We call on all members of the Cabinet to do so forthwith!

Should they still have failed to do so by October 2026, it will be up to the voting public to take this matter into their own hands on Election Day in November and for the newly convened U.S. Congress, in January 2027, to impeach and convict the President as well as all Cabinet members who opposed resort to the 25th Amendment for dereliction of duty.

Signed:

Aaron Tovish, February 19, 2026.

YOU, date

Here’s my thinking on a reform of Congress, long overdue.

For the House of Representatives:

Every candidate who receives 500,000 votes or more would have a seat in the House of Representatives. When they vote, their vote is registered as the number of votes they received, i.e. half a million plus whatever. They would be referred to as Inner Members.

Every other candidate who receives more that 50,000 votes can, on a specified resolution or bill, assign their number of votes to one of the Inner Members to be included in the vote count. They would be referred to as Outer Members.

Each other candidate who receives at least 5,000 votes, can assign their votes to one of the Inner or Outer Members for the duration of their two-year term. Such potential beneficiaries must be specified and announced by all candidates at least a month prior to the elections. They would not be accorded any Member status.

Votes for candidates who received less than 5,000 votes would not be counted. But keep in mind that under the winner takes all rule, none of the votes for the winner’s opponents ever figure into a Congressional vote.

To be fair, the voting procedure in all states must meet a minimum standard, i.e. counting methods set and upheld.

…

The Senate should be — if not abolished — reformed like so:

— The states should be ranked by registered voting population;

— the 34 mid-sized states retain two Senate seats;

— the 33 biggest states would be granted a third Senate seat (a special election would be held to fill that seat);

— the 33 smallest states should have only a single seat (the Senator least recently elected would step down).

Note that the total number of Senators remain unchanged. Also, that even in the very unlikely circumstance that all the biggest states were to vote together, they alone would still not command a majority.

…

Additional considerations, regarding the House:

— the situation could arise, especially in smaller states, in which no candidate reaches the 500,000 threshold. In such cases the candidate with the largest number of votes would be accorded a seat so that every state would be represented by at least one Inner Member (as is the case currently);

— to avoid excessive concentration of votes in a single Inner Member, any candidate who receives more than 5,000,000 votes, must relinquish the excess votes to Outer Members. Such potential beneficiaries must be specified and announced by all candidates at least a month prior to the elections. In some cases, this could mean that an Outer Member is promoted to Inner Member when their new total exceeds 500,000 votes.

— Outer Members would be granted priority access to House activities, including remote access. They should be allocated a cubicle/locker in one of the House of Representatives office buildings.

— obviously, the ancient House vote counting mechanism will need to be upgraded to handle the summation of millions of votes, rather the hundreds.

This latter point highlights the advantage of this reform: voters will be able to see their vote reflected in any decision of interest to them.

Regarding the Senate:

— the total absurdity of some 200,000 voters in Wyoming having representation “equal ” to 10,000,000 voters in California — a fifty to one ratio — will be replaced by the somewhat less absurd ratio of roughly fifteen to one.

Regarding the “two-party system”:

Third, fourth, and more voices will be represented as never before in the House. No doubt Democrats and Republicans will still dominate as Inner Members, but not at anywhere near the nearly 99% that has prevailed over the last 100 years or so. And, they will often need to attract the support of Outer Members to pass a piece of legislation, thereby affording some political leverage for the Outer Members.

[As for election of the presidential ticket, the Electoral College should be abolished and the winner decided simply by the national vote tally.]

NEW UPDATE: I have drafted a petition to Trump’s Cabinet, calling on them to employ the power invested in them by the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, to remove Trump from the Presidency. Do I think they would dare to oust Trump? Actually, no.

Indeed, as the brief piece goes on to highlight, by failing to heed it, the opposing Cabinet members expose themselves to impeachment in 2027 for dereliction of duty; i.e., another nail in VP Vance’s impeachment coffin.

UPDATE: ThanQ, NYT.

