#Defense Ministerial

[lamarseillasie]

What did Marat think of the CPS members?

Hi, anon! 👋

First of all, I'd like to apologize for taking so long to answer your question. I was very busy with various things involving my end-of-year studies and could only reply now. I hope you weren't upset or disinterested!

Secondly, I didn't quite understand whether your question meant to ask what Marat thought of the CSP in general or what he thought of each of the members individually. So I decided to answer both questions!

It is important to note that, in my research, I have not been able to find much information about Marat's concrete views on the committee itself, nor have I been able to find his views on all the members. This is probably due to the fact that the CSP was created in April 1793, an extremely turbulent year for the Revolution in general and somewhat turbulent in Marat's political life, who, although he never stopped publishing his newspaper, didn't have much time to write. But it's possible that I'll find something more on this subject in the future, so I'll update this post whenever possible.

It can be said that, initially, Marat was committed to the creation of the CSP and was, in a way, in favor of it. Despite this, he never stopped criticizing and imposing his opinions on the organization of its functions and members. In issue no. 163 of his newspaper, Le Publiciste de La Republique Française, published the day after the official creation of the Committee of Public Safety, he points out some "ridiculous defects" in the draft of the Committee of General Defense presented by Isnard for the creation of the CSP. It's a rather poor quality document, which made my translation difficult, so bear in mind that it is subject to errors.

"This was the plan Isnard presented to the General Defense Committee. In vain did I search this plan for the men responsible for providing the means to repel enemies from without and within. I saw in it nothing more than a simple surveillance of the operations of the Minister of War and the Navy and an unlimited search for suspicious citizens, under the pretext of pursuing the schemers. This omission of the most important care and this accumulation of the very different functions of two committees into just one revolted me: I showed that this obviously tended to undermine tyranny, without fulfilling the main objective, which is the defense of the state. My reasons were heard, and the Committee of Public Safety was able to restrict itself to putting ministerial agents into action, in charge of carrying out means of general defense, with the simple power to request the assistance of the Committee of Security for the arrest of evildoers or suspicious persons."

In addition to this excerpt, there are a few other issues of Le Publiciste de La Republique Française in which Marat criticizes the poor functioning of the Committee of General Security. You can find his complaints mainly in the issues from April to July 1793. Despite these harsh criticisms, Marat seemed to believe that the creation of the CSP could bring benefits, or at least he defended the creation of a committee made up of "capable and politically enlightened patriots to put the state on the defensive". This thinking, however, changed dramatically just a few months later. This could be seen in the last issue of the LPRF, which was published the day after Marat's death, on July 14.

"What should we think of the Committee of Public Safety, or rather its leaders, given that most of its members are so careless that they attend committee meetings for only two hours out of twenty-four, ignore almost everything that is done there and perhaps have no knowledge of this room. They are very guilty, no doubt, for taking on a task they don't want to do: but the leaders are very criminal for carrying out their duties in such an unworthy manner."

It is possible to conjecture, especially from this excerpt, that Marat was very dissatisfied with the CSP - which, at the time, still didn't have very consolidated power - and one of the main reasons for this was its members, the vast majority of whom Marat despised. In the following excerpt, he talks about Bertrand Barère, calling him the "most dangerous enemy of the fatherland".

"Among them is one whom the mountain has just renamed in a very reckless manner and whom I consider to be the country's most dangerous enemy. This was Barére, who Sainte-Foi pointed out to the monarch as one of the constitutionalists with whom he could work best. As for me, I am convinced that he is swimming between two waters to see which party will win the day; it is he who has paralyzed all the measures of force and who is tying us up like this to let them cut our throats. I invite him to give me a reminder by finally making a statement so that he is no longer seen as a monarchist in disguise."

Barère is also mentioned by Marat in an interesting pamphlet he made in 1792, when the elections for deputies to the National Convention were taking place. The pamphlet is called Marat, l'Ami du Peuple, aux amis de la patrie and is available to read here (p. 310). In it, Marat comments on some of the candidates for deputies and shares his opinions about them with his readers, making a list of his nominations and also of those who, according to him, should be avoided at all costs. Barère was on the list "of unworthy people proposed by the author of La Sentinelle, with the aim of serving the faction of the enemies of liberty".

"Barère de Vieuzac, a useless man, without virtue or character".

Following the same pamphlet, Marat mentions other future members of the CSP: Billaud-Varenne, Tallien and Robespierre. They are included in the "list of men who have most deserved the patriciate".

Robespierre & Billaud: "All you have to do is name them, they are the true apostles of freedom; woe betide you if they are not the first objects of your vows."

Tallien: "Excellent patriots, who'll always be narrating with the intrepid defenders of the fatherland."

To say the least, we can consider that this list has aged a little badly. I haven't found any further mention or statements by Marat about those mentioned above (with the exception of Robespierre and Barère), so it's possible that his opinion changed from 1792 to 1793, although we don't have any proof of this in principle.

With regard to other members, such as Hérault, Carnot and Couthon: their names only appeared a few times in L'Ami du Peuple, and it's not very easy to identify exactly what Marat thought of each of them. In issue no. 614, Marat refers to Couthon as a "patriot", which I think is a good thing. Hérault, however, doesn't seem to be held in Marat's esteem, especially according to this excerpt from issue no. 510, in which he puts him on the same level as people like Bouillé and Necker, whom, to say the least, Marat didn't like very much.

