17 Sept 2022

CIFAR Azrieli Global Scholars Programme 2023/2025

Application Deadline: 25th October 2022 11:59 PM Pacific Time Zone (UTC -8)

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Canada

About the Award: The Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR), a Canadian-based global organization, brings together more than 400 researchers from 16 countries who are pursuing answers to some of the most difficult challenges facing the world. The CIFAR Azrieli Global Scholars program provides funding and support to help early career researchers build networks and essential skills to position them as leaders and agents of change within academia and beyond.

Fields of Research: The following CIFAR research programs are recruiting early-career research leaders:

Boundaries, Membership & Belonging: Fields including, but not limited to:

  • Political Science
  • Sociology
  • Ethics
  • Anthropology

Brain, Mind & Consciousness: Fields including, but not limited to:

  • Cognitive Neuroscience
  • Philosophy of Mind
  • Ethics
  • Developmental Psychology

Earth 4D: Subsurface Science & Exploration: Fields including, but not limited to:

  • Geochemistry
  • Earth & Planetary Science

Fungal Kingdom: Threats & Opportunities: Fields including, but not limited to:

  • Microbiology
  • Earth & Planetary Science
  • Molecular Genetics

Humans & the Microbiomes: Fields including, but not limited to:

  • Microbiology
  • Anthropology

Innovation, Equity & the Future of Prosperity: Fields including, but not limited to:

  • Political Science
  • Sociology
  • Ethics
  • Social Policy 
  • Engineering
  • History

Type: Research, Fellowship

Eligibility: 

  • Applicants can be from anywhere in the world, but must hold a PhD (or equivalent) and be within five years of their first full-time academic appointment.
  • Scholars’ research interests must be aligned with the themes of an eligible CIFAR research program.
  • Be available to attend a two-day in-person interview* on March 22-24, 2021 in Toronto, Canada. Travel costs will be covered by CIFAR.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Program: Each CIFAR Azrieli Global Scholar receives:

  • A two-year term in a CIFAR research program, a global, interdisciplinary network of top-tier research leaders.
  • $100,000 CAD in unrestricted research support
  • Mentorship from a senior researcher within a CIFAR research program
  • Opportunities to network, collaborate and form a community with peers from diverse disciplines across CIFAR’s research programs
  • Specialized leadership and communication skills training, and support to put their skills into action, through participation in two cross-cohort annual meetings.

Duration of Program: 2 years

How to Apply: We invite applications from early-career research leaders who can engage with any of the following CIFAR research programs:

Boundaries, Membership & Belonging
Brain, Mind & Consciousness
Earth 4D: Subsurface Science & Exploration
Fungal Kingdom: Threats & Opportunities
Innovation, Equity & the Future of Prosperity

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

UK social care faces “tipping point” as energy costs soar

Stephen Alexander


The cost-of-living crisis is compounding desperate conditions in the UK’s social care system, following the widespread collapse of care standards during the COVID pandemic, culminating from decades of privatisation and austerity cuts.

The sector was brought to the point of collapse in the initial waves of the pandemic, when tens of thousands of elderly, disabled and sick care home residents died in horrifying conditions, cut off from medical care. Hundreds of social care staff, who were forced to work without the slightest protection from infection, also lost their lives.

In this April 20, 2020, photo, nurses guide a resident at Wren Hall nursing home in the central England village of Selston. [AP Photo/Frank Augstein]

Now, in response to the unprecedented hike in energy costs and rampant inflation, care providers are expanding cutbacks to services as well as raising user fees.

Residential care and nursing homes, hospices and other vital care facilities are seeing their energy cost soar by between 500 and 1,000 percent as a result NATO’s proxy war against Russia and the rampant government-backed profiteering of the energy companies.

According to Professor Martin Green, Chief Executive of Care England, “For years, those of us within the sector have spoken about social care as approaching a ‘tipping point’. The energy crisis being witnessed today may be what finally pushes it over the edge.”

Figures produced by Care England show that care providers would have to pay £5,166 per bed per annum to buy gas and electricity from August. This is almost a 10-fold increase, with the comparative cost in August 2021 being £660 per bed per annum.

Professor Green said the figures “illustrate the true scale of the energy crisis facing adult social care, with providers facing a staggering 683 percent increase in energy costs over the last 12 months.” This represents an additional cost of over £2 billion per annum for the sector as a whole.

