Judith Armatta

Judith Armatta is a lawyer, journalist and human rights activist





"Between 1980 and 2019, the share of the nation's total household income going to the richest 1 percent more than doubled, while the earnings of the bottom 90 percent barely rose (all adjusted for inflation). CEO pay increased 940 percent, but the typical worker's pay increased 12 percent. In the 1960s, the typical CEO of a large American company earned about twenty times as much as the typical worker; by 2019, the CEO earned three hundred times as much." [The System: Wo Rigged It, How We Fix It, Reich, Robert, p. 15. 2020.]

            This was systemic and incremental over 40 years, therefore, largely invisible. But it explains the different perceptions about the state of the U.S. economy. Until recently, the media largely seemed puzzled about the discrepancy between the general public's and Wall Street's responses. Wall Street and the top 10% applaud the current economy; the general public has registered disapproval. That might have something to do with the fact that the top 10% own 90% of the stock market. The rest of us are left with the higher price of food, gas, and housing. These have not decreased.

            Inflation has come down from its 40-year high of 9.1% in June 2022 to its current 3.4% annual rate. If you buy your own groceries, you've noticed that there was no reduction in price. You're still paying $4 to $6 for a loaf of bread. My weekly grocery bill has gone from $100 to $150. The reduction in the inflation rate only means that it isn't climbing as fast as it did when it reached 9.1%. The real inflation rate reached near 20% (19.32%) between January 2020 and April 2024 per the Consumer Price Index[i]. Once the price of a food item goes up it rarely comes down.

            So, is this Joe's fault? Nope. In fact, there has been a huge transfer of wealth beginning in 1980, as Robert Reich points out. The causes? 1. a shift in corporate governance from concern for all stakeholders (consumers, employees, community) to one focused solely on shareholders; 2. a shift in bargaining power from large unions to giant corporations; 3. deregulation of Wall Street, especially banks and financial institutions which profit from high interest rates. Banks also got a taxpayer bailout from their 2008 debacle, while homeowners did not (10 million families lost their homes).

            Still wonder why a large segment of Americans (including MAGAs) think the economy sucks? Trump has channeled resentment, anger, and alienation to the government and to the usual scapegoats (people of color, migrants) and those he believes have harmed him (opposition politicians, judges, prosecutors). This insulates corporations, the wealthy, and the Republican Party.

            Was the economy better under Trump? Well, it was if you were part of the top .01%, .10%, or 10% of the population or one of the large corporations. Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) PERMANENTLY reduced the corporate tax rate from a high of 35% to a flat 21% with the old saw that it would trickle down to workers through investments in business that would translate to higher wages and lower prices. It didn't. With minor exceptions, corporations transferred the money saved to shareholders through dividends and stock buybacks (which can avoid taxes).

            The TCJA also decreased personal income and estate taxes -- though TEMPORARILY until 2025. Again, the lion's share of the reductions went to the wealthy. As The Center for American Progress reported:

"The 2017 law changes disproportionately benefited the highest-income households. In 2025--the last year before the temporary changes to the personal income and estate tax provisions expire--households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution will receive an average tax cut of $61,090. In contrast, those in the middle quintile of the distribution will receive an average reduction of $910, while those in the lowest quintile will receive on average, just a $70 reduction." ["The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Failed To Deliver Promised Benefits," April 30, 2024. www.americanprogress.org, p. 3.]

As their chart shows, individuals in the top .01% will receive a tax cut of $252,300 in 2025.

            It's inflation more than jobs and unemployment and interest rates that drive Americans' view of the economy. While the rate of inflation is down considerably from its high of 9.1%, it's not going backwards. The economy in the U.S. doesn't work that way. Having raked in billions, corporations, whose sole goal is profit, will not reduce prices or return profit to anyone but their shareholders.

            Until the system changes, the wealth disparity will continue and those at the lowest end will continue to view the economy as not serving them -- because it doesn't. They appropriately feel discontent and rage, which from time immemorial has only needed a demagogue to channel it in whatever direction will give him power. Being part of a rageful movement (MAGA) overrides the feeling of individual powerlessness. Following someone who projects strength and gives voice to emotions of anger and frustration when a sea of others are doing it, too, makes the powerless feel they have some control over their lives, that they can accomplish something, that they can be powerful.

            Counteracting MAGA requires systemic change, including: 1. laws that require corporations to consider more than profit and shareholders in their operations, i.e. employees, consumers, the community, the public good; 2. campaign finance reform that removes the power of the wealthy class and corporations over politicians so the average person can influence those who are supposed to represent them; 3. laws that close (or at least lessen) the gap between the wealthy and everyone else, including tax law, labor law, price controls (for essentials like food, housing, and health care) if corporations can't or won't govern themselves.

            The current disparity in wealth is unconscionable -- as are the hundreds of thousands of unsheltered people living on our streets.[ii] Our cities more resemble the 1930s depression than how they looked when I was growing up in the 1950s. Only serious systemic change will correct this.           



[i] The Bureau of Labor Statistics has classified all expenditure items into more than 200 categories, arranged into eight major groups (food and beverages, housing, apparel, transportation, medical care, recreation, education and communication, and other goods and services). Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mar 15, 2024.

[ii] The U.S. Census Bureau found 653,100 homeless people in 2023, up 12% from 2022. "The US Interagency Council on Homelessness attributes the current rise to inadequate systems around affordable housing, wages, and equitable access to physical and mental health care and economic opportunity. According to the council, people who experience homelessness have a life expectancy of 50, compared to 77 for the average American."



On April 7, 2024, the Washington Post (WAPO) Editorial Board gave their opinion on Oregon's recriminalization of small amounts of hard drugs, seeking, I suppose, to deter the rest of the country from trying Oregon's short-lived experiment in decriminalization, the first state to do so. It was shockingly misinformed and hateful in its characterization of people addicted to drugs.

             Here's what the Editorial Board had to say about Oregon's innovative attempt to treat drug addiction as a public health problem rather than a crime: ". . . [I]t contributed to a surge in overdose deaths, rising violent crime, open-air drug markets, junkies wandering through the streets of Portland with needles in their arms and the acrid smell of burning fentanyl in the air."[1]

 *     *     *

             According to the Oregon Health Authority, "Oregon has the second highest rate of substance use disorder in the nation and ranked 50th for access to treatment."[2] In 2020, Oregonians voted for a ballot measure (M110) that decriminalized small amounts of hard drugs,[3] while providing more money for substance use disorder treatment. M110 went into effect in February 2021. Efforts to repeal became public in September 2023, a little over two and a half years later.