As for Robespierre, Marat always supported him. In a way, they both always supported each other; Marat did so until his death. The two were never friends as such - in fact, little is known about the personal aspect of their relationship. Throughout the Revolution, they often shared very similar opinions about various situations, such as the case of the Nancy garrison, Simmoneau's death and especially the opposition to the revolutionary war, when both were politically isolated. Because of this, they were able to count on each other's support. Although it's not quite true to say that they were friends or that they had any affection for each other that wasn't entirely political. I plan to write a more complete post about these two in the future!

Apparently, Marat also had a positive opinion of Saint-Just. He appreciates his conduct in a discussion in issue no. 240 of LPRF, and there is also the fact that Saint-Just seemed to be favorable to Marat, which can be seen in some of his writings and speeches at the Convention. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any writings by Marat about other CSP members such as Lindet, Prieur and the others.

From all this, it can be concluded that Marat's opinion of the CSP members is somewhat fragmented, since he has different thoughts about each of them. In any case, it is certain that, at least before his death, Marat was against the committee and had a strong distrust of it. Let me know if you have any questions or corrections about any of the information I've included in this post, anon, and I hope I've helped you. :)

[bespectacledbun]

˚ʚ♡ɞ˚ a little lovemail for Emma ˚ʚ♡ɞ˚

because I went on a little rant on discord recently about how capable she is and how much she’s overlooked by the fandom. too often I see comments saying she’s weak, or incompetent, or a glorified therapist for the princes when she’s not; Emma is honestly incredibly intelligent, but I feel people always forget to consider that she’s a) a commoner b) a woman c) in a medieval fantasy setting, and hold her to modern standards, which is... a little unfair

so I wanted to give her a little love too 💌

she knows three languages, two of which are entirely self taught—court french (Chevalier’s route) and japanese (Rio’s route)

she doesn’t stop there, though; she proceeds to learn even more languages after getting her happily ever after. in Luke’s post-route stories she knows at least 4 languages, and in Chevalier’s post-route stories she knows more than 5 languages and is actively learning more

while I’m on the topic, LITERACY. I think people often forget that “education for all” was not a thing until the 18th century, and before then only merchants and nobility got proper educations. Emma holding a clerical job as a commoner IS an admirable quality for her social status and the time period ikepri is set in

she’s a great entrepreneur. she opens a book-lending business (Chevalier’s route), as well as her own bookstore and a school (both in Clavis’s route)

not only does she pick up on court etiquette and skills (music, dance, diplomacy, politics) in less than a month, she’s also able to learn ministerial duties and absolutely kicks ass at it (Sariel’s route)

she knows how to play not only to her own strengths and weaknesses, but also to that of others around her. she’s able to broker bargains with many of the suitors (Chevalier, Nokto, Silvio, Sariel) across routes to get the information and/or help that she needs

another thing I see often is because she doesn’t say “no” to the princes and that somehow makes her weak, or easier to push around—there’s a world of power difference between her and the suitors. emma being able to hold her ground against the princes as she does, while navigating an entirely new battlefield of court politics and high society, is an excellent testament to her mental fortitude and character

she’s a skilled horseback rider (all routes) and swimmer (Jin’s events) way before she comes to the castle, and she eventually learns martial arts for self defense from Licht (Licht’s events)

she taught herself first aid and nursing, and is proficient enough to become a battle medic in many of the routes (Chevalier, Licht, Yves). emma also goes on to properly learn medicine to become a licensed doctor (Keith’s route)

“Belle” isn’t just a role that Emma plays for a month; it’s a political position with a LOT of power. there is a reason why she observes the princes so closely, there’s a reason why she hides it and why she doesn’t let her feelings for the princes determine whether they are fit to rule or not. she can change Rhodolite’s governmental administration entirely, whether it’s directly, by naming a particular king, and thus a particular set of policies that will affect the entire kingdom— or indirectly, by influencing their views on how to rule. her first priority will always, ALWAYS be protecting her home and her people, regardless of who she’s in a relationship with; Emma is a kingmaker, not arm candy. 

there’s probably more that I can’t remember off the top of my head but my point is—– Emma isn’t just a pretty face and a kind voice to the princes. the reason the suitors fall in love with her isn’t because she’s the therapist who “fixes” them, it’s because she’s intelligent, brave, and a really hard worker. she stands by her convictions and morals no matter who she’s against and is determined to achieve her goals regardless of what stands in her way

is emma a little idealistic about her job and wanting a fairy tale romance? yes. does she try to solve her problems through nonviolence instead of action? also yes. but it doesn’t make her any less of a person or diminish her skills and worth because she’s not ambitious or assertive enough. she’s content with her life and her relationships, but she still strives to improve herself and help the people around her, and I think that makes her both a great character and a great woman

[mariacallous]

NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels this month will discuss the future of the alliance's relationship with Russia, potentially upending decades of foreign policy, Politico reported on Oct. 11, citing a senior U.S. official.

Relations between NATO and Russia deteriorated sharply following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Despite increased tensions, the NATO-Russia Founding Act, signed in 1997, remains in effect. The act outlines a mutual aim to "build a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe."

NATO states are now looking to redefine the alliance's future relationship with Moscow. Defense ministers from member nations will convene in Brussels Oct. 17-18 to discuss the matter, a senior U.S. government official said.

