Empire and the Spanish Empire, by drawing a north-to-south line of demarcation in the Atlantic Ocean, about 345 miles west of the Cape Verde Islands, off the coast of northwestern Africa.  All lands west of that line were claimed by Spain.  Spain also claimed all of South America except Brazil, which was claimed by Portugal.  That’s the reason why Brazil is the only Portuguese-speaking country in South America all the way up to California, Mexico, and Central America.  The Philippines was supposed to be claimed by Portugal but they made a mistake and Spain ended up claiming the Philippines. 
    With the emerging Russo-Sino Axis of Power, the map of the world would change with Europe ending within Russia’s sphere of influence and Asia within China’s sphere of influence.  But then, who knows, in people’s mindset today, the days of the empires were long gone.  Of all the world’s empires, none has survived.  They all collapsed at some point in time.  We have seen the collapse of the Soviet Union, which Vladimir Putin had lamented.  "The breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century," he once said.  “It became a genuine tragedy for the Russian people.  Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.”  He was referring to Ukraine, which was part of the Soviet Union before the disintegration of the Soviet Empire.  Now, Ukraine wishes to become part of NATO.  That’s unthinkable.  He already lost the Baltic States – Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania – that were once parts of the Soviet Empire, and who jumped over the crumbling Iron Curtain to join NATO.  He was helpless – and powerless -- to protest. 
    But today, Putin vowed that he’s not going to let it happen again.  He’s got the nuclear weapons to threaten Europe with annihilation, not knowing that it would also destroy his beloved Mother Russia – and his $200 billion stashed away for his retirement -- because America would strike back with an equal amount of nuclear power.   Is Putin going to risk a mutually assured destruction?  I don’t think so.  He might be crazy but he’s not stupid.
    What Putin is trying to do is bluff his way to winning by going all in with his nuclear chips.   At the end of the day, the Russo-Sino Axis of Power is on the verge of world dominion; that is, if Biden decides that he cannot risk American lives and fold his hand even though he has the winning hand.  Yes, that’s how winners lose in a game of international poker.
(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)
 

PERRYSCOPE
Putin resorts to nuclear blackmail

IN APRIL 2013, I wrote a column titled “Nuclear Blackmail,” where I talked about North Korea’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un’s saber rattling, threatening to send nuclear ballistic missiles to the United States and Guam.   
Although nothing came out of Kim’s threat to send nuclear missiles to the U.S., it brought to the forefront of geopolitics the notion that a nuclear power no matter how small, poses the danger of nuclear holocaust by threatening to use nuclear missiles against another nuclear power.
    And once North Korea uses her nuclear weapons, the U.S. will respond by unleashing a torrent of nuclear missiles against North Korea.  Conceivably, this could lead to World War III and could, ultimately, end in a Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD, as is commonly used to depict what would result in such an exchange of nuclear missiles.
Putin’s nuclear threat
Nine years later, the same situation happened but on a bigger scale as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threat to use nuclear weapons if the U.S. and her allies would invade Ukraine has caused concern in Washington DC.  Indeed, with the U.S. arsenal of 5,500 nuclear warheads and Russia’s 6,000, it clearly raises the specter of a nuclear war that would destroy the entire civilization, which raises the question:  What kind of a man is he who threatens to destroy mankind?   Does the war in Ukraine warrant MAD?  Only a mad man could think of such destruction, which makes one wonder: Is Putin crazy to risk nuclear war over some civil disturbances in Ukraine? 
    I don’t think Putin is crazy.  His problem goes far beyond the current situation in Ukraine.   One has to go back to December 25, 1991 when the Soviet Empire disintegrated.  Vladimir Putin, then a KGB spy, was out of a job.  He ended working as a taxi driver to survive.  