Ten month since his reelection, it is now perfectly clear that it was a huge mistake to give Donald Trump a second Presidential term. The US Constitution allows for corrective action in such circumstances. We must take it. We simply cannot afford to see what serious damage President Trump could cause in 2027 and 2028 to our country and to our world.

In essence, this means turning the 2026 midterm elections into a recall vote. Whether they voted for Trump/Vance or for Harris/Walz in 2024, voters can reserve their votes in the upcoming elections solely for Congressional office candidates determined to take corrective action. Meaning that, as a top priority in January 2027:

— the newly sworn in Representative will vote to send articles of impeachment to the Senate, and

— the newly sworn in Senator will vote to try and convict based on those articles.

In order for a candidate — Democrat, Republican, or independent — to take a stand on this, articles of impeachment against Trump and Vance need to be drawn up without further delay. Given the propensity of Trump (and Vance) to wreak havoc, those draft articles should be updated on a monthly, if not weekly, basis.

For the effort to succeed there needs to be a landslide vote. The entire House is up for reelection every two years, so the potential to achieve the simple majority required for impeachment is well within reach. The Senate is a tougher challenge since a two-thirds majority is required to convict: nearly all of the 35 seats being contested will need to be won by candidates — Democrat, Republican, or independent — pledged to act on the House’s articles of impeachment.

Trump’s approval ratings have nosedived since taking office because of his erratic behavior. One after another, politicians who run on their fealty to Trump are losing in local elections. These trends are likely to continue. The prospect of being able to recall Trump will be a huge incentive for people to get out and vote in the midterms. A record turnout could deliver the needed landslide.

This is not a partisan issue. The dignity of the Offices of the President and the Vice President must be restored. The reliability of the United States as an ally, as a trading partner, as a leader in science, as a champion of democracy also must be restored. This cannot be put off until 2029; the opportunity and capacity to make a course correction two years sooner is in our hands. We must not fail.

Take the Recall Pledge now, urge your friends and acquaintances to do likewise, and challenge every Congressional candidate — Democrat, Republican, or independent — to deserve your vote. Turn your 2026 votes into a giant pink slip for Donald J. Trump and his sidekick.

Take the registered voter’s Recall Pledge:

I, ______, pledge that the ballots I cast in the 2026 U.S. Congressional midterm elections will go EXCLUSIVELY to candidates who have taken the congressional Recall Pledges to act upon articles of impeachment of President Donald J. Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance as a top priority of the 120th Congress.

The US Representative candidate’s Recall Pledge:

I, ______, pledge that, upon assuming my duties in the 120th Congress, I will actively support, as a top priority, sending articles of impeachment of President Donald J. Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance to the U.S. Senate.

The US Senator candidate’s Recall Pledge:

I, ______, pledge that, upon assuming my duties in the 120th Congress, I will support acting forthwith on the articles of impeachment of the President and Vice President sent to the U.S. Senate by the U.S. House of Representatives with a view to expeditiously and permanently removing Donald J. Trump and J.D. Vance from federal office.

Can Israel regain the admiration of a bewildered world?

After almost two years of disheartening stories, one could be forgiven for believing Israel has truly lost its way. It was, thus, a ray of hope when I read these words from Alon Chen, President of the Weizmann Institute of Science, following the destruction of 60 laboratories by two Iranian missiles:

“Let me be clear: our institute shares values with many Iranians, including those Iranian scientists living outside Iran with whom we collaborate on life-saving and life-sustaining research. I look forward to the day when Israeli scientists can freely collaborate with scientists in Iran and do good for the region and for humanity. I wish the same for scientists in Gaza and throughout the Middle East.

“This blow comes after 20 months of war in Gaza and southern Lebanon, following the attacks of 7 October 2023 on Israel by Hamas. We continue to grieve the loss of life on both sides. We remain deeply distressed by the ongoing war in Gaza, the hostage crisis and the Palestinian humanitarian crisis.

“Over the course of history and the many wars in our region, science has endured. We at Weizmann are facing challenges head-on and continuing in our mission as we always have: by advancing science that protects and sustains life, and doing so through international collaboration with colleagues regardless of their identity or nationality.”