             Was that a fair amount of time to see if it had a positive impact? As the Prison Policy Institute's (PPI) Sarah Staudt wrote in 2024:

            "There’s no evidence Measure 110 is responsible for crime, overdoses, homelessness, or increased drug use. Although COVID-19 made assessing the impact of Measure 110 more difficult early indicators suggest that the law is achieving its goals: reducing arrests while increasing access to care. Jails and incarceration often strand people without treatment, but the referrals to community-based care created by Measure 110 offer a lasting pathway to health and better quality of life."[4]     

Contrary to what repeal sponsors claim, Oregon's crime rate overall has fallen. Since M110 took effect in early 2021, reported crimes in Oregon fell by 14% through 2023. The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission reported in November 2022: "[N]ew arrests and convictions for possession of [a] controlled substance have fallen by approximately 80-90% since the effective date of M110."[5]

             Here are just some of the successes of M110:

  • The Oregon Health Authority reported a 298% increase in people seeking screening for substance use disorders.
  • More than 370,000 naloxone doses have been distributed since 2022.
  • Community organizations report more than 7,500 opioid overdose reversals since 2020.
  • Comprehensive behavioral health needs assessments increased 114%.
  • Substance use disorder treatment increased 143 %.
  • Peer support services increased 205%.
  • Housing services increased 296%.
  • Supported employment increased 286%.

 A peer-reviewed study comparing overdose rates in Oregon with the rest of the country after the law went into effect found no link between M110 and increased overdose rates.

 *     *     *

             In 2020, Covid hit. In addition to further overwhelming services, it contributed to the state's decades' long lack of affordable housing. People lost jobs. Then, they lost housing. Oregon's homeless population increased 23% during the early pandemic years of 2020 to 2022 and another 12 % from 2022 to 2023. In January 2023, 20,110 Oregonians were homeless, 13,004 (65%) of them unsheltered. Oregon has the second highest rate of unsheltered homeless in the nation and the highest rate of family homelessness and unaccompanied unsheltered youth homelessness. Oregon has had an affordable housing crisis for decades for a variety of reasons,[6] not least that our capitalist system leads developers to high end construction. Until recently, politicians have allocated minimal tax dollars to affordable housing.

             As the economy worsened with the onset of Covid for those at the low end of the wage scale, and the cost of housing, food, and utilities escalated dramatically, more people lost their hold on a decent place to live and work. They ended up on the street. The poor became visible. As did drug use. And the woefully inadequate services deteriorated even more.

               In 2019, a new, cheap, extremely potent drug appeared on Portland's streets. Fentanyl greatly exacerbated Portland and Oregon's drug use problem. As usual, the state's solution was to lock up public drug users. All it did was get them off the street for a short time until they cycled back with a probation or parole violation.

            Relying on the repeal Campaign's misinformation, the Editorial Board tells us that "annual overdoses in Oregon rose 61 percent in the two years after decriminalization took effect." It was also just after fentanyl became widely available in Oregon. Fentanyl is up to 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times more potent than morphine. According to the Prison Policy Institute, overdose rates are similar in other states and Oregon's is even lower than Washington's.

             A 2022 study found a 50% gap in all services: prevention, detox, treatment, harm reduction, and recovery.[7] Overall, the researchers found a 94% gap in certified prevention specialists and a 93% gap in certified mental health professionals.

             The WAPO editorial focuses on lack of accountability (i.e. arrest and jail) as a cause of drug use. 'If we could only force those addicted into treatment (which can only happen if we threaten them with jail), problem solved.' Somehow, it's never worked that way. Before M110, we forced people into jail where drugs are more available than treatment -- and wonder why it hasn't worked. Now we will do it again.

 "[I]t costs up to $35,217 to arrest, adjudicate, incarcerate, and supervise a person taken into custody for a drug misdemeanor. . . . In contrast, treatment costs an average of $9,000 per person. The money saved by M110 goes directly to state funding for addiction and recovery services."[8] 

             The Editorial Board fails to mention the greater impact arrests and imprisonment have on Black Oregonians. "Portland's police department has the fifth highest arrest rate disparities in the country, arresting Black people at a rate 4.3 times that of white people."

             Most people do not become homeless because of drug use. They don't take to the streets to get high because it's so pleasant. Getting high is a way to endure living on the streets, where cold and rain make even a tent inadequate, when you're lucky enough to have one.[9] "The reality is drugs can be a necessary survival tactic to stay awake and alive while living on the streets."[10]

 *     *     *

            The U.S., unlike other developed countries, relies on punishment to address social problems, and has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. M110 was an effort to redirect tax dollars and state efforts to the more humane, effective, and cost-effective way to deal with drug use. It was based on Portugal's model, established in 2001, which saw a 75% drop in drug deaths over many more years than Oregon's experiment was allowed.

             Oregon's Welcome Home Coalition is participating in a National Week of Action to Oppose Criminalizing Homelessness. They state: "Rather than punishing households that have been most impacted by our affordable housing shortage, we want to see human-centered solutions to homelessness." They highlight Houston as an example of how focusing on housing has been successful in decreasing homeless camps: "Since 2021, Houston has decommissioned more than 90 encampments, home to 600 individuals, with around 90% of them going into housing." New Orleans is following Houston's model. See www.welcomehomecoalition.org

Both cities have more affordable housing than Portland. But Portland has hundreds of millions in local funding from the recently passed 1% marginal tax on high income earners specifically marked for homeless services.

 *     *     *

             And yet, some Oregon business leaders are sure they know best. Businesses and consumers were not fond of stepping over people who were dirty, drunk, or under the influence of drugs -- or walking around their tents and sleeping bags. And they didn't like looking at them. It made them uncomfortable and interfered with commerce. It was not so pleasant for those sleeping on concrete in the cold and rain either. But services and housing remained woefully inadequate.

             The Oregon Legislature had already recriminalized fentanyl and substances laced with fentanyl in its 2023 regular session. That wasn't enough for a group of Portland business leaders. They went to the 2024 Oregon Legislature with a bill to repeal most of M110 and, if that didn't work, they planned to put a Ballot Measure before Oregonians and once again make small amounts of drug possession a crime.

             In the 2024 Legislative short session, M110 opponents were successful in securing a partial repeal. While the law replacing M110 provides for treatment and probation before jail, the WAPO Editorial Board and those who supported M110's repeal fail to understand that arresting, convicting, and putting someone on probation will not be an alternative to jail. Even a technical probation violation (e.g. missing an appointment with a probation officer, the most common) can land someone in jail.

