St. Benedict on the ‘Noah Principle’* (Building an Ark Rather Than Just Predicting More Rain)

(from Richard Rohr’s Center for Action and Contemplation)
July 28, 2022

“Listen carefully, my daughter, my son, to my instructions and attend to them with the ear of your heart. This is advice from one who loves you; welcome it and faithfully put it into practice.” —Prologue, The Rule of St. Benedict   

 … Listening in the Benedictine sense is not a passive mission. Benedict [c. 480–547] tells us we must attend to listening. Listening is an act of will.

Listening cracks open the door to another Benedictine concept which most of us would rather run from — that of obedience. Obedience comes from the Latin, oboedire, to give ear, to harken, to listen.

In Benedictine spirituality there is an inherent connection between listening and responsive action.  

To obey really means to hear and then act. We are not being truly attentive unless we are prepared to act on what we hear. If we hear and do nothing more about it, then the sounds have simply fallen on our ears and it is not apparent that we have actually heard them at all.

So, what about us, a millennium and a half after Benedict?

We Americans are, of course, the beneficiaries of how Washington, Paine, and Franklin actively listened.

Gen. George Washington’s soldiers acted on what they heard from Tom Paine in 1775: 

These are the times that try men’s souls; the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.

Washington’s troops “stood it” then. Will we summon the courage to listen to the “signs of the times” and “stand it” now – like winter, not just summer, soldiers?

Are we up to Benjamin Franklin’s challenge to “keep” the Republic that the Framers of our Constitution gave us? We can meet this new ‘American Crisis’, but only if we listen and act.

*Noah Principle: No more awards for predicting rain; awards only for building arks.

Kiev Is Losing (Interview)

Garland Nixon, Alessandro Bruno, and Ray McGovern
on Peter Lavelle’s CrossTalk, July 26, 2022 (25 min.)
https://rumble.com/v1drnbp-crosstalk-kiev-is-losing.html
or
https://odysee.com/@RT:fd/CrossTalk_2707:f
(CrossTalk is banned from YouTube.)

Peter Lavelle’s intro:
When you are losing a battle, with little or no possibility of victory, that is when you should seek an end to the conflict. But that is not the case with Ukraine today. The longer the conflict lasts, the worse it gets for Kiev. It would seem that is Washington’s plan.

Nuclear Arms Round Table with Ted Postol, Ray McGovern, Larry Johnson

A range of related issues also discussed
July 26, 2022

My former colleague at CIA, Larry Johnson, helped convenor Gonzalo Lira get the three of us together for, what was, actually, a Square Table. It’s long, but I think interesting.

While citing the discussion on his own website: https://sonar21.com/nuclear-arms-round-table-with-gonzalo-lira-ray-mcgovern-ted-postol-and-moi/ Larry adds a couple of interesting comments.

“Spotlight” Interview: Update on the Week in Ukraine

Journalist Jeff J. Brown and Ray interviewees
July 24, 2022

I pointed to three very important developments over recent days:

1 – Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian openly declared support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, casting the blame on NATO and the U.S.

2 – Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian did the same. Here’s part of his statement:

As the one who started the Ukraine crisis and the biggest factor fueling it, the US needs to deeply reflect on its erroneous actions of exerting extreme pressure and fanning the flame on the Ukraine issue and stop playing up bloc confrontation and creating a new Cold War by taking advantage of the situation. The US needs to facilitate a proper settlement of the crisis in a responsible way and create the environment and conditions needed for peace talks between parties concerned.

3 – Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced on July 20 that Moscow’s territorial aims have broadened beyond the Donbass. “Now the geography is different,” he explained, blaming the longer-range weapons being provided to Ukraine and citing HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems) as exhibit A. (Their range is 50 miles.) Lavrov said such weapons will require Russian forces to “move even farther forward from the current line.

Media Mum; Austin Dismissive

Establishment media have not given Lavrov’s announcement the attention it deserves ( See: https://raymcgovern.com/2022/07/22/media-miss-major-moves-on-russia-ukraine/ .) Worse still, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin seems to have missed its significance.

Several hours after Lavrov announced Russia’s change in policy, Austin was asked to talk about it and about HIMARS. This is what he said:

I’m sure that Ukrainian leadership will be pleased to hear Lavrov’s confirmation of the effectiveness of not only that system, but how they’re using that system.  As you know, Russians are currently in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia [both mentioned by Lavrov as part of the new “geography”] So the Russian forces, they’re there now, so you have to wonder who he’s talking to. … I think he’s talking to the people in Russia who have been ill-informed throughout. … “

So, Russia announces a basic change of plans; it will be a wider war because of longer-range artillery coming in from the West that requires its army to push on beyond the Donbass, the Russian Foreign Minister says.

As for the U.S. Defense Secretary, he says, See? HIMARS works!

Did Austin miss Lavrov’s point? Or was he in no way fazed to hear officially (from Lavrov) that tit-for-tat escalation has succeeded in bringing a new “forever war” in which Ukraine will  be a testing ground for U.S. weapons. ( See: https://raymcgovern.com/2022/07/22/ukraine-us-russia-dangers-of-tit-for-tat/ ).

