VIDEO: FDD's online harassment against critics of Trump’s State Department
The role Foundation for the Defense of Democracies served as a messaging hub for a controversial taxpayer-funded project, has never been revealed until now.
Earlier this month, Responsible Statecraft reported — based on recently obtained documents via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit — that the hawkish DC think tank Foundation for the Defense of Democracies was at the center of an online harassment campaign funded by the State Department that targeted Americans, including journalists, and human rights advocates, because of their opposition to Donald Trump's Middle East policy. Quincy Institute Multimedia Producer Khody Akhavi breaks the story down:
Ben Armbruster is the Managing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He has more than a decade of experience working at the intersection of politics, foreign policy, and media. Ben previously held senior editorial and management positions at Media Matters, ThinkProgress, ReThink Media, and Win Without War.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that he would be open to peace negotiations with Ukraine.
“Are we ready to negotiate with them? We never refused, but not on the basis of some ephemeral demands, rather on the basis of the documents which were agreed on and actually initialed in Istanbul,” said Putin during remarks at an economic forum with leaders from Malaysia and China.
Putin is referring to negotiations that took place in Istanbul just weeks after Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in February, 2022. At that time, Kyiv and Moscow were reportedly close to a deal in which Kyiv would have agreed to reduce the size of its military, refrain from joining NATO but be free to pursue membership of the European Union. Those talks ultimately failed, with continued debate about whether Western countries moved themin that direction.
The Russian president also suggested that Brazil, China, and India could mediate new talks to end the war. His comments come just weeks after Russian officials dismissed limited, indirect talks with Kyiv in response to Ukraine’s invasion of Russia’s Kursk region last month.
Some observers have questioned whether Putin’s apparent desire for talks to end the war is sincere, but there’s also no reason Western leaders shouldn’t try to find out.
“On a stage with Asian leaders, including from China, he knows it’s important to rhetorically embrace talks no matter his real intentions,” Samuel Charap, a Russia expert and senior political scientist at RAND, told the Wall Street Journal. He added: “Western capitals tend to tune in when he rejects talks and tune out when he embraces them. … But until someone actually tests the proposition we’ll never know what his real intentions are. If it’s a bluff, you only know when you call it.”
Meanwhile, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba announced his resignation this week as part of a cabinet reshuffle President Volodymyr Zelensky hinted at last week. Reacting to the news, Zelensky said his country needs “new energy, and that includes in diplomacy.”
It’s unclear whether Kuleba’s departure will result in Kyiv pushing for negotiations to end the war, nor whether Zelensky would now be open to any concessions, including accepting a partition of Ukrainian territory, as part of any wider agreement. He has previously been unwilling to entertain such concessions.
In other Ukraine war news this week:
— Poland scrambled fighter jets as Russia launched missile strikes on the Ukrainian city of Lviv this week, close to the Polish border, according to CBS News. "I'm personally of the view that, when hostile missiles are on course of entering our airspace, it would be legitimate self-defense (to shoot them down) because once they do cross into our airspace, the risk of debris injuring someone is significant," said Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski.
— Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov met with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austion last weekend in an effort to lift restrictions on the use of American made weapons. “We have explained what kind of capabilities we need to protect the citizens against the Russian terror that Russians are causing us, so I hope we were heard,” told CNN.
keep readingShow less
An armed soldier is standing behind a pile of used shells at the positions of the Motorised Rifle Battalion of the 93rd Kholodnyi Yar Separate Mechanized Brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Donetsk region, Ukraine, on August 15, 2024(Photo by Ukrinform/NurPhoto) VIA REUTERS
Some Western supporters of Ukraine have been presenting the Ukrainian incursion into the Russian province of Kursk as a great victory that will significantly change the course and outcome of the war. They are deceiving themselves. While legally and morally justified, the attack has failed in all its main objectives, and may indeed turn out to have done serious damage to Ukraine’s position on the battlefield. One U.S. analyst has compared it to the Confederate invasion of the North that led to the battle of Gettysburg — a brilliant tactical stroke that however ended in losses that crippled the Army of Northern Virginia.