Allies will "map out different elements of (the Russia) strategy and advance the debates inside the alliance that takes us to subjects like the future of the NATO-Russia Founding Act," a senior U.S. government official told reporters on Friday.

"It's time to now craft a new strategy in terms of (the allies') specific positions," the official said.

The October meeting represents the first time official talks on the topic have been held at the ministerial level. At the next NATO summit, which will take place in The Hague in June 2025, allies have agreed to draft a new NATO-Russia strategy.

"Right now we have to have an understanding across the alliance ... that the (Founding Act) and the NATO-Russia Council were built for a different era, and I think the allies are prepared to say that was a different era in our relationship with Russia, and therefore something new is merited," the official said.

The NATO-Russia Council (NRC) was established in 2002 to facilitate cooperation and joint decision-making. The NRC has not met since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion in 2022.

While warnings about a clash between Russia and NATO have mounted since the all-out war began, most analysts and commentators suggest such a scenario is not imminent.

The U.S. official said the military implications of the revised political strategy are expected to be minimal. Another NATO diplomat also expressed concern that too aggressive a strategy could send a disruptive "signal" to Moscow.

Currently, the focus is on gathering viewpoints across member states, the official said. There is no draft document of a revised NATO-Russia strategy at this time.

At the beginning of October, Mark Rutte took  the helm as NATO'S new secretary general, stressing on his first day that the alliance has to ensure that Ukraine "prevails as a sovereign, independent, democratic nation."

[democraticelectorateoflivonia]

Presidency

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Bethan McKernan at The Guardian:

The Israeli politician and former military chief Benny Gantz has followed through on a threat to resign from Benjamin Netanyahu’s emergency war cabinet, leaving the prime minister more reliant than ever on far-right elements of his coalition government. Gantz, a major Netanyahu rival, former defence minister and leader of the centre-right National Unity party, joined the three-man war cabinet as a minister without portfolio in the aftermath of Hamas’s 7 October attack, a move he said was for the sake of the country’s unity. But as Israel’s war effort in Gaza dragged on, disagreements over strategy and how best to bring the 250 Israeli hostages home spilled into the open, culminating in Gantz accusing the prime minister of pushing strategic considerations such as a hostage deal aside for his own political survival. Last month, he gave Netanyahu an ultimatum of 8 June to present concrete “day after” plans for the Gaza Strip.

Gantz delayed his resignation speech by a day after the unexpected rescue of four Israeli hostages in an operation that the health ministry in Gaza said killed 274 people and injured another 696. The withdrawal of his party also means Gadi Eisenkot, an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) general and war cabinet observer, and the minister without portfolio, Chili Tropper, are also stepping down. “Netanyahu is preventing us from progressing towards a true victory,” Gantz said in a televised address on Sunday night. “For this reason we are leaving the emergency government today, with a heavy heart, yet wholeheartedly.”

Gantz also called on Netanyahu to set a date for elections, adding: “Do not let our nation tear apart.” The move does not immediately pose a threat to Netanyahu, as the prime minister still controls a majority coalition in parliament. It does, however, affect the Israeli government’s respectability on the international stage; centrist Gantz is well liked in Washington, where he was seen as a useful brake on Netanyahu, and his absence means the prime minister’s far-right allies are likely to now have more sway over the trajectory of the war in Gaza and the growing threat of war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Bezalel Smotrich, the far-right finance minister, slammed Gantz, saying “there is no less stately act than resigning from a government in time of war” as “the kidnapped are still dying in the Hamas tunnels”, and the extremist national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, has already asked Netanyahu for Gantz’s seat on the war cabinet. Both ministers have repeatedly threatened to withdraw from the coalition if Israel makes any concessions to Hamas in a hostage and ceasefire deal.

[...] Netanyahu and his defence minister, Yoav Gallant, are the only two remaining members of the war cabinet, and also often do not see eye to eye. The prime minister is now said to be considering shuttering the war cabinet and reverting to a former model in which security issues are first discussed in a limited forum before being presented to regular cabinet meetings, in which he seeks ministerial approval. The longtime prime minister, facing corruption charges as well as scrutiny over the security failures that led to 7 October, is widely believed to see staying in office as his best chance of escaping prosecution. He also needs to parry an internal challenge from the two ultra-Orthodox parties in his coalition over the issue of military conscription.

Benny Gantz resigns from Israel’s war cabinet.

[soon-palestine]