Media Miss Major Moves on Russia-Ukraine

By Ray McGovern, July 22, 2022

Corporate media are ignoring the stark implications of Russia’s stated intention to take control of more Ukrainian territory than just Donetsk and Luhansk. I discussed this on The Critical Hour yesterday and supplement those thoughts in the paragraphs below.

On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced Moscow’s broadened aims, explaining, “Now the geography is different. It’s far from being only the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, it’s also Kherson and Zaporizhia Oblasts and a number of other territories.” (I had just written on this: https://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2022/07/20/ukraine-us-russia-dangers-of-tit-for-tat/ )

In his interview, Lavrov pointed specifically to HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, made by Lockheed-Martin) as the kind of “weapon that will pose a direct threat to our territory and the territories of those republics who have declared their independence (Donetsk and Luhansk)”. The HIMARS being provided to Ukraine have a range of 50 miles, putting them also at easy reach of Crimea — which Kyiv (and the U.S.) insist is legally still part of Ukraine. It all depends on “geography”.

I’ll See You and Raise You

Just a few hours after the Lavrov interview was reported came the announcement by U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin that the U.S. will give Ukraine four more HIMARS, bringing the total to 16. Austin bragged that HIMARS have already “made a difference on the battlefield”.

But which battlefield? Lavrov and Russian President Putin can have no illusions that the wider, strategic “battlefield” includes Russia. Indeed, this is the same benighted Lloyd Austin who let that cat out of the bag three months ago:

“One of the US’s goals in Ukraine is to see a weakened Russia. … The U.S. is ready to move heaven and earth to help Ukraine win the war against Russia.”

( See: https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/25/politics/biden-administration-russia-strategy/index.html )

Will Blinken and Biden Wake Up?

It seems a sure thing that Biden’s advisers anticipate being engaged in a proxy war in Ukraine at least until this November when the U.S. mid-term elections take place. Until then the Democrats surely will not want to appear to be slackers in confronting Russia on this critical issue (which, truth be told, they themselves did so much to create).

The reality, of course, is that U.S. policy makers go blithely along, enriching the MICIMATT (and enhancing campaign coffers) by giving advanced weaponry to Ukraine – and replacing them as needed. It’s very good for the multifaceted profiteering business. What is really troublesome is that there appears to be little understanding of the high stakes involved; little appreciation of what it means that Russia considers U.S./NATO behavior in Ukraine an existential threat — one that Russia is determined to remove, and can.

As fall approaches and more HIMARS arrive, their 50-mile range and (as Lavrov tried to explain) the dictates of “geography” may lead to a much deeper Russian offensive well beyond the Donbass. Military prospects for Washington’s proxies in Ukraine are already poor and are likely to grow worse as the mid-terms grow near. Understandably, Putin will be worried that the U.S. will move: “I’ll see you and raise you.”

Domestic Politics

President Putin is no stranger to the reality that U.S. presidents are beset by domestic political pressures. In June 2021, he acknowledged this specifically in a keynote speech to the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum:

“I am sure that it [US policy towards Russia] is primarily impacted by domestic political processes. Russia-US relations have to a certain extent become hostage to the internal political processes that are taking place in the United States.” ( See: https://tass.com/politics/1298867 )

In my view, this gives the Kremlin considerable incentive to defeat what’s left of the Ukrainian army and move west, taking control of Odessa and moving toward Moldova, in due course. Again, Putin would fully expect the Biden administration to raise the ante at that point. So, by October things could get quite dangerous quite quickly.

Media Consumers in for Shock?

Given the Walter-Mitty-type reporting on how well Kyiv’s forces are doing, and the overall absence of balanced reporting and commentary in Establishment media, future Russian army advances beyond the Donbass are likely to come as a shock. Factor in the 6-year-long indoctrination/brainwashing on Russia’s “interference” in elections and its other alleged Russia-gate misdeeds (now disproven, but with the truth still hidden). Salt with a dollop of Russophobia and continual one-side-of-the-story reporting, and U.S. media consumers would probably be malleable enough to support giving Ukraine even longer-range weapons systems and/or aircraft.

Surprise, surprise: This week the New York Times  failed to put 1 and 1 together, so to speak: (1) Lavrov on “geography” and HIMARS prompting Russia to go deeper into Ukraine; and (1) and Austin’s pledge of four more HIMARS to make “a difference on the battlefield”.

Instead, NYT readers today get front-page, above-the-fold, he-said-she-said drivel from Andrew E. Kramer in Kyiv; his piece is titled To Rally Allies, Ukraine points to Fresh Gains.

Kramer writes:

“Through it all, the Ukrainians’ message to the world did not change. We can win. Our strategy is working, if slowly. Just keep the weapons coming.”

Among the successes the Ukrainians have told Kramer about is a strike on a Russian ammunition depot with, you guessed it, HIMARS. And, scraping the very bottom of the barrel, Kramer reports that the head of Britain’s MI6 (the UK counterpart to the CIA) believes Russian forces “are about to run out of steam … giving Ukrainians opportunities to strike back”. To remind (because Kramer forgot to), MI6 has a well deserved reputation for “fixing the intelligence and facts around the policy”, as official British documents show it did before the U.S./UK attack on Iraq in March 2003.