This is the Israel I so admired. It was heartening to see that, while the light has been obscured, it has not been extinguished. There is still hope that it will shine brightly again.

But what a long road lies ahead!

The biblical ruthlessness with which Israel has respond to the 7 October atrocity caught many people by surprise — perhaps even Hamas. The phrase, “the most Jews killed in a day since the Holocaust”, doesn’t come close to justifying the fury of the counterattack. October the 7th didn’t last even twenty four hours; the Holocaust played out over 3000 days! The ongoing onslaught on Gaza has claimed 50-fold more victims than the original attack.

Enough already!

Having dealt severe blows to its enemies North, East, and South, the paramount thrust of Israel policy must now be restoring Israel’s reputation internationally. It has never been lower. PM Netanyahu is constitutionally incapable of addressing this challenge. Israel needs a new government, yesterday.

It is an open question whether the Israel body politic has the wherewithal to change course. World is watching — hoping against hope.

[The Liberation Day Countdown resumes! ……L-Day minus 7,335…………. After nearly a one-year hiatus, during which your chronicaler has moved from Manila to Stockholm and become a senior advisor to NoFirstUse.Global.]

President Reagan first formulated the dictum that, “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” At his next meeting with President Gorbachev, they jointly promulgated that same dictum. The common interpretation of the dictum is that, whatever or whoever triggers it, nuclear war is a lose-lose proposition, and thus cannot be the basis for rational policy making. It is worth noting that the nuclear-use policies of China and India not to initiate nuclear warfare conform to this dictum.

The question is: how are policies that allow for — indeed threaten — the initiation of nuclear warfare in any way consistent with “must never be fought”?

The answer would appear to be that the lose-lose interpretation is not how the other nuclear powers look at the dictum. And, deviously, they have a point.

Note more closely that the dictum actually says that nuclear war is a not-win — not-win proposition. So, is there a distinction to be made between not-win and lose?

Yes, if one interprets not-win as closer to not-lose than lose. How so? Follow me down this rabbit’s hole!

First stop: “last resort”. If the chips are down, the threat of use of nuclear weapons can signal that you are prepared to throw over the entire table. If that signal is ignored or dismissed as a bluff, then you escalate to nuclear warfare in the (faint) hope that your adversary will stop pressing his advantage and be satisfied with what he has already gained. If (big if) this works, you haven’t won, but you also have not lost. (If you’re hit back — as deterrence promises — you’ve achieved worse than nothing.)

Second stop: “no matter what anyone says, when push comes to shove, they will resort”. So much has been invested in nuclear arms, that accepting defeat while your nuclear arsenal just continues to gather dust is politically untenable. So, if threatening last-resort use slightly decreases the risk of being boxed into a last-resort situation in the first place, then it’s worth the risk.

Third stop: “While we’re at it, maybe first-use threats can pay off even when it’s not a matter of last-resort.” I am not over interpreting here. In January 2022, the P5 reiterated the dictum, but went on, without so much as a pause, to say:

“As nuclear use would have far-reaching consequences, we also affirm that nuclear weapons — for as long as they continue to exist — should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war.”

If you are determined not to fight a nuclear war, how can nuclear weapons play any role beyond deterring nuclear war? The “answer” appears to be by, nonetheless, threatening it. But if you aren’t going to fight it, then the threat is a bluff, pure and simple. For the bluff to be of any value, you are counting on your adversary being gullible.

But if your adversary is running the same bluff on you, is anyone really fooled?

Less than six weeks after the P5 statement, President Putin made a mockery of it, by combining his invasion of Ukraine with a threat to resort to nuclear arms if NATO tried to thwart his conquest of Ukraine. In justification of this stance, it was argued that Ukraine becoming part of NATO would be tantamount to creating a last resort situation for Russia. So the offensive action served a “defensive purpose”; the aggression “deterred aggression”; and all this “prevented war” between the great powers.