Since October 7, there has been no shortage of genocidal calls from Israeli leaders, as well as clear plans, also at ministerial level, for the complete ethnic cleansing of Gaza. And while the usage of biblical euphemisms like Prime Minister Netanyahu’s “Amalek” reference may appear too vague for some, even if the story suggests killing infants, on Sunday ret. Major General Giora Eiland, former head of the National Security Council and current advisor to the Defense Minister decided to spell out genocide more explicitly. In a Hebrew article on the printed edition of the centrist Yedioth Ahronoth titled “Let’s not be intimidated by the world,” Eiland clarified that the whole Gazan civilian population was a legitimate target and that even “severe epidemics in the south of the Gaza Strip will bring victory closer.” His bottom line leaves no doubt as to his view: “They are not only Hamas fighters with weapons, but also all the ‘civilian’ officials, including hospital administrators and school administrators, and also the entire Gaza population that enthusiastically supported Hamas and cheered on its atrocities on October 7th.” [..] A concentration camp Eiland has a long history of being surprisingly forthright about his view on the state of the Gaza Strip. In 2004, then as head of the National Security Council, he regarded the Gaza Strip as “a huge concentration camp” as he advocated for the U.S. to force Palestinians into the Sinai desert as part of a “two-state solution.” As per a U.S. diplomatic cable leaked to Wikileaks here: Repeating a personal view that he had previously expressed to other USG visitors, NSC Director Eiland laid out for Ambassador Djerejian a different end-game solution than that which is commonly envisioned as the two-state solution. Eiland’s view, he said, was prefaced on the assumption that demographic and other considerations make the prospect for a two-state solution between the Jordan and the Mediterranean unviable. Currently, he said, there are 11 million people in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip, and that number will increase to 36 million in 50 years. The area between Beer Sheva and the northern tip of Israel (including the West Bank and Gaza) has the highest population density in the world. Gaza alone, he said, is already “a huge concentration camp” with 1.3 million Palestinians. Moreover, the land is surrounded on three sides by deserts. Palestinians need more land and Israel can ill-afford to cede it. The solution, he argued, lies in the Sinai desert. It is interesting to see Eiland recognizing such a reality even before the Gaza “disengagement” of 2005, before the election of Hamas in 2006, and before the genocidal siege of 2007, which has only been upped in its severity since October 7. At this point, regarding Gaza, as a concentration camp appears perhaps too weak a term — it has become an extermination camp.

[beardedmrbean]

Prosecutors in the high-profile Karen Read case submitted their response to her team's appeal to Massachusetts' highest court Wednesday to have two counts in her murder case dismissed.

Read is accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, with her SUV during a snowstorm in Canton in January 2022, but after a mistrial was declared in the initial trial, her legal team filed to have the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a crash resulting in death dismissed on grounds of double jeopardy. They claim that after the mistrial, several jurors revealed to them that the jury was actually in agreement that Read was not guilty on those two charges and were only in disagreement on the charge of manslaughter while driving under the influence.

In the 77-page document filed with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the prosecution argued its key points: that the judge's declaration of a mistrial was reasonable given the information provided by the jury in notes on three separate occasions, that the defendant consented to the mistrial (as defense counsel was given an opportunity to speak about the declaration of a mistrial and pushed for that result), and that Read was never acquitted on any charges in formal court.

“The defendant was not acquitted of any charge because the jury did not return, announce, and affirm any open and public verdicts of acquittal. That requirement is not a mere formalism, ministerial act, or empty technicality. It is a fundamental safeguard that ensures no juror’s position is mistaken, misrepresented, or coerced by other jurors. It also protects each juror’s right to rethink their position and to change their vote before reaching a final verdict,” the prosecution wrote.

The jury in Read's first trial began deliberations on June 25 and expressed that they were deadlocked to the judge on three occasions - on June 28, and in two separate occasions on July 1, the day Judge Beverly Cannone ultimately declared the mistrial. None of those notes, the prosecution points out, indicated that they had come to an agreement on any of the charges.

Read the Karen Read prosecution's full argument to the SJC

Read's team got a major ally in her case Wednesday, when the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts filed a brief arguing that the Supreme Judicial Court should toss Cannone's decision and at least have her hold a hearing involving the evidence that the jury was in agreement.

The ACLU's lawyers said that the Constitution's prohibition of double jeopardy — you can't be tried twice for the same crime — applies in this case. They also argued that courts in Massachusetts regularly ask juries questions after a mistrial is declared, as well as hold hearings to address irregularities after a verdict is declared.

"Almost 400 years ago, the Massachusetts colony enacted the first formal prohibitions against double jeopardy on American soil. In accordance with this tradition, the Court should require an evidentiary hearing to ensure that Appellant’s double jeopardy rights are not violated by a second trial on counts for which the jury already agreed to acquit her and for which the trial court did not have manifest necessity to declare a mistrial," the ACLU's brief said.

NBC10 Boston legal analyst Michael Coyne believes that Read's argument won't win out after the Supreme Judicial Court hears arguments in the case on Nov. 6.

Read's lawyers' will have several days to respond to the prosecution's filing. Read is set for a retrial in January.

[usafphantom2]

Finland approves deployment of the F-35A assembly line at Patria

Fernando Valduga By Fernando Valduga 04/03/2024 - 23:18in Military

The company Patria, in collaboration with the Finnish Ministry of Defense, is prepared to build an assembly facility in Finland for the production of F-35 Block 4 fighters.

The recent approval by the Ministerial Finance Committee of the Ministry of Defense's proposed lease of land and facilities is a significant milestone in the $9.6 billion acquisition agreement between Finland and Lockheed Martin, covering the delivery of 64 F-35A jets to the Finnish Air Force.

The automaker, a crucial component of the initial phase of the contract, will be located near the city of Nokia, with the beginning of the construction of the engine assembly building scheduled for the second half of 2024. The lease agreement for the site was signed in January between the Finnish Defense Forces and Defense Properties of Finland.

The Finnish Minister of Defense, Antti Häkkänen, emphasized the contribution of industrial cooperation to the defense industry of Finland, stating: “The F-35 agreement will generate critical experience in maintenance and repair, including reliability of maintenance, promoting significant know-how in Finland for the assembly and testing of F-35 engines.”