What Really Matters

One must skim half-way through Kramer’s 38-paragraph article to find a sensible paragraph on what really matters. But he does hit paydirt with this one:

The question of whether the long-range weaponry now arriving in Ukraine can indeed roll back the Russian army has become a pivotal unknown in the war.

Agreed: the answer to that cannot be known now with certainty. But the risk of tit-for-tat escalation getting out of hand, as early as this fall, can be known. A pity that NY Times readers are not warned of that.

Beware the Lucrative Tilt  With Windmills in Ukraine

By Ray McGovern, July 21, 2022

A  certain “Drew Hunkins” (I don’t know who h/she is) has written some provocative remarks in a “comment” under Information Clearing House’s (commendable) posting of an unusual article by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Hunkins’s comments are very hard to ague against. I guess that’s why no Establishment media would touch them with a 10-foot Pole – or a 12-foot Czech.

Here is Hunkins’s text: See what you think.

_____________________________________

Comment by Drew Hunkins: The Six Reasons Why

It’s becoming clear that “NATO” (i.e., the Washington-Zio-militarist imperium) is now set on upping the ante in Ukraine by attempting to bleed Russia dry. The occasional HIMARS artillery launch into Russia proper will be occurring regularly as well as attacks on the ethnic Russians in Donbas. The Russian military and DPR and LPR forces are adept at blowing up much of the NATO weaponry sent to the Ukies, but it’s almost impossible to destroy it all.

So where does this all end? The Kremlin had no choice but to embark on its liberating SMO since Washington was baiting and harassing Russia’s border for several years. Washington is not intending to back down to enter a Cold War style detente any time soon. Ergo, we stare down the barrel of a potential low simmering World War III that will rage for many years to come.

It’s noteworthy to remember why Washington is intent on destabilizing Russia to eventually foment regime change. The following are those reasons:

1.) To enforce the Wolfowitz Doctrine despite the potential danger. This dictated that Washington would never allow a competing power to rise on the global stage, one that could potentially put a check on neocon/Ziocon global ambitions.

2.) To return Russia to the 1990s when it was exploited and pillaged and plundered at will by the Wall St boys of international finance. During this lost decade poverty skyrocketed as well as unemployment and deaths of despair.

3.) As payback for interceding in Russia successfully interceding in Syria to essentially defeat the jihadi mercenary lunatic terrorists who were supported by the Zionist power configuration to destabilize the Assad administration.

4.) Washington’s proxy war on Russia in Ukraine is being conducted in order to de-link the growing economic ties between Russia and Western Europe, especially Germany. Washington’s goal for NATO’s Western Euro policy was always to keep Germany down, Russia out, and the U.S. in.

5.) Finally, Washington’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is the first step in an eventual attack on China. No way could Washington expect to be successful in a Sino U.S. war with Russia still in the picture, so the first step is to take on the Russian bear first then turn to the rising Chinese economic juggernaut.

6.) The domestic US military-industrial-complex must have a formidable enough foe that strikes fear in the public in order to justify the trillion dollar annual budget and careerism of the MIC personnel. Of course Russia fills the role of evil villain quite well, though obviously the criminality of Russia is almost entirely exaggerated by the Western media who also profit off the ruse.

Of course, none of this has to happen. But right now Washington’s dominated by sociopathic and extremely dangerous Ziocon/neocons in the form of Blinken, Sherman, Sullivan, and Nuland. All bets are off when folks of this kind are running the show. [End of Hunkins’s comment.)

______________________________________

I believe the U.S. objectives described in paragraphs 1 through 5 are the main ones in play. But their achievement is fanciful and — as long this is not understood as fanciful – those aims are downright dangerous. Paragraph 6, though, is a different kettle of fish. The dominating power of the MICIMATT makes paragraph 6 of transcendent importance.

As long as greed, lies, exceptionalism, and racism prevail, those who profiteer on arms making/selling, and who prostitute politicians with the proceeds will prevail —  UNLESS we use the freedoms we still have to confront them.

As for the greedy politicians who acquire and sit forever in lucrative seats in House and Senate by funding and sharing in the profits from arms manufacturers and traders, Pope Francis chided them directly at a joint session of Congress on Sept. 24, 2015, but they didn’t seem to “get it”. Francis minced no words:

“Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering? Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood.”

The blood-drenched arms traders. Are we powerless before them?

Simon Tisdall | Putin Is Already at War With Europe. There Is Only One Way to Stop Him

Simon Tisdall, Guardian UK

Tisdall writes: “He has weaponized food, energy and refugees, spreading economic and political pain across the continent. Sanctions don’t work, a land for peace deal would be a disaster. Only the military route remains.”
https://www.rsn.org/001/putin-is-already-at-war-with-europe-there-is-only-one-way-to-stop-him.html

The Guardian (and apparently websites that promote its dangerous drivel) want NATO to go big-time against Russia in Ukraine. Damn the torpedoes!