Fast forward to the 2022 G20 summit in Bali and a new nuclear dictum: “The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible.” While the West was happy to use this stance to berate Russia, Russia simply let it slide. But here is the full paragraph which contains the eleven words (highlighted):

“It is essential to uphold international law and the multilateral system that safeguards peace and stability. This includes defending all the Purposes and Principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and adhering to international humanitarian law, including the protection of civilians and infrastructure in armed conflicts. The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible. The peaceful resolution of conflicts, efforts to address crises, as well as diplomacy and dialogue, are vital. Today’s era must not be of war.”

Note that the specific case of Ukraine doesn’t feature at all. Indeed, each sentence addresses a universal value. This created a problem for the nuclear powers whose policies allow for first use. A year later at the 2023 Delhi summit, the G20 reiterated the eleven words, but in a way that focused on (Russia’s) explicit threats of use:

— as if threatening, “Don’t cross this red line or I’ll nuke you.” was a no-no, but

— as if warning: “You should be aware that, should you cross one of my red lines, I have options, one of which is nuking you.” was OK.

It’s a distinction lacking a difference.

Rather than tie itself further in knots, the 2024 G20 simply reverted to its original economic-social focus and eschewed security issues altogether.

“Doublespeak! Nothing new here. Suck it up!”

Indeed, none of this would matter, IF the first-use policies were for real and made a modicum of sense. But they aren’t and they don’t. In short, an Achilles Heel has been exposed and we should be aiming straight at it. People have a fundamental right to assurances that nuclear policy is not just bluff and bluster. Otherwise, nuclear war could occur before we have the chance to abolish it.

Please take a moment to listen to this voice of reason from 1947. See if you can guess (before getting to the end) who’s speaking to us from the infancy of the Nuclear Age.

“.. nothing has been done to avert war, while much has been done to make atomic war more horrible; so there is no excuse for ignoring the danger. I say [“nothing”], despite the proposal for [international monitoring]* of atomic energy put forward by the United States in the United Nations. This country has made only a conditional proposal, and on conditions which the Soviet Union is now determined not to accept. This makes it possible to blame the failure on the Russians.

But in blaming the Russians, the Americans should not ignore the fact that they themselves have not voluntarily renounced the use of the bomb as an ordinary weapon in the time before the achievement of [international monitoring], or if [international monitoring] is not achieved. Thus they have fed the fear of other countries that they consider the bomb a legitimate part of their arsenal so long as other countries decline to accept their terms for [international monitoring].

Americans may be convinced of their determination not to launch an aggressive or preventive war. So they may believe it is superfluous to announce publicly that they will not a second time be the first to use the atomic bomb. But this country has been solemnly invited to renounce the use of the bomb — that is, to outlaw it — and has declined to do so unless its terms for [international monitoring] are accepted.

I believe this policy is a mistake. I see a certain military gain from not renouncing the use of the bomb in that this may be deemed to restrain another country from starting a war in which the United States might use it. But what is gained in one way is lost in another. For an understanding over the [international monitoring] of atomic energy has been made more remote. That may be no military drawback so long as the United States has the exclusive use of the bomb. But the moment another country is able to make it in substantial quantities, the United States loses greatly through the absence of an international agreement, because of the vulnerability of its concentrated industries and its highly developed urban life.

In refusing to outlaw the bomb while having the monopoly of it, this country suffers in another respect, in that it fails to return publicly to the ethical standards of warfare formally accepted previous to [World War II]. It should not be forgotten that the atomic bomb was made in this country as a preventive measure; it was to head off its use by the Germans, if they discovered it. The bombing of civilian centers was initiated by the Germans and adopted by the Japanese. To it the Allies responded in kind — as it turned out, with greater effectiveness — and they were morally justified in doing so. But now, without any provocation, and without the justification of reprisal or retaliation, a refusal to outlaw the use of the bomb save in reprisal is making a political purpose of its possession; this is hardly pardonable.