The Ukrainian attack has not captured any significant Russian population center or transport hub. It has embarrassed Putin, but there is no evidence that it has significantly shaken his hold on power in Russia. It may have done something to raise the spirits of the Ukrainian population in general; but, as Western reports from eastern Ukraine make clear, it has done nothing to raise the morale of Ukrainian troops there.
Understandably, they are focused on the situation on their own front; and that situation is deteriorating sharply, in part it seems because many of Ukraine’s best units were diverted to the attack on Kursk, and new Ukrainian conscripts are inadequately trained and poorly motivated.
"One of the objectives of the offensive operation in the Kursk direction was to divert significant enemy forces from other directions, primarily from the Pokrovsk and Kurakhove directions,” Ukrainian commander in chief General Alexander Syrsky said.
In fact, precisely the opposite seems to have happened; and this is leading to intensified criticism both of President Zelensky and the Ukrainian high command from ordinary soldiers and citizens.
The Russian army is advancing rapidly towards the key Ukrainian logistics hub of Pokrovsk. In the words of one of the Ukrainian defenders: “For a long time, the situation in Donbas was aptly described as ‘difficult, but controlled.’ However, now it is out of control. Currently, it looks like our front in Donbas has collapsed.”
If or when Pokrovsk falls, it will mean that Russia controls almost all of the southern Donbas, and could strike either north, against the remaining Ukrainian positions in northern Donetsk province, or east, with a view to rolling up the entire Ukrainian southern front.
There is now no prospect that even with Western military supplies, Ukraine can inflict a crushing defeat on Russia and recover its lost territories by force. There is a danger of Ukrainian military collapse, which might lead to pressure in the West for direct intervention. This is one thing that the Russian government's signaled change to its nuclear doctrine is intended to deter.
Present Russian nuclear doctrine states that nuclear weapons will be employed in response to a nuclear attack on Russia, or a conventional attack that “threatens the existence of the state.” In the words of Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov;
“[T]here is a clear intent to introduce a correction [to the nuclear doctrine], caused, among other things, by the examination and analysis of development of recent conflicts, including, of course, everything connected to our Western adversaries' escalation course in regards to the special military operation."
If a direct NATO intervention in Ukraine led to Russian defeat there, it would certainly threaten the survival of the present Russian government, and usher in a period of profound national instability and weakness, conceivably even leading to the disintegration of the Russian Federation. There is little reason to doubt that, faced with this threat, Russia would indeed escalate towards the use of nuclear weapons, albeit initially on only a limited and local scale.
Ryabkov’s statement is also of course intended to deter the U.S. and NATO from bowing to pressure from Kyiv and some NATO governments and politicians and allowing Ukraine to use the new NATO-supplied long-range missiles and F-16 warplanes to strike targets deep inside Russia. It is not that such attacks would provoke Russian nuclear retaliation; but if successful, it is easy to predict that Russia would hit back at the West through sabotage of European infrastructure. Russians believe the destruction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline has given them a moral and legal right to do this.
Such sabotage operations appear already to have begun, though on a small scale and as what appear to be warning shots rather than a campaign. If however this were to become a full-scale campaign, it could in turn provoke harsh Western responses leading to a cycle of escalation ending in catastrophe. The Russians also believe — not without reason — that the Ukrainian authorities have a strong interest in creating such an escalation so as to bring NATO in on their side; and that NATO must therefore be pressured into continuing to place limits on Ukraine’s use of NATO weaponry. The fact that Ukraine felt able to invade Russian territory using NATO weaponry has intensified Russian fears in this regard.
Once again, it is necessary here to separate what Ukraine has a right to do, from what is wise for Ukraine to do, and the West to allow. For it should be recognized that like the attack on Kursk, a Ukrainian campaign of bombardments of targets in Moscow and elsewhere deep in Russia with NATO missiles would essentially be a gamble, the outcome of which is highly doubtful.
After the failure of last year’s Ukrainian offensive, the Biden administration abandoned hopes for complete Ukrainian victory and instead started to say that support for Ukraine is intended to “strengthen Kyiv at the eventual negotiating table.” In recent months, the Ukrainian government has also shifted towards this position, and away from its previous refusal to negotiate with the Putin administration and insistence on complete Russian withdrawal from Ukraine as a precondition of talks with Russia.