But he lucked out when he found himself working for then-President Boris Yeltsen.  One thing led to another.  Pretty soon Yeltsin appointed him Prime Minister.  But Yeltsin was very sick, which forced him to resign.  He appointed Putin – a virtual unknown – as Acting President.  Three months later, Putin was elected President of Russia.  He’s been in power ever since. 
Geopolitical catastrophe
In 2005, Putin told the Russian nation: “The demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”  He lamented, saying, “It became a genuine tragedy for the Russian people.  Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.”
    Since then, he became obsessed with reviving the Soviet Empire when Russia ruled over Eastern Europe, from the three Baltic States down to Poland, Romania, and nine other former Soviet satellite countries.  By 1997, all of them had joined NATO, except Ukraine who chose to remain neutral.  It was a tragic mistake because Ukraine did not avail of the protection of NATO, whose Article 5 states that “an attack on one member will be an attack on all members.” 
    Putin, who cannot touch any NATO country, took aim at Ukraine.  Putin encouraged two separatist regions of Ukraine – Donetsk and Luhansk – to declare independence from Ukraine, which Putin readily recognized as independent countries and declared them as allies.  Once again, Putin’s evil genius was at play.
    But Biden made a strategic blunder when he vowed never to invade or enter Ukraine.  It emboldened Putin, which gave him the wrong message; which in effect was like saying, “Go ahead and invade Ukraine, I’ll stay out of it.”  Biden’s reason was that once the U.S. forces entered Ukraine, it would trigger World War III.  My God, didn’t Biden remember history?  What he did was appease Putin just like when Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler in 1939 when he declared “Peace for our time" and signed a peace treaty with Hitler.  Eight months later, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, which ignited World War II.
Appeasing Putin
Eighty-four years later, Putin invaded Ukraine.  Appeasement failed to work again.  With Russian troops and tanks battling their way inside Ukraine, missiles raining on Kyiv, and thousands of Ukrainians fleeing to Poland and Romania, Biden offered help to evacuate the Ukrainian refugees. But Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky declined, saying, “We need ammunition, not a ride.”  
    In an attempt to show that American forces are ready to help, Biden sent 800 U.S. troops to the Balkan States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, former Soviet republics that are on the border with Russia.  Once again, it shows the tokenism that has characterized the Biden administration. 
    On February 26, the U.S., the U.K., Canada, and Europe committed to remove some Russian banks from the SWIFT system  -- Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication -- deploying what the French Finance Minister called a “financial nuclear weapon” because of the damage it would cause to Russia.
      At first, Biden was hesitant in supporting the expulsion of Russia from SWIFT.  Arguably, it is one measure that appears to strike fear at the heart of the Kremlin, which is to cut Russia from the global banking system.  
It is interesting to note that in 2014, Iran was blocked from the SWIFT system because of its nuclear program.  In 2019, then-Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said losing access to SWIFT would be akin to a declaration of war against Russia, which demonstrates how vulnerable – and dangerous -- Russia is to such action.  I guess that’s what scared Biden.
Deterrent move
Indeed, SWIFT would be one deterrence that would stop Russia from further invading Ukraine, simply because it would cause severe economic dislocation in Russia.  It might even bankrupt – and implode -- the Russian economy.  That’s like dropping a nuclear bomb without the radioactive effect.  We might witness the second disintegration of the former Soviet Empire.
    But after Putin broke his word that he’ll never invade Ukraine, Biden was still optimistic that “peace can be achieved for our time.”  “There’s still time to avert the worst-case scenario that will bring untold suffering to millions of people if they move as suggested,” Biden said. “The United States and our allies and partners remain open to diplomacy, if it is serious when all is said and done. We’re gonna judge Russia by its actions, not its words.”
    But Putin’s actions say it all:  Ukraine has been invaded and thousands of Ukrainians are running to Poland, Romania, and Hungary.  For all intents and purposes, World War III has begun!
    But if Biden wants to achieve peace, all he has to do is appease Putin by accepting his demands; to wit: (1) Ukraine promises never to join NATO; (2) Recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea; and (3) Demilitarize Ukraine’s armed forces.  However, Ukraine has stood firm in its resolve to join NATO and the European Union in the future, which was enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution of 2019.  Zelensky, ever defiant, said, “We are not afraid of anyone or anything.”
    Meanwhile, the Trump cult has gotten behind Putin.  Following Trump who said that Putin is a “genius,” cult member Mike Pompeo parroted Trump’s praise, saying Putin is “very shrewd, very capable.  I have enormous respect for him.”
    Tucker Carlson, a FOX News host, had nothing but praises for Putin.  But after Putin invaded Ukraine, Carlson changed his tune, which just shows if he truly means what he says on FOX News.
    At the end of the day, while I wish Biden would show more resolve in fighting for the Ukrainians’ independence, I hope that Putin would realize that threatening to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. is nothing more like when children fight, threatening each other but hardly throwing a punch.  
    In Putin’s case, his threat was nothing more than nuclear blackmail – mark of a coward -- that threatens to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. but doesn’t have the guts to press the First Strike button knowing too well that the U.S. would respond with a devastating Second Strike that could wipe out Moscow off the face of the Earth. 
(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)
 
 
 
 

Read more...