I am not saying that the United States should not manufacture and stockpile the bomb, for I believe that it must do so; it must be able to deter another nation from making an atomic attack when it also has the bomb. [… The US] should have the bomb for the sole purpose of deterring an aggressor or rebellious nations from making an atomic attack. It should not use the atomic bomb on its own initiative any more than … any other power should do so. To keep a stockpile of atomic bombs without promising not to initiate its use is exploiting the possession of bombs for political ends. It may be that the United States hopes in this way to frighten the Soviet Union into accepting [international monitoring] of atomic energy. But the creation of fear only heightens antagonism and increases the danger of war. …

We have emerged from a war in which we had to accept the degradingly low ethical standards of the enemy. But instead of feeling liberated from his standards, and set free to restore the sanctity of human life and the safety of noncombatants, we are in effect making the low standards of the enemy in the last war our own for the present. Thus we are starting toward another war degraded by our own choice.

It may be that the public is not fully aware that in another war atomic bombs will be available in large quantities. It may measure the dangers in the terms of the three bombs exploded before the end of the last war. The public also may not appreciate that, in relation to the damage inflicted, atomic bombs already have become the most economical form of destruction that can be used on the offensive. In another war the bombs will be plentiful and they will be comparatively cheap. Unless there is a determination not to use them that is stronger than can be noted today among American political and military leaders, and on the part of the public itself, atomic warfare will be hard to avoid. Unless Americans come to recognize that they are not stronger in the world because they have the bomb, but weaker because of their vulnerability to atomic attack, they are not likely to conduct … their relations with Russia in a spirit that furthers the arrival at an understanding.”

Albert Einstein

*NOTE: I have taken the liberty of substituting “international monitoring” for “supranational control”. Einstein was an advocate of world government; a most worthy objective, but not a necessary condition for establishing a robust nuclear weapon free world.

In late 2023, I called for air-drops of food into Gaza. Now they are needed more than ever.

In December, 2023, greatly relieved, I updated my Stop and Drop article with the news that air drops had begun in earnest (see photo). Not long afterwards, US naval engineers built a temporary landing dock off a beach in Gaza, and began shipping in aid. Unfortunately, the dock proved to be incapable of weathering storm waves and was abandoned after only a couple of month of service.

Air drops did not resume. But, by then, some aid was arriving overland.

Recently, Israel shut down all aid delivery. Under pressure, it has organized its own aid delivery, but the operation is both inadequate and shambolic, and too frequently deadly for those trying to access it.

A recent attempt to deliver aid by sea as been thwarted by Israel piracy. It was similar action by Israel in 2023 that prompted my call for air drops. It seems only fitting to revive that call … with even greater urgency.

Israel should be invited to witness planes being load with emergency supplies. Whether or not Israel accepts the invitation, the flight plans of the airplanes should be announced in advance. Weather permitting, the plans should be carried out with or without Israel’s blessings.

Israel would not dare to shoot down the airplanes.

Of course, no flight would be entirely risk free. There could be unauthorized anti-aircraft fire. The pilot and crew would have to be willing to brave the odds.

Obviously, if major governments were to back the effort, Israel would be particularly thorough in ensuring their safety. It worked in early 2024, it can work again.

So, STOP bemoaning the situation, and start air DROPs ASAP!

Impeachment will only lead to conviction and removal from office following a landslide in the 2026 race for Senate seats. Win them all, dump Trump! That prospect, front and center, is what will bring on the landslide.

This piece has been up-dated in a less partisan mode: https://aaron-tovish.medium.com/the-midterm-elections-can-be-used-to-recall-trump-c997f74bd6ef

[UPDATE: From the Washington Post’s Early Brief, June 26, 2025: “And Aaron Tovish wrote it was “pointless to submit articles of impeachment before a new Congress is convened in 2027” because of Republican control. But, Tovish said, he would like Democrats to “continuously compile and publicize draft articles of impeachment, making them a centerpiece of the 2026 midterms. “The message being, if you want to strip Trump of his last two years of presidential power, elect a Democratic House (easy) and Senate (hard),” Tovish concluded.]

“Trump, you’re fired!”

Trump must be impeached and convicted in January 2027.