There has long been a growing recognition in private among Western experts and officials that it is in reality impossible for Ukraine to recover its lost territories through victory on the battlefield. However this has not so far led — even strictly in private — to suggestions that Ukraine and the West might propose terms that the Russian people (let alone the government) could accept as a basis for negotiations.
In the meantime, the evidence suggests that it is Russia, not Ukraine, that is strengthening its military position for eventual negotiations; and it is not at all clear that Ukrainian strikes deep into Russia would significantly change this trend.
This is also true when it comes to Western aid. Even before the crushing defeat in local elections of German ruling coalition parties by those opposed to continuing support for Ukraine, the German government had announced that German direct aid to Ukraine will be cut by almost half, and by more than 90 percent in 2027. In that year, France will hold presidential elections which on present form seem likely to be won by Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National — also opposed to open-ended support for Ukraine. A drastic reduction in European aid would not in itself end U.S. aid. It would however force a U.S. administration greatly to increase that aid if it wished to prevent a collapse of the Ukrainian budget and economy.
There is no reason therefore to think that time is on Ukraine’s side in this conflict, and that it makes sense to delay the start of negotiations. That however does not mean that all the cards are in Russia’s hands, and all the Kremlin has to do is wait for Ukrainian collapse. The economy has performed far better than the West hoped, but the Russian Central Bank itself is warning of serious problems next year. As for the situation on the battlefield, while Ukrainian soldiers are exhausted, that also appears true of many Russian troops.
The army with which Russia began this war has been destroyed. The exact level of casualties is unclear, but the dead and disabled are almost certainly in excess of 200,000. The Black Sea Fleet has been crippled. As Russian establishment interlocutors acknowledged to me, Russia probably does not have the troops to capture major Ukrainian cities, unless President Putin launches an intensified wave of conscription — something he is clearly unwilling to do.
This means that if given a clear choice between what they could regard as a reasonable peace and a continuation of war to complete victory, it seems probable that a majority of Russians would opt for peace; and that it would therefore be very difficult for Putin to continue the war, if to do so meant the conscription of many more Russian sons and husbands. Such a compromise peace would be very far from what the Ukrainian and Western governments hope. It would also be very far from what Putin hoped for when he launched this war in February 2022.
With few exceptions, most soldiers do not wish for death on the battlefield.
While some warrior cultures, like the Norse, revered dying in battle as an honourable end, and some jihadists today believe in heavenly rewards for martyrs, these are outliers. The reality is that the prospect of being shot or blown to pieces is terrifying, making recruitment a persistent challenge.
A recent BBC article highlighted the increasing difficulty of recruiting new soldiers in Ukraine. After two-and-a-half years of war and more than 500,000 Russian and Ukrainian casualties, volunteers are scarce.
Consequently, Ukraine introduced a law requiring all men aged 25 to 60 to register their details in an electronic database for potential conscription. Conscription officers actively seek those avoiding registration, driving many into hiding.
In Odesa, the feared mobilization squads are known for pulling people off buses and from train stations, taking them directly to enlistment centres. These reluctant recruits understandably fear becoming another statistic in the front line “meat grinder” with Russia.
Throughout history, rulers and politicians have faced the challenge of convincing ordinary citizens to enlist for war. How do leaders persuade their populace to take up arms and risk their lives? As societies have become better educated and informed, these tactics have evolved. Leaders often appeal to extreme nationalism, dehumanize the enemy, and create an atmosphere of existential threats, false flags, and outright lies.
Consider Putin’s “Denazification” of Ukraine, Israel’s claims of decapitated babies, and America’s claim of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Not to mention the excuse of needing to protect citizens through regime change, as seen in Libya. The truth usually emerges, but often long after the damage is done.
Notable examples include the Pentagon Papers scandal in 1971, which revealed significant information about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, showing that the U.S. government had misrepresented the events that led to the escalation of the Vietnam War, and the unfounded WMD claims that led to the invasion of Iraq.