             The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on April 22 in the Johnson v. Grants Pass case, an appeal from the appellate court's decision that Grants Pass's ordinances essentially banning camping on public land were unconstitutional. If Grants Pass wins, local cities, counties, and states can pretty much do what they want. It will not be pretty. What do you do when there is no place for you to sleep or even rest? We're back to providing the only beds available -- in jail -- with all the harms that come with incarceration and a criminal conviction, if you make it out alive. In the last two years, ten prisoners have died in the Multnomah County Jail. The Oregon Nurses' Association has demanded that two top supervisors be fired.

             City Commissioner and mayoral candidate Rene Gonzalez recently proposed to criminalize homelessness in Portland if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that it's constitutional to do so. He also needs to persuade the Oregon Legislature to change state law which requires cities to “ensure the most humane treatment for removal of homeless individuals from camping sites on public property,” including providing 72 hours advance notice. Gonzalez' initial proposal would make it a misdemeanor with up to a year in jail and up to a $500 fine to camp on public property.[11] Commissioner Carmen Rubio called it "inhumane." His revised proposal eliminated jail, but doubled the fine, evidence he hasn't a clue why there are so many people living on the street.

             The Portland City Council approved Mayor Ted Wheeler's competing proposal that will outlaw camping only if people have access to a shelter bed. Violation of the ordinance could result in seven days in jail. Rather than focus on their own responsibility to help reduce homelessness, which they are failing despite the recently passed 1% tax on high income earners, politicians are intent on blaming and criminalizing the vulnerable populations harmed by their own failures.  

             At the Council meeting Gonzalez said: "The reality is that nobody in this room knows with certainty what's going to motivate the folks who are currently service resistant to make different choices." [emphasis added] If his perspective dominates, there is no chance Portland's homeless crisis will be solved. Both Gonzalez' proposals would give the mayor sole power to regulate public camping. He is running for mayor.

*     *     *

           Still, recriminalization is not the end of the story. The Partnership for Safety and Justice has united with other concerned nonprofits[12] in a campaign "to elevate the message that community safety depends on people's access to treatment, housing, and services, not overusing jails."[13] Contact PSJ to see how you can help. https://safetyandjustice.org/safer/ 

             As Kassandra Frederique writes in The Daily Beast: “This recriminalization is dangerous. We’ve been down this road before. More than 50 years of evidence demonstrates that locking people up for possessing drugs or forcing them into court-ordered programs does not end drug use, but it does increase harms, including death.”[14]


[1] "Recriminalizing drugs, Oregon offers a cautionary tale," April 7, 2024. I can't help wondering who provided the information to the WAPO Board. It's doubtful they visited Portland. Perhaps one of Portland's leading lights who sponsored the Campaign to repeal M110? A great way to boost our city.

[2] OHA "Audit: Too Early to tell: The Challenging Implementation of Measure 110 Has Increased Risks, but the Effectiveness of the Program has Yet to Be Determined." January 2023.

[3] Police issued citations which could be dismissed if a person opted for a health assessment.

[4] "Oregon shouldn't go backwards on drug decriminalization," Prison Policy Institute, February 15, 2024.

[5] Oregon Recidivism Analysis, Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, November 2022.

[6] Ehrlich, April, "Oregon has an extreme housing shortage. Here's what can be done." Oregon Public Broadcasting (www.opb.com), July 26, 2023.

[7] Only one in five programs could serve the LGBTQIA+ community and one in four had no language interpretation. Oregon Health and Sciences University and Portland State University school of Public Health.

[8] Ibid., Staudt, Prison Policy Institute.

[9] In the winter of 2023, City Commissioner Rene Gonzalez ordered Portland Street Response to cease distributing tents.

[10] Drug Policy Alliance, February 2024.

[11] Kavanaugh, Shane Dixon, "After City Hall showdown, Portland leaders advance mayor's scaled-back homeless camping ban," The Oregonian/Oregon Live, April 25, 2024.

[12]Nonprofits that are part of the Campaign include PSJ, Oregon Food Bank, Basic Rights Oregon, Unite Oregon, and the Coalition of Communities of Color.

[13] Talia Gad, PSJ Communications Director.

[14] "Oregon's making a terrible mistake in rebooting the drug war," March 3, 2024.


STALIN, HITLER, PAPA DOC, PINOCHET, DUTERTE. . . . PUTIN. His name will deservedly go down in infamy. Alexander Navalny is only the latest of his critics to die. We know of others: journalist Anna Politkovskaya; whistle-blowing FSB[1] defector Alexander Litvinenko; Boris Berezovsky, once the richest man in Russia turned outspoken Putin critic; Putin political opponent Boris Nemtsov; wealthy lawyer to the wealthy Scot Young; Sergei Skripal, a Russian spy turned double agent for Britain and his daughter Yulia (attempted murder); etc., etc. They had a brief few days in the spotlight and then we turned to the next drama. Most of the murders that we know of happened in Britain, though many more never made it into the U.S. news. And there were those in Russia itself, like Navalny. In the U.S., assassins took out Mikhail Lesin, one-time Kremlin henchman who was preparing to talk to the U.S. Department of Justice; also, journalist Daniel McGrory who reported on Litvinenko's death.  

Putin has an assassination program that began shortly after he took office in 1999. His assassins use various methods: guns, knives, fists, cars, throwing people out windows and blowing them up with explosives. But a favorite, especially when working abroad, seems to be chemical, biological, and even nuclear weapons, designed initially for use in war against enemy states. Putin has a storehouse of chemical and biological agents that Russia pledged to have eliminated after signing the Chemical Weapons Convention in the 1990s. Russia signed but kept the weapons. Putin's scientists are still developing new ones.[2] The first time Putin attempted to kill Navalny in 2020 the nerve agent Novichok was found in his tea. Putin also has nuclear weapons available to him. In 2006, Litvinenko's tea was laced with polonium-210.

Several of these agents meet Putin's two highest requirements: 1) they are extremely lethal, and 2) they are nearly undetectable, as Heidi Blake wrote in her book based on Buzzfeed's investigation and expose: "There were poisons designed to make death look natural by triggering fast-acting cancers, heart attacks, and other fatal illnesses."[3] It took weeks before the rare radioactive polonium-210 was identified as the cause of Litvinenko's illness. By then, it was too late. But Litvinenko, knowing he was dying, left a letter naming Putin as his killer:

  You may succeed in silencing me but that silence comes at a price. You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed. You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilized value. You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilized men and women.