“Current packages of government support ignore the social care sector entirely. Care providers, despite paying the same VAT [sales tax] and Green Levy rates on energy bills as domestic settings, are not subject to the domestic price cap and are not set to benefit from the £400 energy rebate,” Professor Green said.

In response to the Conservative government’s homicidal demand that the population cut back on energy usage over winter, Professor Green said, “Unlike other businesses, care providers cannot reduce opening hours, turn off the lights, or switch off the heating or cooling, they house and care for some of society’s most vulnerable and we are already seeing 45 percent of providers considering exiting the market due to the current financial unsustainability in the sector.”

A recent survey of care providers conducted by the Independent Care Group found that 93 percent of care homes are instituting cutbacks, including making already scarce staff redundant and reducing the quality and quantity of food for residents. According to the survey, “81 percent of homes… said they would have to increase fees for residents, with rises of between 5 and 15 percent.”

Another survey of 45 independent care providers conducted by the National Care Association for the Guardian, found that around half of their homes have reduced the amount of time staff spend talking to residents, supporting entertainment and cultural activities, including trips out of the home.

Even prior to the escalation of the cost-of-living crisis, a spate of inspections over the summer by the Care Quality Commission exposed the fact that many homes are unable to meet the basic needs of their residents. The regulator found residents left in their rooms for a day or more without support, going without showers for more than a week, with others left soiled for long periods and subject to attacks from fellow residents.

Of the 14,597 homes registered with the CQC, 241 are rated inadequate with 2,441 (17 percent) rated as “require improvement”. According to Disability News Service, more than half of care homes that had a new rating published in July were found to be requiring improvement (182 homes, or 43 percent) or inadequate (38 or nine percent). The CQC’s recent inspections have a failure rate of more than three times the 18 percent failure rate among all care homes.

The sector continues to haemorrhage workers due to poverty wages, highly exploitative working conditions and the trauma of witnessing mass death and sickness. Staff are leaving for less stressful and marginally better paid jobs in retail, logistics and food services. One in 10 posts, or 160,000 full-time positions, are now vacant in England’s care sector, a rise of 52 percent or 55,000 vacancies in one year, according to Skill for Care. More than 400,000 left the profession over the same period.

The staffing crisis in both health and social care has been a boon to private recruitment companies, as hospitals and care homes have become increasingly reliant on temporary agency staff. They charge around twice the rate of permanent staff—£19.57 versus £9.90 per hour for care staff and £37.56 versus £19.49 for nurses—and make profit margins as high as 50 percent on each shift. Significant numbers of staff have left permanent employment for agency work where they can earn higher wages.

Recent research by Care England found that 78 percent of care home, home care and supported living providers have been using more or significantly more agency staff in May and June compared to April 2021. Agency staff are also harder to come by and more expensive due to competition between care homes and the National Health Service (NHS) for scarce healthcare workers. Three-quarters of respondents said that reliance on agency workers was affecting the quality and continuity of care.

The lack of social care resources has left millions without vital social care services, including people who cannot bath, shower, feed, or dress themselves. According to the Care and Support Alliance, 2.6 million people aged fifty and above are presently living with unmet care needs, amounting to 12 percent of the population of England in this age bracket. There are 13,000 people awaiting discharge from hospitals but cannot access the social care they need. This can cause deadly delays in admitting patients from Accident and Emergency services, under conditions in which the NHS is faced with the impossible task—given current resources—of clearing its record 6.7 million treatment backlog.

The response of the Conservative government to the devastating crisis in social care is of a piece with its callous indifference to the lives of the disabled and elderly during the pandemic.

Newly installed Prime Minister Liz Truss pledged to double the additional £5.7 billion in care funding set out by the Johnson government over the next three years. But this is to be achieved by robbing Peter to pay Paul, as she intends to divert finance away from desperately underfunded NHS hospitals and services.

From October 2023, an £86,000 cap on social care costs is being introduced, setting a maximum an individual can be asked to contribute towards their own care. This is a blatant smash and grab from the meagre assets of working-class people. Since any means-tested support is excluded, poorer pensioners and the disabled will personally pay as much as the richer. Proportionally, they will bear a greater financial burden because of accessing social care than the better off.