Convincing the populace is one thing, but recruiting soldiers requires a deeper indoctrination. Training recruits to follow orders without question involves repetitive military drills. These drills condition recruits to respond to commands promptly and without hesitation. As a soldier, you’re not expected to judge the morality of your actions; you execute orders precisely as given. If this indoctrination fails, there is always the threat of court-martial, imprisonment, or even facing a firing squad.
That said, given the effort required to craft narratives, fear-mongering, lies, and indoctrination necessary to mobilize the populace for war, wouldn’t it be simpler to eliminate the need for citizens’ permission or soldiers altogether? Recent technological advances might offer warmongers a solution.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) will revolutionize weaponry like no previous innovation in history. A recent report by the Quincy Institute, which I support, highlights Silicon Valley’s entry into the weapons industry. It quotes former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, “Every once in a while, a new weapon, a new technology comes along that changes things. Einstein wrote a letter to Roosevelt in the 1930s saying that there is this new technology — nuclear weapons — that could change war, which it clearly did. I would argue that (AI-powered) autonomy and decentralized, distributed systems are that powerful.”
AI can achieve what humans cannot, parsing millions of inputs, identify patterns, and alerting commanders at unimaginable speeds. Military experts assert that the side that most effectively shortens the “kill chain” — the time between identifying and destroying a target — wins.
AI may be the most revolutionary technology for conducting war, but it’s not alone. Kamikaze drones, now used in the Ukraine war, will one day swarm battlefields. Additionally, many other sci-fi-esque technologies, like Direct Energy Weapons (DEW), including high-power microwaves, particle beam weapons, and lasers are being tested by the U.S., the U.K., Israel, and Russia.
Mimicking “Terminators” is not far off either. Witness the advancements by companies like Boston Dynamics. Their humanlike robots can run, jump, and move much like humans. Equipping them with machine guns or flame-throwers and mass-producing a few hundred thousand of them is a scary thought. (Boston Dynamics reached out to the Star following publication to note that it does not support the weaponization of robots).
The future of war will also encompass fifth-generation warfare, primarily conducted through nonkinetic military actions like social engineering, misinformation, and cyberattacks. When paired with AI and fully autonomous systems, these methods can be as damaging as kinetic warfare. Consider the movie “Leave the World Behind,” which explores societal collapse when all communication networks are shut down by a cyberattack.
Adding AI to any of these weapons creates autonomous systems capable of making decisions without human intervention, leaving the decision to kill to an algorithm. Given that we still don’t fully understand how AI learns and arrives at conclusions, the risks of catastrophic malfunctions should not be underestimated.
AI lacks a moral compass; it simply aims to complete its task. As author and AI expert Max Tegmark explains, “a machine does not need to be malevolent; it simply needs to be competent at achieving its goals to be a potential threat.” If innocent humans are in the way of completing its task, tough luck.
What are the implications of these advancements for decisions about wars? It’s hard to predict, but one outcome might be that with less need to recruit soldiers, there’s less need to “sell” the public on engaging in war. In the U.S., the “Military Industrial Complex” has already managed to bypass Congress (contravening the U.S. Constitution) when deciding to go to war, giving the president tremendous power.
Relegating soldiers to museums alongside crossbows and muskets, would make declaring war much less controversial — no body bags on the evening news — and therefore easier to wage. The only “soldiers” needed will be the young kids sitting at computer consoles conducting destruction of lives and property like in video games. No more 18-year-olds dying somewhere in the mud. Only the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire of this new kind of warfare will pay the price.
As the U.S. has engaged in decades of wars that have destroyed lives and economies without achieving their stated goals, and have significantly contributed to the nation’s enormous debt, public attitudes — especially among Gen-Z — have become increasingly critical and less accepting of war.
As rapper Cardi B mockingly said about recent draft legislation, “I just read an article saying that the House just passed a bill that they’re going to automatically register men from 18 to 26 for war. All I want to say is to America, good luck with that. These new little n——— are TikTokkers, baby. These mother f——— ain’t going to fight no war. You might as well just keep investing money and get guns. This is a new America, baby.”
The introduction of technologies that might make soldiers obsolete may give warmongers who manipulate the decision-making process at the highest levels an easier path to wage more senseless wars. That would be a tragedy.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.