  You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr. Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life. May God forgive you for what you have done, not only to me but to beloved Russia and its people.[4]

He also left a trail of polonium throughout London. The Pine Bar where he'd met his assassins was a nuclear disaster zone. Like Litvinenko's house, the hotel where his assassins stayed had to be sealed off it was so radioactive. His assassins also left a trail, including back to Russia where they met with the UK Ambassador to proclaim their innocence. The chair one of them sat in was so radioactive it had to be burned.

Because Litvinenko's murder was so public as were the identities of the assassins, Britain had no choice but to charge them with murder and seek their extradition from Russia. Of course, Russia refused. When Litvinenko's widow Marina sought a public inquiry, then-Home Secretary Theresa May intervened to prevent it, as she wanted to remain on good terms with Putin to secure oil, gas and investment.

The Chechens were a favorite Putin scapegoat. Shortly after he assumed the presidency at the end of 1999 four apartment buildings in Moscow were blown up and blamed on Chechen rebels. Three hundred people died. Human Rights activists, including Litvinenko and journalist Anna Politkovskaya among them, later linked the Chechins who were involved to Putin's FSB.

Putin's assassins also used poisonous gas and blamed Chechen rebels for the 2002 Dubravka Theater siege, when 40 Chechen extremists stormed the theater and held the audience and cast hostage for three days. The FSB surrounded the theater and pumped in a lethal opiate gas killing 130 men, women, and children. Their leader, Khanpash Terkibaev, was the only attacker who survived. In an interview, he told Politkovskaya that he was an FSB agent and admitted that he led the attack then ducked out. Eight months later he was killed in a car crash.

Sergei Yushenkov, a Russian MP who also revealed Russian human rights abuses in Chechnya, said his legislative committee would be investigating possible Kremlin involvement in the theater siege. He was gunned down in front of his Moscow apartment building. 

Similarly, when Chechen Islamists occupied a school in Beslan with a thousand people inside, Russian troops stormed the school with tanks, rockets, and grenade launchers, killing more than 300 people. Politkovskaya, who had been reporting on Russian human rights abuses in Chechnya as well as Putin's connections to the apartment bombings and the theater siege, was poisoned on her way to report on Beslan. She recovered that time, but not for long. In 2006, on the verge of publishing an expose of the systematic torture of prisoners in Chechnya by Russian troops, she was shot at point blank range on her own doorstep.

Litvinenko's "sins" included investigating Russia's actions in Chechnya and speaking out about them. He also published two books:  Blowing Up Russia: The Secret Plot to Bring Back KGB Terror and Allegations: An Insider's Fatal Claims about Putin's Russia.

Only a decade later in 2016 did a British court bring a verdict in Litvinenko's case. Judge Sir Robert Owen ruled that the assassins (he named them) were acting at the direction of the FSB, which was acting under orders from Putin. In his 328-page opinion, the judge included the evidence Litvinenko had so painstakingly gathered showing that the apartment bombings and the Dubravka theater gassing were FSB projects at Putin's behest. The apartment bombings, he wrote, "were designed to provide a justification for war in Chechnya and, ultimately to boost Mr. Putin's political prospects."[5] And he concluded that Anna Politkovskaya was murdered because she was investigating the state's connection to the atrocities. Moreover, these were not isolated incidents, he found. "Leading opponents of President Putin, including those living outside Russia, were at risk of assassination."

While Judge Owen's decision plus thousands of pages of transcripts and evidence were published on the internet, the British government played it down. They needed Putin's help finding a solution to the Syria crisis and with ISIS, Home Secretary Theresa May and Prime Minister David Cameron said.

By 2019 Buzzfeed's investigation counted 14 suspected Russian-ordered assassinations in the UK and one in the U.S.[6] There have since been more. Dan Rapaport, former Mosow Businessman and vocal Kremlin critic, fell from a D.C. building and died in 2022. Local police concluded it was suicide, but those familiar with Putin's assassination program suspected he had a hand in it. Just recently, in February 2024, Russian pilot Maksim Kuzminov, who defected to Ukraine, was killed in a barrage of gunfire and run over with his own car in Spain.[7] Yevgeny Prigozhin, the Wagner mercenary who attempted a coup, died when the plane in which he was flying exploded in August 2023.

Ms. Blake's book is an excellent source of information on Putin's assassination program -- and the impunity granted him by international diplomats seeking to ingratiate themselves with Putin to obtain oil and gas concessions as well as opportunities for investment. Because many of the murders happened in Great Britain Ms. Blake particularly takes the British to task. But the U.S. isn't free of responsibility. 

No one has stopped Putin. He just keeps on killing -- individually or en masse as in Ukraine. Sanctions to date haven't stopped him. And the Republicans in the U.S. House are withholding approval of more funding for Ukraine. Democrat Representative Adam Schiff and eminent Harvard professor Laurence Tribe wrote an Op Ed entreating President Biden to confiscate Russia's frozen bank accounts and send the money to Ukraine to defend itself and rebuild when it can. Biden has the authority to do this without the Republican House.[8] He should. To date, Putin has experienced few consequences. He continues with his assassination program -- as well as his war against Ukraine. As well as his war against The West. 

If Russia wins in Ukraine, Putin will not sit back to enjoy his victory. He will send troops into Poland or Latvia or any one of the other former Soviet Republics which he wants to regain to make part of his Russian Empire. And he will not stop his war against The West. It is likely he is helping Donald Trump regain the White House as he did in 2016 through disinformation and cyberwar. There's no question that Trump admires Putin and wants to be like him. He will certainly support Putin's plans for Ukraine and Eastern Europe.

Please urge President Biden to confiscate and release Russia's frozen bank assets to Ukraine. How else can our consciences survive?


[1] Russian Federal Security Service, successor to the KGB.

[2] U.S. State Department 2023 Annual Chemical Weapons Convention Compliance Report: "Russia retains an undeclared chemical weapons program and has used chemical weapons at least twice in recent years: in assassination attempts with Novichok nerve agents . . . against Russian opposition leader Aleksey Navalny on August 20, 2020, and UK citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal on UK soil in March 2018."

[3] From Russia with Blood: The Kremlin's Ruthless Assassination Program and Vladimir Putin's Secret War on the West, New York, Boston, London: Mulholland Books, Little, Brown & Co., 2019.

[4] Id. 179-80.

 [5] Id. 296.

[6] Id. 295.

[7] Miller, Greg, "A killing in Spain points to Russia and Putin's sense of impunity," The Washington Post, February 21, 2024.

[8] Schiff, Adam B. and Laurence H. Tribe, "Use Seized Russian Assets to Honor Navalny and Empower Ukraine," Newsweek, February 24, 2024.