Trump must not be allowed to wreak havoc upon America and the world until January 2029 — much less connive for a third term.

Republican control of the House and Senate make “opposition” a charade. The only way Democrats can make their opposition meaningful is if it leads to Trump (and Vance) being impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

“But, but you just said Republicans control Congress!”

Indeed, they do … now. And, even if it were somehow possible to impeach him, now, it would be a mistake to start down that road, because conviction by the Senate is way beyond reach now. Being acquitted in another impeachment effort would only reinforce Trump’s image as a untouchable survivor. But all that can be changed in the 2026 national election cycle. Here’s how.

First, the drafting of articles of impeach of Trump and of Vance should get underway ASAP and be continunously fine-tuned and updated. The draft articles should serve as the main, common talking points of Democrats nationwide from now until Americans have finished voting in November of next year.

Second, all Congressional hearings must be used to expose the Trump Administration’s wrongdoing. Legislation should be proposed for the primary purpose of exposing the unwillingness of Republican Congresspersons to stand up against the wrongdoing.

Third, every Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives must pledge to forward those articles of impeachment to the Senate on January, 3, 2027, the day they are sworn in as the 120th Congress. And every Senatorial candidate must pledge to put Trump/Vance on trial by 6 January, 2027, and bring the guilty verdict to a vote without further ado, so that Trump can be escorted from the White House before the 2027 State of the Union Address.

Fourth, Democratic politicians with 2028 presidential ambitions should be made to appreciate that their role in this effort will be a major determinant of the support they will receive in the 2028 primaries. Republican hopefuls should be made to appreciate they are on a sinking ship.

Fifth, all Democrats, from grassroots to Congress — especially sitting US Senators — will campaign hard and consistently to generate a landslide 2026 election result. Achieving a simple majority in the House should be easy; the Senate, not so. There are 33 Senate seats to be filled, now Democrats hold 13 of them and Republicans 20. To achieve the two-thirds majority needed for conviction, the Democrats must lose none and take all — or nearly all if the two sitting independent Senators can be counted upon.

A great challenge? yes; impossible? no!

There is no time to waste. A landslide is not created overnight. Trump’s ratings have been sliding steadily since he took office. If the slide can be extended through to November next year, Republicans will be running scared.

“But, you will be making Trump the center of attention. That’s what he thrives on!”

Yes, he cannot restrain himself and this is what guarantees that he will continue to act outrageously and that the wrongdoings will continue to pile on. Independent voters will tire of his histrionics; Republican moderates will jump ship.

As Trump’s main accomplice, Vance has to go, too. After the Senate conviction of the President and Vice-President, power will devolve to the Democratic Speaker of the House.

[Note that even if the landslide stops short of the two-thirds goal, control of Congress would deflate Trump’s claim of a “mandate” and help to derail his most pernicious plans. He — and we — could “look forward” to two years of him as a lame duck.]

Many people familiar with the lead up to the war over Ukraine assert that it is wrong to say Russia was “unprovoke.” They can cite a string of venerable US diplomats who warned against crossing Russia’s “red line” on Ukraine joining the Western fold, the EU and/or NATO. So did NATO “provoke” Russia by promising membership in due course to Ukraine? Did Ukraine “get what it deserved” from Russia by seeking such ties to the West?

To get at the answer to this question, let’s consider a more prosaic case. If Andy says to Bobby, “You look at me cross-eyed one more time and I will turn your face into pulp!” Bobby, pays no heed, crosses his eyes again at Andy, and Andy proceeds to turn Bobby face into pulp. So, was Andy provoked? Does Andy’s prior warning justify his subsequent behavior? Was Bobby “asking for it”?

Since Andy was clearly capable of carrying out his threat, Bobby was clearly being a bit reckless crossing his eyes again. But take note here that we are describing a bully/bullied relationship. Bobby foolishness, in no way exonerates, Andy’s brutal behavior. Andy brutality is criminal, even if Bobby was “asking for it”. To stay on the right side of the law, Andy should have showed self-restraint. One could argue, that Bobby may have been counting on Andy to restrain himself.