The assembly factory will collaborate closely with the regional aircraft center of Patria's aviation division in Tampere, with about 100 employees involved in various assembly functions at the facilities. Patria, in which the government holds a 50.1% stake, will work alongside the Norwegian company Kongsberg, which controls the remaining stake. In addition, Patria owns half of the Norwegian defense contractor Nammo.

The F-35s are scheduled to replace the former McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet jets of the Finnish Air Force, with retirement scheduled for 2030. The first batch of F-35 is expected to be delivered and deployed in the Arctic air bases in the regions of Lapland Finland by 2026.

The industrial cooperation component is expected to gradually expand by 2030, potentially covering the production or assembly of specific aircraft parts and systems in Finland. The Finnish Air Force has already carried out tests to evaluate the suitability of the F-35 to operate in extreme climatic conditions in the Arctic, with recent exercises including maneuvers on stretches of "closed road" in the Arctic and subarctic regions.

The ongoing exercises, such as the one-week Hanki 24 workouts in the northern part of the country, aim to better evaluate the adaptability of the F-35 to the challenging winter conditions of Finland, characterized by limited daytime light.

Tags: Military AviationF-35 Lightning IIIlmavoimat/Finnland Air ForceLockheed MartinPatria

Sharing

tweet

Fernando Valduga

Fernando Valduga

Aviation photographer and pilot since 1992, he has participated in several events and air operations, such as Cruzex, AirVenture, Dayton Airshow and FIDAE. He has works published in specialized aviation magazines in Brazil and abroad. He uses Canon equipment during his photographic work in the world of aviation.

Related news

BRAZIL

IMAGES: How was the farewell of the C-130 Hercules at the FAB, after almost 60 years

04/03/2024 - 18:36

MILITARY

VIDEO: Turkish manufacturer tests Akinci drone with high-precision missile systems

04/03/2024 - 14:30

MILITARY

IOMAX prepares updated Grand Caravan aircraft for ISR missions with the Royal Jordanian Air Force

04/03/2024 - 13:00

MILITARY

Pentagon will suspend V-22 Osprey flight ban this week

04/03/2024 - 12:00

INTERCEPTIONS

Hours after taking over NATO mission, German Eurofighters intercept Russian aircraft

04/03/2024 - 09:00

MILITARY

Russian Aerospace Forces receive a new AWACS A-50U Mainstay aircraft

04/03/2024 - 08:23

[workersolidarity]

🇺🇦🇷🇺 ZELENSKY VISITS NATO, BEGS FOR WINTER AID

Highlights of Ukrainian Drug Addict President Volodymyr Zelensky's visit to NATO:

* Statement to NATO from Volodymyr Zelensky:

"Dear friends, we must win the winter battle against terror," Zelensky told reporters.

"It is very important that there are priorities, there are basic air defense systems. These are not just basic words. These are very concrete things and we need them."

"How to survive during this next winter for us is big," Zelensky continued.

"We are preparing, we are ready. Now we need some support from the leaders. That's why I'm here today."

* NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg calls for more air defenses for Ukraine:

"What we are seeing now is that President Putin is preparing once again to use winter as a weapon of war, meaning attacking the energy system, the gas infrastructure," said Stoltenberg. "We need to prevent that. And with more advanced and increased capabilities for air defense, we can make a big difference."

"Air defense is critical to protect the cities, the economy, the critical infrastructure of Ukraine and that helps them to help themselves, because then their economy can function, then things can work in Ukraine."

* UK-led coalition set to provide Ukraine with a £100 Million [$122.7 Million] [€115.8 Million] aid package including Air Defenses, ammunition and mine clearing equipment.

* Belgium to send F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine in 2025 as it replaces its own ageing squadron with F-35s. Belgian authorities believe the planes to be too old for combat, however they might find use elsewhere 🤡

* US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announces new military aid package to Kiev worth $200 Million [€189 Million] including ammunition for air defenses, artillery and rocket ammunition, ATGMs, and anti-drone technology.

Lloyd Austin reaffirmed the US commitment to Ukraine for "as long as it takes"

* The NATO forum was formally established in July to allow NATO and Kyiv to discuss matters of common interest and concern.

31 allies and Ukraine are set to take part in the first NATO-Ukraine Council at a defense-ministerial level.

It is Zelensky's first visit to NATO headquarters since the war escalated with Russia's entrance in February 2022.

#source

@WorkerSolidarityNews

[nadiegesabate1990]

A crowd of protesters takes to the streets of Seattle, in the United States, and prevents the opening of the 3rd Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization. The millennium comes to an end with protests against globalization and neo-protectionism in rich countries.

On November 30th, US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was preparing to deliver the opening speech at the 3rd Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the so-called "Millennium Round". But Albright could do nothing. Shortly before the event began, a storm would sweep through Seattle. At Pike Place Market, just a few miles from the city's commercial center, a crowd began to gather. According to an environmental activist from the NGO Sierra Clube, at 6 am there were more than 10,000 people gathered at the site - some dressed as sea turtles.