Donald Trump, running for president, promises he will be a dictator for a day. Thirty-nine percent of Americans think that would be a good idea; 74% of Republicans said yes or probably in a recent University of Massachusetts at Amherst poll.

Having lived in a soft dictatorship for a couple years and been familiar with harder ones, this puzzled me. What could they be thinking? I remembered my landladies in Belgrade, Serbia, progressive democrats who supported politicians opposed to their strongman president, Slobodan Milosevic. Yet, one day we were talking politics and I was astounded to hear them say, "What we need is a strongman to clean things up." A democratic government wouldn't be enough.

I've considered this often. Why would they give up one dictator for another? They'd seen the soldiers marching in the street. They watched as one independent or semi-independent news source was raided and closed down, the leaders of human rights organizations were imprisoned, law faculty who refused to sign loyalty oaths were demoted or fired, those in Milosevic's inner circle who questioned him disappeared or were assassinated in broad daylight, Albanians in Serbia's southern province of Kosovo lost their schools and were prohibited from using their language on official forms or in official proceedings, Albanian houses were searched and Albanians were jailed without charge.

When Milosevic felt like he was losing control, he escalated attacks against Kosovar Albanians until it reached the stage of ethnic cleansing, where villages were burned, people driven out of the country, others murdered. This couldn't be what Republicans and Trumpers desired, could it? Well, not for themselves, not to limit THEIR freedoms. But for those immigrants? For Blacks, gays, Native Americans, Democrats, those who opposed Trump and his agenda? That might not be bad. Didn't they deserve it?

Trump admires strong men like Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un. He wants to be one. As he believes, the president isn't subject to laws. He can do anything. In fact, he shouldn't even be subject to laws when he is an EX-president. He wants to be president again so he can revenge himself on those he considers his enemies (and they are legion and ever-growing; don't cross this guy). "Off with their heads!" Wouldn't that be satisfying? He also wants to avoid changing a life of Mar-a-Lago luxury for a prison cell (though he wouldn't have to pay utilities). But why would ordinary Americans want to be ruled by a dictator? No guarantee they'd avoid his wrath. He turned on Fox News and some of its commentators. When Neil Cavuto criticized him for promoting hydroxychloroquine as a Covid preventive, he called him "garbage," "an idiot," "gullible," and "an asshole."

A strong man is an American icon. Think of the Camel guy in the cigarette ad (if you're of an age). Any Western lawman with a gun. John Wayne. Superman. (Well, he had a super power from kryptonite, not a gun.) It's an odd reflection of our self-concept. Do we think we're powerless?

There's fear involved in desire for a strongman. He'll make all things right -- like the mythical father who will protect us from bullies and ghosts. Today's strongman leader needs to protect us from climate change, or rather the need to face what our reliance on fossil fuels is causing so we can keep our cars and leaf blowers; the pandemic and new viruses so we can continue to socialize and not stay locked in our homes or be hospitalized or die; homelessness so we needn't run into tents on our sidewalks and people who smell bad; a fentanyl crisis (lock 'em up); immigrants who'll take our jobs and housing (lock 'em up; send 'em back); People of Color taking our places at universities and in high-paying jobs ("Make America Great Again").

A dictator for a day. Well, only a day. (Who gives up power once experienced?) And it's not against US. What's that knock on the door?


           There are many far more serious topics to write about. Yet I can no longer hold off complaining about the modern age and technology. I have been placed here by mistake. I'm not sure where I belong, perhaps in another universe, but definitely not here. To begin with, my computer will not change the default print to Times New Roman from Calibri. Minor, I know, but I had to start somewhere.

           My latest travail began when I bought an adblocker, thinking to save myself time and angst. Of course, you can guess, it saved me neither. I was no able to download and install it on my laptop. I was continually directed to Google Chrome Apps, which is nothing but ADS for other applications, in which I have no interest whatsoever. I would block that if I could, but I was unable to download AdBlocker. So, I tried to cancel. I called the number provided and it directed me to a website. I went to the website which required my email and password. As far as I know, I do not have a password for this, so I dutifully requested an email that would allow me to change my password. After nearly a half hour it hadn't shown up. No, it was not in my spam folder. I spent more than an hour trying to download TotalAdBlocker, with more time trying to cancel it.

           Eventually, I successfully bought Total adblocker. I don't know how -- or why, any longer. But when I went to use it no ads were blocked. After a while I became suspicious. When I googled, I learned that Total adblocker only works on Chrome and some other browsers I've never heard of. I use Safari. I had no intention of changing browsers. That seemed like a pretty sneaky way to get customers. So I spent nearly another hour getting rid of it and getting an adblocker that works for Safari. It blocked ads alright. But it also narrowed my screen, making it impossible to read a map or view a photo. I had to enlarge the print, as well. It was irritating, but so were the ads.

           My troubles weren't over. When I tried to access my blog, only one blog came up and not the most recent. I couldn't add new ones or read others. This would not do. While I didn't know if the problem stemmed from my new adblocker app, it was the most recent addition. Google told me how to delete it, which I did. Now, I can access my blog -- and a zillion ads for a zillion products I have absolutely no interest in.

            I don't want to spend my life learning these things. I want to work on my memoir, go to the gym, take my piano lessons, have control over my photos, and have the energy to deal with week-long weather emergencies.

            For those who grew up in the computer age, solving these tech issues are likely no brainers. I grew up writing with a pencil and researching at the library, an ivy-covered building on my law school campus. Scotty? Where in the hell are you? I need to be beamed up.





From: Judith Armatta's list of 3 favorite books of 2023

Bottle of Lies: The Inside Story of the Generic Drug Boom

By Katherine Eban

This book saves lives -- and that is not hyperbole! It opened my eyes to the dangers of the poorly regulated generic drug industry.

I was horrified to learn I had been taking a prescription drug for several years that was manufactured by a disreputable company in India that, like a number of other foreign manufacturers, skimps on or adulterates active ingredients. While I didn't die as a result, some people prescribed medication for heart ailments and cancer did.

The book reads like a thriller. Eban spent years investigating the generic pharmaceutical industry, accompanying a whistle-blower through his nearly decade-long saga of losing his job, being blackballed, and impoverished. 

The book was recommended to me by a doctor who has been studying generics and advocating for tighter regulation. Every doctor, nurse, and pharmacist should read it, as well as the patients.

Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power

By Garry Wills

Books that astound me teach something important I didn't know. After 15 years of schooling, I still have much to learn, which keeps me reading. 

In Negro President, I learned that Jefferson achieved the presidency because of the then-clause in the US Constitution that gave slave owners additional votes equal to three-fifths of a person, based on the number they owned. The slaves didn't have a say in it. While Wills admires Jefferson and has written much about him, he reveals how Jefferson helped maintain slavery in the South.