While this “reform” will protect the assets of wealthy households from the costs of long-term care it also leaves the for-profit providers to plunder the household assets of working-class people.

Health and Social Care Secretary, Thérèse Coffey, intends to hand hundreds of millions of pounds in public funding to private residential care companies, with the justification of helping free up NHS hospital beds-placing thousands of vulnerable people in dangerously under-resourced homes. The measure effectively revives the deadly “discharge to assess” scheme operated during the pandemic, a policy which the High Court later ruled was unlawful. Tens of thousands of patients were discharged into care homes without testing or quarantine, contributing to a death rate 10 times higher among care home residents than comparable age groups living in private residences.

Timed to relieve the NHS of increased winter demand, Coffey’s plan will coincide with an autumn surge in coronavirus which, experts anticipate, could produce unprecedented infection rates. Moreover, it will go ahead under conditions where free testing and wearing compulsory personal protective equipment have been discontinued across health and social care. Hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable people will be exposed to reinfection and the associated heightened risk of serious health complications and death.

Dairy giant Norco threatens to sack over 170 workers in flood-torn Australian city

Mike Head


Dairy company Norco, one of the largest employers in the flood-devastated regional Australian city of Lismore, declared this week that it would retrench another 170 casual and permanent workers—all the remaining workforce at its ice cream plant in the city—despite being offered a $35 million federal government grant. That is on top of 70 workers made redundant in July.

The sacking of workers, some of whom have worked at Norco’s South Lismore ice cream factory for over 40 years, will be another cruel blow to the working-class residents of the city of 46,000 people and the surrounding Northern Rivers region of New South Wales (NSW).

Norco workers on a break during clean-up after 2022 Lismore floods. [Photo by Norco Milk]

Among the threatened workers are at least 44 who lost their homes in the February and March floods. Norco worker Chris Martin told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) that the past six months had been devastating after being stood down and having to finance rebuilding his flood-damaged Lismore house.

Over the past six months, Norco has already received more than $8 million in government wage subsidies, only to insist that it will dismiss the Lismore workers as soon as the payments end on September 23.

This move typifies how every aspect of the flood disaster has been subjected to the dictates of capitalist profit—from the lack of preparation and warnings to people, to the inadequacy of basic infrastructure and support services, and the lack of assistance offered to the hundreds of thousands of flood victims.

The company is now demanding more federal and state government money, including $11 million from a “Regional Growth Fund,” while refusing to guarantee the retention of the threatened jobs. Instead, the management is speaking of only employing the workers it decides that it requires after possibly rebuilding its factory.

Norco chief executive Michael Hampson told the ABC: “We believe if that can be done we can rebuild a sustainable, flood-resistant ice cream factory, where we can employ a significant amount of people.”

While feigning concern, the federal Labor government responded to Norco’s ultimatum by saying that the company had to make its own business decisions. Asked at a media conference if it was okay for Norco to lay off the workers after being offered millions of dollars in taxpayers’ money, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese gave the question short shrift.

“I would hope that Norco look after their employees. I’ll continue to work with [NSW] Premier Perrottet on these issues. I realise that the Northern Rivers has suffered greatly, including businesses, but we have provided substantial support.”

Federal Emergency Management Minister Murray Watt said there was no requirement in the grant program for Norco to retain workers in return for the cash. He told the ABC: “I’d like to think that there’s still some opportunity here, but at the end of the day, it’s a decision for Norco what they do with their business.”

When asked if Norco could still accept the $35 million grant if it retrenched workers, Watt said that had not been negotiated. The only condition was that companies would remain “a very large presence” in the Northern Rivers. That deliberately vague language is a green light to use the disaster to restructure at the expense of workers’ jobs and conditions.

In line with Labor’s pro-business stand, the three trade unions covering the workers have refused to issue any call for workers at Norco, across the region and nationally to oppose the company’s plans. The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and the Electrical Trades Union have instead appealed for talks with the management on September 22, just a day before the job axing deadline.

Any such talks will be aimed at preventing a struggle by the workers against the mass sacking and striking a deal with the unions and the Labor government to permit Norco to proceed with axing most, if not all, the jobs.

Norco’s ice-cream factory, head office and rural store in South Lismore were inundated with floodwater on February 28. Since March, Norco has received wage subsidies to pay their workers. Many of them have worked tirelessly in flood clean up and recovery operations throughout the community, only to face being thrown out of work.