Nearby, in the Memorial Stadium parking lot, over 20,000 trade unionists were meeting, including representatives of unions and associations from different countries, including the CUT and Força Sindical, from Brazil. Finally, the two groups, armed with posters and plaques and many of their members in costume, marched determinedly towards the Convention Center where the WTO meeting would take place, shouting in defense of ecology and subsidies and against globalization. The super demonstration brought together people of all stripes - environmentalists, right-wingers, paranoids, neo-Nazis, anarchists, religious people and various left-wing groups.

The congestion was enormous, stranding the limousines of the big shots and the vans intended for the bodyguards. In the vicinity of the Westin hotel, where the North American delegation had stayed, there were at least 5 thousand people surrounding the visitors. The city hall, evidently, placed riot troops on the streets and tried to contain the crowd with tear gas bombs. There were fights, police beating and dragging people through the streets. By Friday the 3rd, there were 500 prisoners and 40 injured, including a police officer in serious condition.

It was supposed to be a peaceful demonstration, assured the main organizers, the AFL-CIO union and a coalition of ecological groups. But this was not what young, more radical anarchists intended. For months, kilograms of announcements about the storm had been being sent via the Internet. The scenario for confusion, therefore, was already properly designed, and at 10:30 am it was already known that the opening of the WTO meeting was compromised. Furthermore, the police were not adequately prepared to maintain order. As for the big shots, they were also warned by the Secret Service about what could happen.

At 8:30 pm that Tuesday, the confusion escalated to such an extent that it became out of control. Supposed anarchists began burning trash cans and stacking mailboxes; Then the riots (window windows, large stores) and graffiti began. The situation became critical and Mayor Paulo Schell declared a state of emergency, called in the National Guard and instituted a curfew, a regime that would be extended until the weekend. Trade unionist John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, said in an interview with the magazine: "What unites us all here is the fact that the WTO makes decisions in the absence of civil society." Meanwhile, the United States' chief negotiator, Charlenne Barshefsky, agreed with the protesters, who accused the organization of being just a body where decisions are made secretly, behind closed doors and without democratic consultation.

On Thursday, President Clinton, before speaking to WTO representatives, told the farmers' association that free trade is something that could be good for everyone and that the government would fight for the international organization's decisions to be made. in a clearer way and with the participation of civil society interest groups.

[hazardous-waste-containment]

“Both conservatives eager to protect the status quo and leftists seeing in fascism a means of capitalist class rule, the last defense of capitalism in conditions of extreme decay, basically had the same view. Thus there is little difference between Palme Dutt when he wrote that “only two paths are therefore open to present society, the alternative of fascism or communism” and the formulation by a fascisticized conservative like Calvo Sotelo when he maintained that

Fascism here and elsewhere is not an original postulate but an anti-thesis, not an action, but a reaction. In England where there is no communism, there is scarcely any fascism. In Spain where communism is a reality . . . fascism, not as a specific organized force which is least significant – but as an uncoerced indefinable sentiment of national defense, which many do not know how to define or organize, will continue to grow until the social danger disappears.

On the other hand, both fascists and scholars are aware of the basic differences between imitators and the true movements, particularly the contrast with the single parties created from above in the authoritarian regimes of Eastern and Southern Europe. A memorandum prepared for Mussolini in August 1929 conveys, as many similar texts, this difference:

The Fascist Revolution was passion, struggle, and blood. It had within itself three elements, without which it is almost impossible to bring about the miracle of infusing a new way of life in a people: victory in war, a condottiero, a myth. De Rivera’s noble movement in Spain was undoubtedly something more than a mere ministerial crisis, but it was certainly much less than a revolution. There was no victorious war. The myth was painfully absent, as has been demonstrated by the pitiable party which was completely devoid of soul and vitality. The condottiero has proven to be a little more than an intelligent and energetic gentleman. His followers are neither numerous nor enthusiastic, and he tends to hold them back rather than to encourage them. [His proposed constitution is an] artificial compilation, a mosaic of timid imitations and of uncertain intentions, halfway between Fascist and democratic-electoral principles.

Juan J. Linz, “Political Space and Fascism as a Late-Comer,” Who Were the Fascists?

[arpov-blog-blog]

Summary of DC Circuit's Denial of Trump's Immunity Claim

The court ruled today no blanket immunity for Trump.

Ron Filipkowski- Meidas Touch Network

..."The DC Circuit Court of Appeals denied Donald Trump's claim for of presidential immunity today for all crimes committed while in office. Trump will petition the Supreme Court now to take the case, but there is certainly no guarantee that they will. Judge Chutkan will certainly get this case back on her trial docket unless/until it is stayed by the Supreme Court. 

The court began their opinion with the following clear and stark language that will come as a shock to Trump's system:

"... former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that would have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution."

Trump asserted that he had absolute immunity for any "official acts" he undertook while in office, and that everything he did in connection with the charges in the J6 indictment was an official act. The court then pointed out that previous Supreme Court decisions on presidential immunity distinguished between civil and criminal cases - interpreting immunity more broadly to protect presidents from civil lawsuits while president, but not for criminal charges. The court then addressed each of the specific arguments made by Trump why he should have total immunity:

SEPARATION OF POWERS

Trump argued that the courts have no jurisdiction to review presidential acts under the separation of powers doctrine. Trump's lawyers stated specifically that "neither a federal nor a state prosecutor, nor a state or federal court, may sit in judgment over a president's official acts." The court rejected that assertion, which was largely based on one line in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison:

"Former President Trump misreads Marbury and its progeny. Properly understood, the separation of powers doctrine may immunize lawful discretionary acts but does not bar federal criminal prosecution of a former president for every criminal act."