This proves two maxims: 1) we're none of us all good or all bad, and 2) the US was indeed created in slavery. This is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand racism in the US, then and now.

Wrapped in the Flag: A Personal History of America's Radical Right

By Claire Conner

I thought I knew all there was for an average, responsible citizen to know about the John Birch Society until I read Claire Conner's memoir of growing up with parents in the movement. 

It was far more influential then and now than I understood. The Society has a prominent place in the history of today's radical right. Conner's personal story helped me understand how an ideology can consume one's thoughts, actions, and emotions to the exclusion of even one's children.

It also illuminated the Herculean effort it takes to break free. This memoir is eminently readable. I was shocked, angered, and heartbroken over Conner's personal journey. As well, I greatly admire what she was able to achieve.


SEE ALSO SHEPHERD AUTHORS' FAVORITE BOOKS OF 2023: https://shepherd.com/bboy/2023




Shepherd.com is a new book promotional site that has just listed my book, Twilight of Impunity: The War Crimes Trial of Slobodan Milosevic, and my recommendations for five other books on this subject matter. I'm pasting the information from Shepherd's website, but you can access it at 


Shepherd's site also has a "bookshelf" that lists books by subject matter. My book and similar ones are listed under "war."

As noted on the page, if you want to but can't buy a book at your local bookstore, you can buy it through bookshop.org and amazon.com/books. You can also google the titles and sometimes find them for lower prices. Thanks for your interest -- and good luck to Shepherd! 



The best books for understanding war crimes trials and international justice

By Judith Armatta

Who am I?

I am a tired activist and recovering attorney. My professional focus on violence and humanity’s response to it began when, as a seven-year-old, the nuns at my Catholic school showed us newsreels of the liberation of Nazi concentration camps. This led me to adopt as my life’s guiding principle Julian Beck’s admonition “to redeem our share of the universal cruelty.” After 20 years in the U.S. Violence Against Women Movement, I absconded to the former Yugoslavia and found myself in the middle of a war during which I ran a war crimes documentation project (memoir in progress). I later reported on the international war crimes trial of Slobodan Milosevic. 

I wrote...

Twilight of Impunity: The War Crimes Trial of Slobodan Milosevic

By Judith Armatta

What is my book about?

Twilight of Impunity is based on the 300-plus dispatches I wrote while monitoring the war crimes trial of Slobodan Milosevic, the first such trial since Nazis faced justice at Nuremberg. The book brings to life the stories of survivors, makes complex legal theories understandable, and argues that the trial created a framework for other international war crimes trials and the permanent International Criminal Court. I show how Milosevic attempted to highjack the trial and use it as a vehicle for his propaganda about the Balkan wars and his role in them. For all its flaws, the trial provided a step forward in the quest for international justice as a replacement for impunity and the eternal cycle of hatred and violence. 

The Books I Picked & Why

Shepherd is readers supported. When you buy through links on our website, we may earn an affiliate commission. This is how we fund this project for readers and authors (learn more).

East West Street: On the Origins of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity

By Philippe Sands

Why this book?

I loved this book. Legal concepts were clearly explained. Personal stories carried the book to its end. Sands shows how two men created laws to name and punish unimaginable crimes, and another who developed a system giving those crimes the patina of legality through the personal lives of four people born in Ukraine around the same time: Hersch Lauterpacht and Rafael Lemkin, who conceived of “Crimes Against Humanity” and “Genocide” respectively; Hans Frank oversaw the mass extermination of the Jews in the Polish territories; Leon Buchholz, the author’s grandfather, whose entire family was murdered according to those laws. The author's grandfather was the only survivor having escaped to Paris before the Final Solution was put into effect.  

Prelude to Nuremberg: Allied War Crimes Policy and the Question of Punishment

By Arieh J. Kochavi

Why this book?

Kochavi’s book gave me a more complete and nuanced understanding of how the Nuremberg war crimes court came to be, how defendants were selected, and what law to apply. Based on copious research, Kochavi uncovers the inside story of how the Allies ultimately agreed to establish an international court to hold Nazi officials accountable for mass atrocities instead of summarily executing them, which Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin favored. Initial U.S. and British resistance to including crimes against German nationals (extermination of the Jews among them) was overcome by strong public, especially Jewish, opposition. 

The Nuremberg Legacy: How the Nazi War Crimes Trials Changed the Course of History

By Norbert Ehrenfreund

Why this book?

I found Ehrenfreund’s book compelling because he applied his legal expertise as a lawyer and judge to what he personally witnessed at the trial. His research included numerous conversations with Germans who lived through the Nazi regime. I also valued his insights as they were informed by his personal journey to learn his grandfather’s fate many years after he disappeared into the Holocaust. While Ehrenfreund reveals how U.S. law heavily influenced the law applied at Nuremberg, I found his analysis of the trial’s subsequent influence on U.S. law revealing. For example, Justice Robert Jackson, chief prosecutor at Nuremberg and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, was impacted by the racial hatred that underlies the crimes of the Holocaust in Brown v. Board of Education, The U.S. Court’s school desegregation decision. 

Justice in the Balkans: Prosecuting War Crimes in the Hague Tribunal

By John Hagan

Why this book?

An easily accessible overview of development and internal workings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) up to the first stages of the Milosevic trial. Hagan satisfied my interest in what happens behind the scenes: the struggles, losses, and triumphs of creating the first international war crimes court since Nuremberg and Tokyo. I found particularly illuminating his discussion of how an ICTY prosecution team developed the legal theory, supported by substantial evidence, of rape as an intentional strategy to further the goal of ethnic cleansing, for the first time making it a war crime in its own right. His explication of the tension between diplomacy (which often utilizes amnesty in seeking an end to conflict) and accountability (which seeks justice for victims and humanity) was thought-provoking.

The Sun Climbs Slow: Justice in the Age of Imperial America

By Erna Paris

Why this book?

I’m drawn to inconvenient truths and Canadian Erna Paris reveals them in exceptionally readable prose. Paris discusses why it took more than fifty years to establish a permanent International Criminal Court to try war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. She examines the reasons for U.S. opposition to the permanent International Criminal Court established in 2002, identifies U.S. officials who worked to undermine efforts to develop the ICC, exposes the real reasons they did so, and debunks the official position of protecting US soldiers. 