On its Facebook site, Resilient Lismore, a community group, said it “tasked Norco crews to some of our biggest, dirtiest jobs. Demolitions, clean-ups and yard work. You name it. Every morning they arrived at the Volunteer Hub ready and willing to serve the most vulnerable in their community—some workers are flood affected themselves.”

While formed as a dairy farmers’ cooperative, Norco operates as a business corporation like any other large firm. In addition to the Lismore facilities, it has two milk bottling factories, at Raleigh, near Coffs Harbour, NSW and Labrador on the Gold Coast of Queensland.

According to Norco’s most recent annual report, it made a record operating net profit of $12.7 million in 2020–21, with its milk sales generating $189.4 million in revenue, representing an annual growth rate of 22.4 percent. Like most companies, its workforce is heavily casualised. As at June 30, 2021, it had 554 full-time, 56 part-time and 231 casual employees.

Large businesses like Norco have been offered millions of dollars in a federal-state Anchor Business scheme, supposedly to ensure that some of the region’s larger employers—those employing more than 200 people—stay in the Northern Rivers. The $60 million scheme is part of a broader federal-state support package to pour $725 million into the hands of regional businesses, large and small.

By contrast, thousands of working-class residents in Lismore and throughout the region lost their homes, then struggled for months to access limited government grants. Many have been told they must wait until the end of the year for possible grants to relocate to flood-free areas.

Among the other recipients of the government “anchor” scheme for large employers are sugar refiner Sunshine Sugar ($12.6 million), North Coast Petroleum ($4 million), Williams Group Australia ($3.6 million), Multitask Human Resource Foundation ($3.3 million) and welfare group Social Futures ($900,000).

The pro-business response of the Albanese Labor government and the three unions is in line with their record. For decades, particularly since the Accords struck between the Hawke-Keating Labor government and the unions in the 1980s, these labour apparatuses have enforced the requirements of the corporate elite, at the expense of workers’ jobs, wages and conditions.

Australian central bank demands deeper cuts to wages and social spending

Mike Head


Addressing parliament’s economics committee for the first time since the election of the Labor government in May, Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) governor Philip Lowe yesterday insisted that workers’ wages must be kept far below the soaring cost of living and that the government must slash social spending, including on aged and disability care.

Reserve Bank of Australia governor Philip Lowe. [AP Photo]

People could not keep using the “national credit card” to pay for such essential services, Lowe declared, as if workers and their families had access to too many benefits and must stop asking governments for them.

This is a message of class war—demanding that the workers must be made to pay for what they are not responsible for: The global inflationary spiral and economic crisis caused by the disastrous “live with the virus” COVID-19 policies, the pouring of billions of dollars in “support packages” into corporate coffers and the impact of the escalating US-NATO proxy war against Russia on world food and fuel prices.

The central bank chief declared: “I know it’s not a comfortable message for people that we’re going to have a decline in real wages this year. It’s tough. When interest rates are rising and real wages are declining it’s pretty tough, isn’t it?”

Lowe reiterated his earlier insistence that pay rises be kept below 3.5 percent per year, that is, about half the consumer price index of 7.75 percent predicted by the end of 2022.

In other words, despite this being “tough,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government and its trade union partners must keep suppressing workers’ pay demands by stifling or selling out strikes and imposing deals with employers that cut real wages, on top of a decade of declining real incomes for workers.

Lowe delivered a blunt threat. If wages were allowed to rise to give workers “full compensation” for inflation: “We will respond to that prospect with much higher interest rates and a marked downturn.”

That is, the central bank is quite prepared to hike interest rates so high that the economy crashes into recession with a wave of job cuts, in order to ensure that deeper income cuts are inflicted on working-class households. There was not a word of dissent from the members of the Labor-majority committee.

Lowe warned that Australia’s official inflation rate was still expected to rise from 6.1 percent to 7.75 percent by the end of the year, and the RBA, like other central banks internationally, would continue to raise interest rates in order to drive down household spending and real wages.

This is under conditions where five monthly interest rate hikes in succession and the soaring cost of living, particularly for food, petrol, electricity, gas and housing, is already having a brutal effect on working-class households. With mortgage repayments up by an average of nearly $1,000 a month so far, and rents sky-rocketing, millions face the danger of mortgage defaults or evictions.