The court said that Marbury distinguished between discretionary acts, which are given immunity, and ministerial acts which are not. Ministerial acts were defined as duties that are imposed upon the president to perform under the law, and if they fail to perform them or performs them in contraction of the law which violates the rights of others, then they are not immune. The court then stated that one example of this is a federal statute passed by Congress that a president is required to follow would not granted immunity if he refuses to do so. 

The court then emphasized that when Trump filed dozens of lawsuits around the country challenging the election results in various places, he was not doing so in his official capacity as a president seeking to faithfully execute the laws governing elections. The DOJ did not bring these legal challenges, the Trump campaign did. They then made this scathing statement:

"Former President Trump's alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He allegedly injected himself into a process where the president has no role - the counting and certifying of Electoral College votes - thereby undermining constitutionally established principles and the will of Congress."

[mariacallous]

On Sunday, June 9, Israeli minister Benny Gantz, a member of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war cabinet and Netanyahu’s main putative challenger for the position of prime minister, resigned from the government along with his fellow party member Gadi Eisenkot. The resignation comes at an awkward time for the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden, which has been making a significant effort to promote a cease-fire and hostage release deal, proposed by Israel, outlined by Biden in a speech on May 31, and adopted by the U.N. Security Council as Resolution 2735. Gantz and Eisenkot, major proponents of such a deal within the Israel war cabinet, are now out of decisionmaking circles. Should Hamas’s leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, accept the deal, which he has not so far, Netanyahu would now have heightened political incentive to balk at his own proposal. But the resignation may also serve to catalyze political changes in Israel that may hasten a change of leadership, something the Biden administration would welcome. While there is no guarantee that Gantz’s resignation will bring Israel’s elections any closer, it was a necessary step for any major political change.

The Israeli war cabinet is formed

As the details and magnitude of the October 7 terrorist attack became clear, there were immediate calls in Israel for a national emergency government that would include centrist opposition leaders alongside Netanyahu. Israelis shared a sense of historic crisis and were prepared for a major war. The official leader of the opposition, Yair Lapid, offered to join the cabinet, but he demanded that Netanyahu exclude Betzalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, two far-right ministers, from his security cabinet. Netanyahu refused, with the rationale that after the emergency government eventually dissolved, he would have lost his base. It was an early sign that politics would continue to play a substantial role in the prime minister’s decisions, even in the depths of the crisis.

Gantz, the other major opposition leader, joined the cabinet nonetheless, satisfied instead by the creation of a “mini” war cabinet that excluded the two far-right ministers from the management of the war.

In the Israeli system, the prime minister is not the commander in chief of the military. Rather, the cabinet serves in that role, as a committee, with most powers bestowed on a smaller security cabinet (formally, the “ministerial committee for national security affairs”) of which Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are members. Netanyahu and Gantz thus formed an ad-hoc forum, the mini-war cabinet, with three official members: Netanyahu, Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant of Netanyahu’s own Likud party, and Gantz. They were joined by three observers, Eisenkot; Ron Dermer, Netanyahu’s confidante and former ambassador to the United States; and Aryeh Deri, the most veteran minister and leader of the Shas party. Notably absent were the far-right ministers.

Resignations and consequences

Gantz and Eisenkot joined the emergency cabinet on a temporary basis, for the duration of the war’s initial phases, and with the public expectation that they might resign by the end of 2023 or early 2024. Months past that, their resignations now have implications for Israeli policy and politics.

By May, as tensions with the Biden administration over Israel’s Gaza strategy had grown, Gallant publicly called out Netanyahu and criticized the latter’s lack of strategy for what Gaza might look like after Hamas. Without defined strategic goals, no operational or tactical objectives could succeed. Gallant demanded that Netanyahu state that he does not plan for a return to Israeli occupation, as existed before the Oslo II Accords of 1994. This dramatic challenge to Netanyahu also created an opening for Gantz.

In May, Gantz finally signaled his intent to resign. He laid out conditions for his staying in the government and set an ultimatum that he would leave if they were not met, which Netanyahu rebuffed the same day. In policy terms, his most notable demand echoed Gallant, demanding that Netanyahu elucidate the beginning of a strategy for the day after in Gaza.

Gantz, Gallant, and Eisenkot are all retired generals with a long, shared history in the military. Ganz is the former chief of staff of the military, a high-profile role that is more influential in Israel than the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is in the United States, for example. As the only lieutenant general in the Israeli military and the commander of everyone in uniform, the chief of staff commands a great deal of attention from a public who face, in theory, universal conscription. When Gantz was appointed to the top military post in 2011, he was, in fact, the second choice of the cabinet. Netanyahu, the prime minister at the time, and then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak had preferred Gallant, who was considered more hawkish on Iran, but was disqualified by a public committee due to ethical concerns. Eisenkot was appointed as Gantz’s deputy in 2013 and eventually succeeded him at the top military post. 

Now in government and civilian clothes, the former generals were at times allies in the war cabinet, despite representing different parties. Their demand for strategic thinking about the day after also reflected their desire to see some role, even if limited, for the secular, West Bank-based Palestinian Authority (PA) in Gaza, which Netanyahu has rejected. The centrist ministers’ departures weaken that prospect, possibly strengthening the hands of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, who would prefer to see the collapse of the PA altogether.