Closely Related Book Lists

The best books for children and young people about war and refugees

 Annika Thor

The best YA novels featuring strangers in strange lands

 Diane Terrana

The best books that go beyond the diagnosis: how relationships are affected by cancer

 Lynda Wolters

The best books about the Nazi leadership

 Robert Gerwarth

Distantly Related Book Lists

The best books for understanding Putinism

 Mark Lawrence Schrad

The best literature on the Vietnam War from a male perspective

 Charles L. Templeton

The best YA books for when you need a good cry

 Dana Alison Levy

The best books about the combat soldier’s experience in the Vietnam War—military fiction at its best

 Rick DeStefanis



I live in a bubble. It’s a tiny bubble of ten percent of American voters. By the latest New York Times/Sienna College poll, we 10% think the state of American democracy and political division is the gravest problem facing this country. Twenty percent believe the economy and jobs is most important. Another 15% are most disturbed by inflation and the cost of living.

Let’s look at inflation since it’s the headline grabber of late. At 9.1% it’s the highest it’s been since 1982. On CNN the other night, the cause was explained by an economist from the University of Chicago (famed school of supply siders). Three trillion dollars, he said, was pumped into the economy by the federal government to reduce pandemic losses. Then another two trillion. And then another trillion.

All this money went into the pockets of Americans like you and me. It caused demand to increase followed by price increases. Now, I don’t know about you, but I can’t recall receiving or spending any significant part of those trillions of dollars. Nor did it allow my partner to quit work and thus contribute to the unfilled demand for workers (I am retired and receive a limited income from Social Security). Our household collected a total of $3,600, which is nothing to sneeze at but would only pay expenses for one to two months.

Other than former workers lazing about eating Cheetos and watching soaps on their new large screen TVs, what might have contributed to inflation and the state of the economy? Have you noticed that the oil industry made huge profits as prices at the pump sky-rocketed? “Almost two-thirds of publicly traded companies had substantially larger profit margins [in 2021] compared with the same period in 2019. . . . Close to 100 of them saw their profit margins go up at least 50 percent relative to 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported.” As Atlantic journalist Annie Lowrey wrote: “In one of the best decades the American economy has ever recorded, families were bled dry by landlords, hospital administrators, university bursars and child-care centers.”

That’s just Capitalism, huh? It’s also monopoly. Corporate consolidation over the last decade has created monopolies in more than one industry.  A June report by three economists for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston noted that “The US economy is at least 50 percent more concentrated today than it was in 2005,” and that such concentration amplifies the degree to which companies pass price hikes onto consumers as businesses overcompensate for rising production costs. In the oil industry, the report notes, as prices have spiked, companies have posted jaw-dropping profits.

Somebody is making money, but I don’t know them. We’re not in the same bubble.

Is inflation Joe Biden’s fault? Princeton Professor and author Meg Jacobs writes that inflation is “largely the result of choices businesses make. And history shows presidents have the power to stem inflation by taking on corporate power—if they choose.” “President Franklin Roosevelt imposed price ceilings on three million businesses and more than eight million goods.” His Office of Price Administration also put caps on rents in 14 million dwellings occupied by 45 million residents and issued ration stamps for goods like meat to manage supply.”

Biden didn’t cause inflation, but he can take steps to lower it by setting price controls.

As Democratic pollster Joel Benenson said, “We’re not having an inflation problem. We‘re having a corporate greed problem.”


In 2010 my book, Twilight of Impunity: The War Crimes Trial of Slobodan Milosevic, was published. Milosevic was tried by a special court, The International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide for his responsibility for actions during the wars in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Kosovo. Though his trial lasted more than four years (with many interruptions due to his health), he died in 2006 before it reached a conclusion. Still, a massive record was made and is available at www.archive.sensecentar.org. Before it ended, the ICTY indicted 161 and convicted 90 individuals.

There have been other special tribunals and in 2002 the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) was established by treaty. Called the Rome Statute, neither the United States nor Russia is a signatory.[1] Nor is Ukraine, though it accepted the ICC’s jurisdiction over offenses committed in Ukraine beginning in 2013. After Russia invaded and annexed the Crimea in 2014, the ICC chief prosecutor assessed that “there is a reasonable basis to believe that both alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed in Ukraine.” The ICC has initiated investigations of Russia’s current invasion of Ukraine.

There is little doubt that Russia has committed war crimes by targeting civilians, civilian objects, and medical facilities. From reports, videos, and photographs, it also appears that Russia has committed crimes against humanity by torturing and executing civilians in Bucha and executing prisoners. Both President Zelensky and President Biden have publicly declared that Russian actions amount to genocide against Ukrainians. The ICC defines genocide as follows:

“For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  1. (a)  Killing members of the group;
  2. (b)  Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  3. (c)  Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  4. (d)  Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  5. (e)  Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

Ukrainians constitute a national group. They are not the same as Russians despite what Vladimir Putin believes. The issue is whether Putin’s aggression against Ukraine shows an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Ukrainian people. Experts in international criminal law disagree whether genocide has been committed based on current evidence. Intent is the key and it has to come from the top. In Bosnia, both the head of state and the head of the army were convicted of genocide, as well as other top officials. Aside from the legal definition, lay people often claim genocide has occurred when harm is so egregious there seems no other word serious enough to describe it.

Yet other crimes are monstrous, as well: rape, torture, starvation, forced prostitution, enslavement, willful killing, using chemical or biological weapons. These are Crimes Against Humanity. War crimes can also be charged. They include intentional harm to noncombatants (civilians, medical personnel, soldiers taken prisoner, medical facilities, e.g.). A war of aggression is also considered a war crime, though it cannot be charged for Russia’s acts in Ukraine because it requires initiation by the UN Security Council and Russia, as a member, would veto it.

People throughout the world, citizens and leaders, are horrified by what Putin has unleashed in Ukraine. Many demand accountability. The fact that accountability is seen in terms of an international prosecution instead of revenge killings is progress, though the possibility that will happen is not high. The ICC must have jurisdiction over the person, that is, the suspect must be in a state that can and will arrest him. As long as Putin remains in Russia or a friendly state such as China, arrest is highly unlikely. The ICC cannot try a person in absentia. They have to be present before the Court.

What does that mean about impunity? Is it still dominant? No doubt, but there is still hope. In Serbia, Milosevic lost favor with the public. They voted him out of office (Serbia was a soft dictatorship that maintained a patina of democracy) and arrested him for misappropriation of state funds and abuse of power. Zoran Djindjic, an opposition politician, arranged for his transfer to The Hague to stand trial before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia for war crimes. Milosevic also overplayed his hand by attempting to cleanse Kosovo of its Albanian population. After more than a year of massacres, destroyed villages, nearly a million refugees, and unsuccessful negotiations, NATO had finally had enough. For 78 days, the military alliance pounded Serbia with bombs. Shortly after the ICTY chief prosecutor indicted Milosevic for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, the Serbian leader capitulated.