Over the past year alone, as Lowe admitted, petrol prices have risen by 32 percent and the cost of building a new house by 20 percent. Electricity and gas bills are now rising by similar amounts. As the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported this week, a record 900,000 people are working multiple jobs—usually insecure or casualised—because their wages are not sufficient to make ends meet.

Despite raising the spectre of a wage-price “cycle,” Lowe conceded that wages have not been a “factor” driving inflation higher. He identified “profit margins” as an issue. That was a muffled reference to the price-gouging by which the energy giants have led the financial elite in reaping super-profits from the worldwide energy price hikes.

Nevertheless, workers had to bear the “tough” consequences. No wage growth could be permitted to reach anywhere near the levels that Lowe claimed were far too high in the US, UK and across Europe. In those countries, the central banks and governments “have to find a way to get that back down,” he insisted, even though for workers across North America and Europe, in reality, life is becoming intolerably more expensive by the day, driving workers into struggle.

Lowe claimed that if wages were cut this year, inflation would drop next year, clearing the way for real pay rises in 2023 and 2024. Such predictions, however, have always proven to be false in the past. Year after year, the RBA and successive governments, Labor and Liberal-National alike, have promised that relief lies just ahead, while the profit share of national income has doubled, at workers’ expense, since the 1980s.

By Lowe’s own admission, the RBA had “made big errors before and no doubt will make them again.” That was a reference to the central bank’s forecasts, up until the end of last year, that any inflation would be transitory and its promises to keep interest rates at record lows until 2024 at least—promises on which many now financially-distressed new homebuyers relied.

Lowe also conceded: “One important source of uncertainty at the moment is the global economy, where the outlook has deteriorated.” The situation in Europe was “very troubling, not least because of the extraordinary increase in energy prices,” in the US, the Federal Reserve had indicated that interest rates had to keep rising and “the Chinese economy is also facing major challenges.”

Lowe’s complaint about the “national credit card” was a declaration that the Labor government had to start, in its scheduled October 25 budget, to eliminate the budget deficits and public debt. These have been growing since massive corporate bailouts and the pouring of huge funds into the financial markets commenced in the global financial crisis of 2008–09—a process that reached vast new heights when the pandemic began in 2020.

The RBA governor said the “community” wanted governments to “provide a whole range of services,” such as “high-quality aged care, great education, world-class disability care, fantastic national defence, great infrastructure.” This was “understandable,” but “what we haven’t worked out as a community is how to pay for it.”

Lowe said there were only three “difficult” alternatives: raise taxes, cut services or grow the economic “pie” to pay for them. The latter required “hard choices on a whole bunch of structural reform issues.” With the Labor government due to hand down a second budget next May, Lowe said he hoped parliament would address these things during its current three-year term.

This is the voice of finance capital giving its orders to the government, and the trade unions on which Labor is relying to enforce the dictates of the ruling class, as they have done for decades, especially since the corporatist Accords between the unions and the Hawke-Keating Labor governments of 1983 to 1996.

There is no doubt about the determination of the Labor and union apparatuses to deliver the requirements of big business. Labor’s deceptive election promises of a “better future” have long given way to the government’s own talk of “tough medicine.” The unions have already imposed scores of pro-employer deals that keep yearly pay rises to 3.5 percent or even less, but this is fueling discontent and resistance, as seen in strikes by nurses, teachers, childcare educators, university staff and many others.

Military debacle in northeastern Ukraine fuels infighting in Russian oligarchy

Clara Weiss


The collapse of Russian forces in the face of a counteroffensive by Ukraine the northeast of the country has brought to the fore bitter conflicts within the Russian oligarchy.

Over the past week, the Russian military has lost about a tenth of the territory it had previously occupied in Ukraine. The fleeing troops vacated almost all of the Russian-occupied parts of the Kharkiv province, including several strategically and logistically important towns like Izyum and Balakliya, leaving behind military equipment.