However, as a bully, Andy may very well have had a reputation for following through on his threats. In that case, Bobby was indeed provoking Andy.

Perhaps, it is clear by now where this line of reasoning is headed: the accusation of Western provocation, only holds water if Russia is a recognized bully. So, it is paradoxical that the critique of “unprovoked” is largely advanced by those who insist that Putin is not at all a bully.

If Ukraine and it supporters had accused Russia of “unanticipated” action, criticism of that would have been wholy justified. Russia had provided ample evidence of bullying behavior before and, subsequently had, followed through. It would have been naive to have anticipated a differ outcome in this case.

So, if the invasion was not unanticipated, was it therefore provoked? If a law-abiding person is not provoked by being looked at cross-eyed, then that action is not provocative. It is Andy’s (Putin’) exaggerateed tendency to swing into bullying action that is at fault.

A genuine provocation is one that is, by default, at fault, i.e. would provoke a legal response from a law-abiding person. Indeed, the correct response would be resort to legal redress — or, in a more extreme situation, to self-defense.

Ukraine’s desire to interact more closely with the West than with Russia, was not illegal. What about its effort to restore sovereignty over the Donbas? Was that a genuine — illegal — provocation? While it would normally be considered an “internal matter”, nowadays the international thinking is not so cut and dry, thanks to a push, from the West, for a so-called “responsibility to protect”.

Russia argued that Ukraine was intent on suppressing the Russian-speaking people of the Donbas and it would be negligent on their part not to intervene on their behalf. If Russia’s action had been strictly consistent in this regard, they would have been no more cupable than some Western countries that have acted unilaterally citing the responsibility-to-protect pretext. But their action was totally inconsistent with that “provocation”.

Russia did not confine its “special military operation” to the Donbas. It went after Kyev, Kharkiv, Mariupol, Zaporizhia, and Kherson without even pretending to make a case for a “responsibility to protect” the inhabitants of any of those regions. Indeed, Russia’s brutal behavior in the lands it occupied made a mockery of the notion of protection.

Not surprisingly, that excuse for the invasion has featured less and less in Russian statements, replaced by the broader claim that the war is fundamentally the opening shot in a showdown between the West and Russia, as well as China and whatever other friends they can muster. The argument that Russia’s survival depends upon having under its control a “near abroad” does not pretend to have a UN internationally-sanctioned justification. It is realpolitik at its starkest.

While some in the West have sympathy for that approach, the even more disturbing phenomenon is that not a few Western leaders (civilian and military) have embraced the “showdown” mentality. This degrades the discussion about the war over Ukraine to which side will “collapse” first. And not just militarily, but also economicaly, as in “When the sanctions really start to bit.” or “When their citizens are shivering in the cold and dark.”

Will Russia regain its “due” buffer zone in Eastern Europe? Will NATO “uphold the right” of nations to join whichever military alliance they wish?This is so much posturing at the expense of the Ukranian people, and indirectly of people all around the world.

As the huge Russian build-up amassed along Ukraine’s borders, the West also anticipated, that Russia would overrun Ukraine in a matter of days. Pause for a minute and think about that: the West was resigned to losing Ukraine! Perhaps there were vague ideas of supporting a Ukrainian resistance movement and a government in exile, to extract a price at least for Russia’s victory — and, of course, more sanctions.

No doubt they warned the Ukrainian leadership of this “fate”; but when the moment arrive, President Zelenskyy defied expectations and turned down the evacuation offer. So, far from being a handpuppet of the West, Ukraine began to set the terms of its own defense — and continues to do so.

Those who buy the claim that this is a western “proxy war”, invariable call for an end to the supply of weapons to Ukraine, since this “only prolongs the war”. Well, what about the Russian supplies, not to mention soldiers, pouring across the border, that doesn’t prolong it?? And missiles, planes, and drones flying in? Cannot they see that cutting off supplies one-sidedly would only “shorten” the war if it leads to that side’s defeat? I fear that is an outcome some of these proxy-baiting folks would actually welcome.