Elections are not imminent … probably

The resignations also had political motivations. Gantz has led Netanyahu in the polls ever since October 7, but his lead has narrowed significantly. If elections were held today, polls now suggest the possibility of an inconclusive election, though still with a clear advantage to the opposition. If these were the results of the next election, Gantz would need to cobble together a coalition reminiscent of the coalition headed by Lapid and Naftali Bennett, an act of political acrobatics that only held together for slightly over a year.

Elections are not scheduled for over two years, however. Even with Gantz’s resignation, Netanyahu’s original coalition, which consists of 64 out of 120 members of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, still holds a clear majority. It could fracture in different scenarios, but none of them is very likely in the short term.

First, with Gantz’s and Eisenkot’s resignations, centrist Likud members, such as Gallant, may opt to defect and try to replace Netanyahu. This would be a very risky move for them politically, but it may become more likely if demonstrations against the government, already growing, return to the large scale that Israel had seen before October 6. Gantz’s presence in the government, and especially the war’s continuation, made the environment less conducive to such public pressure until now.

Netanyahu’s far-right partners may also bring about his downfall if he veers to the center. In particular, they have already warned that should Hamas accept the cease-fire and Netanyahu move forward with the deal (a “surrender,” as Smotrich termed it), they would topple the government. This, of course, makes such a scenario less likely.

Finally, there is a small chance that Netanyahu’s Haredi partners, who are the most conservative religiously but not the most hawkish in terms of national security, might destabilize his coalition. Haredi men are exempt from military service, due to political maneuvering, a highly emotive grievance for the majority of Jewish Israelis who do serve, especially in a time of war and bereavement. With the Supreme Court now demanding a legislative basis for the exemption, Netanyahu’s coalition is struggling to put one in place. Seeing a political opening, Gantz made conscription, in some form, one of his central demands of Netanyahu. Should such a legal standing not be found, the Haredim may follow through on their threats to resign, though they are unlikely to get a better deal with another prime minister later, and so have incentives to remain.

One final option remains: Netanyahu could call for elections himself if he found an opportune moment or excuse. Netanyahu has identified his opposition to a Palestinian state as a winning ticket in a population traumatized by October 7 and loath to take any security risks in negotiations with Palestinians. Netanyahu would hope to portray himself as the one man able to withstand international pressure on Palestinian sovereignty. He will undoubtedly hope to return to the theme of his recent election campaigns, portraying himself as being “in a league of his own” in global diplomacy. One opportunity for a campaign image of Netanyahu on the global stage will come soon, currently scheduled for July 24, when he speaks before a joint session of Congress.

[animanytotsllyinsany]

ghhghgh zavodila with lyrics but it's. sarv and ruv singing it.

alternate title: dan wanted to combine 2 different covers of zavodila with lyrics and thought that this was the best way to do it

inspired by this mod right here:

lyrics under cut. idk man

Sarv: Italics

Ruv: Bold

Both: Both

Here in these hallowed halls, here in these hallowed halls!

Here in these hallowed halls, here in these hallowed halls...

We're gonna break your balls! We're gonna break your balls!

We're gonna break your balls, I have to break your balls.

Desecrating our haven, you defiled our sanctuary!

Now you'll learn the grace of god to sin is merely temporary!

He shall turn the other cheek when we bring to an end your final week!

Came into the house of light, denied us, now you get a fight-

So now you face the rival's hymn-- Your survival? It's looking grim.

You had the carrot, chose the stick, so now I show you, little prick, what's to be scared of here among the seraphim!

Ruv and Sarv are here for war!

He shakes foundations to the core!

For your sins, oh, so aggressive,

I hope god can forgive you once more!

Earthquakes and thunderstorms,

Bass smashing through the floor,

You will learn what we have in store

When we show your sins you'll answer for!

Such vile vitriol to our ministerial!

I welcomed you into our home,

You spat at our faith so you'll atone!

Repent, you infidel! It might save your soul from hell,

While your girlfriend puts up her facade, I'll crumble this house of god!

Bring down the house of god! Bring down the house of god!

Bring down the house of god, bring down the house of god.

Pray for forgiveness, clod! Pray for forgiveness, clod!

Pray for forgiveness, god, this chorus is really odd- (Ruv!)

I ask for forgiveness for the sin of pride that I'm committing...

I beg for forgiveness for the sin of wrath i'm now committing...

But in my name, he'll punish every single bar this child is spitting.

In her name, I have to punish every bar this poor man's singing.

Their blood mixed in communion wine, the closest they get to divine...

Hallowed be thy name, the Zavodila shall now end their game.

If they spurn our faith, then death's a rest that they will never find.

In the name of god in heaven, this lost boy I shall detain.

Ruv and Sarv are here for war, shake foundations to...

I have no choice but to do a deciple's job and discipline you.

Earthquakes and thunderstorms, bass smashing through the floor,

For your sins, oh, so aggressive

You'd better pray, only god forgives!

Cast down the wicked one! For the father and the son!

We'll come to our faith's defense, you'll pay for your ignorance!

Repent, you infidel, it might save your soul from hell!

While she puts up her facade, i'll bring down the house of god!

Goodbye!