The military debacle has not only exposed the significant logistical and intelligence problems of Russia’s military, and the extremely low morale among its troops. Above all, it has dealt a severe blow to the strategy of the Putin regime. Having emerged out of the Stalinist destruction of the Soviet Union and the restoration of capitalism, the Putin regime has responded to decades of NATO encirclement and provocations with the invasion of Ukraine, hoping that it could force the imperialist powers to the negotiating table. A principal component of this strategy has been the effort to contain what is essentially a war with NATO.

But this strategy has been blown to pieces by the aggressive moves to escalate the war by the imperialist powers and the transformation of the Ukrainian army—the second largest in Europe after Russia’s—into a well-equipped fighting force. According to the New York Times, it was the Biden administration, which has pledged over $50 billion in weapons for Ukraine since February, that proposed the offensive to the Zelensky government. Moreover, the American media and military figures are openly bragging about the central role of US-delivered weapons and intelligence in the offensive, making it all but impossible to deny that the Russian military is fighting a NATO proxy army in Ukraine. 

Coming on the heels of a series of major provocations, including strikes on Crimea and the assassination of Daria Dugina, a prominent proponent of the war near Moscow, the offensive is clearly part of the efforts by the imperialist powers to goad the Kremlin into an expansion of the war and embolden the most hawkish elements within the Russian state and oligarchy.

Already, the military debacle has provoked an outcry even among the most loyal Putin supporters. Within the media and political establishment, there are ever more open calls for a general mobilization and a public acknowledgement that what is taking place is, in fact, a full-scale war.  

At a Duma (parliament) session on Tuesday, September 13, a deputy from the ruling United Russia Party, Mikhail Sheremetv, said, “Without a complete mobilization, the transition [of the entire country] into war mode, including of the economy, we will not achieve the necessary results [in Ukraine]. I am saying that society must now be consolidated as much as possible and be determined to achieve victory.”

Gennady Zyuganov, the head of the Stalinist Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF), flat-out refused to speak of a “special military operation.” For the past six months, the Kremlin has insisted that what is taking place is only a “special military operation.” The term “war” is banned from the Russian media.

Zyuganov said, “How is a special military operation different from a war? A military operation can be stopped at any point. But you cannot stop a war, it either ends with victory or defeat. I am telling you that what is happening is a war, and we have no right to lose it. We must not panic now. What is needed is an all-out mobilization of the country, entirely different laws are required.” Zyuganov also called for an increase in military expenditures and more modern equipment for the army. 

Zyuganov’s statements are all the more significant as his party, which openly glorifies Joseph Stalin and the Great Terror, has functioned as the largest loyal opposition party to the Putin regime for over two decades, and has played a critical role in stifling and disorienting social opposition. 

The leaders of the other nominal opposition parties, including “Just Russia,” supported Zyuganov’s calls for a general mobilization and also insisted that the war should be named for what it is. 

Following the heated session at the Duma, the Kremlin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov insisted that “at the moment there is no discussion” in the Russian government about a full or partial mobilization. 

Nevertheless, the Russian media continues to be filled with discussions about it, with many media outlets publishing extensive analyses of what a partial or general mobilization would look like. Based on Russian law, a mobilization can only be introduced in case of “aggression against Russia, the immediate threat of aggression or the emergence of armed conflicts that are directed against Russia.” In the case of a full mobilization, all male citizens aged 18 to 50 can be drafted and the entire economy would be refocused on war production. Much of everyday social and economic life would be regulated and surveilled, in one form or another, by the Ministry of Defense. Some media outlets speculate that a mobilization could also occur, initially at least, in a partial and even secret manner. 

Ramzan Kadyrov, the head of the North Caucasian republic, who has publicly fumed about “mistakes” by the Russian army, has spearheaded an effort to mobilize volunteers to strengthen the Russian troops. Several regional governors have supported his calls for a “self-mobilization” in the regions. 

At this point, the Russian military has deployed but a small fraction of its over 1 million men to Ukraine. Putin himself has insisted that only volunteers and no draftees are being deployed to Ukraine. 

The bitter conflicts within the Russian oligarchy can only be understood in light of the systematic intervention of imperialism in the Ukraine war and in Russian politics, as well as the class nature of the Russian oligarchy itself. Having emerged out of the Stalinist bureaucracy’s destruction of the Soviet Union and restoration of capitalism, it never had and never could have any independence from imperialism. All the different factions, if by starkly different means, ultimately seek an accommodation with one or another imperialist power, and fear nothing more than a movement in the working class. 