The situation in Ukraine is different. Serbia did not have nuclear weapons with which to blackmail the West. Nor did it have military forces to rival Russia’s. While the population rallied behind Milosevic, they were also tired of sending their young men off to one more war. The press was censored, but not as completely as in Russia. There was no question about ICTY jurisdiction.

Given Putin’s much stronger position, is there any chance he will be held accountable for the war crimes for which he is responsible even in some distant future? That is a question without an answer, crystal balls and Ouiji boards being out of favor. What concerns me is that the West will grant him immunity in exchange for taking only the Eastern part of Ukraine or it will force Ukraine to relinquish any hope of joining NATO or other Western alliances. Will Putin then forego other aggressions? Give up his dream of Empire? Or will he consider it a win, leaving the door open for future misadventures? Perhaps, I’ll dust off that old Ouiji board to discover whether it’s truly the twilight of impunity or merely twilight.









[1] President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Treaty at the 11th hour of his presidency. President George W. Bush unsigned it on taking office.


By the time the Kosovo war ended, I’d become more of a hawk than a dove, after years of peace marching and anti-war activism. It wasn’t an easy move. I’d likely never have made it if I hadn’t been living in the former Yugoslavia for several years, watching a slow genocide unfold while the ‘International Community’ played diplomacy with a master manipulator. Slobodan Milosevic, head of the rump Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro, all that was left after the wars in Croatia and Bosnia), sent his diplomats to the negotiating table with no intention of making concessions. After ten years of repression under his rule, the Kosova Albanians weren’t fooled. They refused to negotiate without an international presence. Milosevic would not have it.

I read the local and international news and talked with Kosovar friends. Every week Serb authorities found some reason to kill a half dozen Kosovars and imprison more. Then the massacres started. Drenica: 83 killed. Racak: 52 killed. Federal forces methodically surrounded and burned villages, creating hundreds of thousands of refugees. Some made it across borders. Others found what shelter they could in the mountains. By war’s end, 10,000 had died.

At the request of Kosovar colleagues, I visited Kosovo, listened to their stories, reviewed photos of mutilated bodies that included women, children, and old folks. I put my colleagues in touch with the International Criminal Tribunal. And I continued my internal debate over supporting NATO intervention. Sanctions were in place, but hadn’t stopped the madness. Nor had the Kosovars’ ten years of nonviolent resistance. At the time, I wrote:

“As with Bosnia, the question for me was what should I, as a responsible U.S. and world citizen, support? There was no easy answer. Perhaps the answer was in the obligation to struggle with the question. My ethics required that, at least. I was coming disturbingly closer to supporting military action—but even as I did, I thought of young men dying and I prayed for a miracle. I considered the claim that, of the 3,500 missions conducted by NATO in Bosnia, including 850 bombing sorties, no international soldiers were killed and only a few Serb fatalities were reported, and I wondered if that was merely a justification and encouragement to violent solutions? I was as tormented by these thoughts as I was by the growing number of deaths in Kosovo.”

One thing Kosova taught me is that you have to stand up to bullies – and that requires, at a minimum, credible threats of force. As I wrote home about my ethical dilemma, a friend who knew Gandhi’s grandson, contacted him and asked, “What would Gandhi say?” The answer was that nonviolence did not preclude self-defense or defense of another. In the end, I reluctantly supported NATO military intervention. After 78 days and an indictment of Milosevic by the International Criminal Court, Milosevic capitulated and withdrew his forces from Kosovo. The Serbian public ultimately overthrew him and sent him to jail. Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic sent him to The Hague, where he was tried for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide for his actions in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. He died of a heart attack before a verdict was reached.

Two decades later, another autocrat has attacked a civilian population without provocation. Vladimir Putin’s war has forced millions of Ukrainians out of the country he is destroying. Again, I am faced with the ethical dilemma of whether to support the use of force to stop him. This time, however, the bully possesses nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them if NATO steps in to help defend the Ukrainian people. Is he bluffing?

As in Bosnia and Kosovo, we helped create this monster when we did nothing to stop him in Syria or the Crimea. At a recent Capitol Hill event, survivors of the Holocaust and of Syria’s torture chambers “argued that the ongoing war in Ukraine [is] the result of the world’s failure to stop the Syrian atrocities.” President Bashar al Assad committed war crimes in Syria; Milosevic committed war crimes in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosova. Putin is committing them in Ukraine: attacking hospitals, schools, and civilians in general; using banned munitions; wielding starvation as a weapon of war. Though Russia (and the U.S.) has not signed onto the treaty creating the International Criminal Court, Putin could be held liable for war crimes under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction. A state could issue an indictment against him. Of course, he has to be caught first. The ICC is investigating, which hasn’t phased Putin so far, though it did affect Milosevic.

We’re back to the use of force. So far, the West has limited its support to supplying weapons and humanitarian aid, while refusing Zelensky’s plea for a no-fly zone and MiG-29 fighter planes because these could reach Russian territory and lead to WWIII. Another option not yet approved is to encourage Turkey to send Ukraine S-400 antiaircraft missile systems which can shoot down planes from the backs of trucks.

David Leonhardt in the New York Times warned:

“Putin, of course, has an interest in making the West believe that he would be angered by almost any substantive help to Ukraine. Doing so can help maintain Russia’s military advantage. The Biden administration, in turn, would be acting naively – and effectively abandoning Ukraine – by taking Putin at his word.

“On the other hand, confronting him so aggressively that he fears for his political life could set off a larger war. . . .”

Leonhardt concludes: “There are no easy answers. It is a dilemma out of the Cold War, in which both timidity and aggression carry risks.”

Where does that leave me and my ethical dilemma? More worried about timidity than aggressive action, particularly since there are steps we can take short of sending in NATO forces. Putin is a bully. Reasoned arguments will not stop him. As Volodymyr Zelensky addressed the Israeli Parliament: “You can mediate between countries, but not between good and evil.”

We live in an imperfect world. Among the human population are bullies, megalomaniacs, sociopaths, and war mongers. This is not going to change in my lifetime. I am grateful there are also people like Ukrainians and their leader who stand up to the bullies, megalomaniacs, sociopaths, and war mongers – at the risk of their lives. To be true to my ethics, I must support them. We must confront the bully and give Ukrainians what they need to stop him. I say this on behalf of Ukrainians as well as Russian soldiers who are dying for Putin’s dream of Empire.

I have not killed the dove. The bullies of the world have.