So, the West should not have been under any illusion that Ukraine’s increasing integration into the EU and NATO could proceed without evoke a military response from Russia. It may have unwittingly misjudged and pushed back too hard against Russia’s red-lines. Russia, on the other hand, may have judged that it had waited too long to deploy bullying tactics.

In conclusion:

— Russia was NOT provoked, and

— the West (including Ukraine) canNOT claim the war was unanticipated.

While one is a sin and the other an failure, the difference matters little to the Ukrainian people. For one year and a half now, their have endured the pain and hardship. They will not abandon their fellow countrymen in the occupied territory.

And their ongoing suffering is being felt more and more widely by the day.

The US Geological Survey has not yet assigned a magnitude to this event.

Earthquakes send a pen at the end of a long arm of a seismometer quivering. The amplitude and frequence of the swings, called the quake’s signature, are analyzed to determine its magnitude and mechanism.

This distinctive signature has now been detected in repeated events concentrated in a swarm in the vicinity of the District of Columbia. Such a concentration of unusual events has geophysicists scratching their heads. They cannot rule out dire consequences.

Unfortunately, this enigma is occurring at a time when the science of earthquakes is being hit with a major reduction in federal funding. It has been hypothesized that there may be a causal connection between these developments, but many deride such speculation as a “conspiracy theory”.

Tentative data suggests very similar events are occasionally occurring considerable distances removed from the nation’s capital. Also, past records are being reviewed and traces of similar signatures have been spotted, particularly in the DC area between roughly 2016 and 2020.

We will be following this story closely to see is this pattern prevails for a comparable period this time.

The case for determinism would be much stronger if there were a way to predict a person’s next step. But there are so many possible steps, making consistently correct prediction next to impossible, i.e. impossible. So, the claim for determinism is speculative at best. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, only that it is unproven and is likely to remain that way for a very long time.

Just to give an idea of the huge challenge any such predicting project would face, consider the following example.

A person will be shown a prediction about that person’s reaction to reading the prediction. In other words, the prediction has to take into account the person’s knowledge of the prediction. So, predicting the reaction would mean that the person would react that way despite having been given the chance to react in another way. Perhaps the prediction is so perfectly aligned with that person’s general disposition that it is their great pleasure to confirm it — they could never imagine doing anything else.

OK, what if a person’s general disposition is contrarian (sort of like mine). Whatever is predicted, they would do the oppose just to spite the predicter. Predicting that, “Whatever I say, you will do the opposite.” Hardly qualifies as a prediction, unless the predicter can “predict” its own decision about what to predict. Even then, to be particularly contrary, the person could, in this instance, not do the opposite. A die-hard determinist might argue that the prediction is so “strong” that the person’s contrariness would be overwhelmed by an intense desire to do as predicted. (Think of Jim Carrey in “Liar Liar”, as per photo above.) That cannot be totally ruled out; but it sounds pretty farfetched, no?

Well, not in every set of circumstances. If the prediction is that the driver will stay in lane rather than driving head-on into oncoming traffic, it will probably prove to be correct. Correct, but not very impressive. The predicter must be able to deal with less cut-and-dry situations to impress, i.e. be worth a damn.

Might the prediction be able to exploit reverse psychology in some way to cleverly trap the contrarian? “I predict that you will find this prediction perplexing.” “Buzz off! I’m getting something to eat!”

What if the prediction were in a language the person cannot read? The person heads for Google translate, and the prediction translates as, “You will resort straight away to Google translate!” Clever? No, cheating. Remember, the point of the exercise is that the person knows what the prediction is before fulfilling it.

I conclude that determinism is not a useful way to think about human behavior. It is lightyears from being provable. There may be many aspect of our behavior that can be reliably anticipated — especial by social media algorithms! — in the same way life-long partners often know what their opposite is going to say next — and find that endearing rather than boring. But that is not about determinism, it’s about being reliable and sociable. Yes, some people are deeply into that; but it’s definitely not universal.

God may or may not be dead, but determinism is on life-support for the indefinite future.