Despite constant efforts by the oligarchs find an “agreement” with imperialism, the imperialist powers have systematically encircled Russia since 1991, seeking to bring all the resources of the former Soviet Union under their direct control. The current war in Ukraine is the temporary culmination of this development. The ultimate aim lies not so much in Ukraine itself, but in the complete subjugation and carve-up of Russia.

The destabilization of the Putin regime is therefore a central component of the war strategy.

In a report from 2019, the RAND corporation, a leading US think tank, outlined a strategy of “overextending Russia” to destabilize the regime. According to RAND, the principal means to bring about such an economic “overextension,” apart from sanctions especially in the energy sector, was to force the Russian regime to invest more in its military. The report stressed that the Kremlin was reluctant to do so and that the US would therefore “find it hard to persuade Russia to substantially increase defense spending unless it convinces the Kremlin that new threats to Russian security demand a change to this policy.”

There is little question that the systematic provocations by NATO in the lead-up to the Russian invasion were aimed at bringing about precisely this “change” in Russian foreign policy. Since the invasion, NATO has conducted ever more overtly a de facto war against Russia on Ukrainian territory through an army and paramilitary forces that are principally armed and trained by the imperialist powers. 

The calculation is that, by goading Russia into an expansion of the war, including a general mobilization, the Putin regime can be fatally destabilized and overthrown by another faction of the oligarchy in a US-backed operation. The latest offensive and crisis in the Russian ruling class has raised hopes that this prospect may be realized sooner rather than later. One of the most vocal spokesmen of US imperialist policy vis-a-vis Russia, retired US general Ben Hodges, wrote in the Telegraph earlier this week, “it is a genuine possibility that Vladimir Putin’s exposed weaknesses are so severe that we might be witnessing the beginning of the end–not only of his regime, but of the Russian Federation itself.”

In this operation, the imperialist powers rely on a faction within the Russian oligarchy that is gathered around the pro-NATO misnamed “liberal opposition.” While their main figurehead, Alexei Navalny, continues to be imprisoned, almost as soon as news of the collapse of Russian offensive broke, municipal deputies from Petersburg that are associated with the liberal opposition launched a petition aimed at impeaching Putin based on allegations of “high treason.” These layers stand in the tradition of a faction of the Russian oligarchy that has advocated an integration of Russia into NATO. They are effectively calling for a whole-sale capitulation to imperialism, hoping that they would staff the puppet regimes that would emerged out of an imperialist carve-up of Russia.

Facing growing pressure from different factions of the oligarchy, the Putin regime’s main concern is the prospect that, much like World War I which was ended by the Bolshevik-led October revolution, the war will lead to a social revolution in Russia and internationally. In a recent piece for a Kremlin-aligned think tank, Sergei Karaganov, a leading foreign policy pundit, explicitly warned of a repetition of what he called “the disaster of 1917.” Even more so than the oligarchy’s delusionary belief in the possibility of an agreement with the imperialist powers, this is the main reason for Putin’s desperate efforts to contain the conflict and limit its impact on the home front.

After Russian debacle in Ukraine, US escalates conflict with Russia and China

Andre Damon


Following the collapse of Moscow’s northern front of Russia’s six-month-old invasion of Ukraine, the United States has responded by further intensifying its involvement in the war against Russia in Ukraine and preparations for war with China over Taiwan.

In the course of one week, Ukrainian forces advanced dozens of miles, capturing massive quantities of Russian weapons and ammunition, along with, according to Ukrainian officials, thousands of Russian soldiers.

On Thursday, the Biden administration announced an additional $600 million in weapons to Ukraine, adding to the more than $50 billion in armaments and other assistance that has been allocated to date.

The new arms shipment, the 21st such “drawdown” since the start of the war, includes ammunition for the HIMARS missile system, 36,000 rounds of 105mm artillery, counter-battery radar and a thousand precision-guided 155mm artillery rounds.

This adds to the tens of thousands of antitank missiles, hundreds of drones, 15 HIMARS missile launchers, and hundreds of vehicles, as well as the US’s most advanced anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles, that have been delivered to date.

US Senators called for even more weapons to be provided to Ukraine, with US Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell demanding that the White House provide Ukraine with the long-range ATACMS missile capable of striking deep inside Russian territory.

“The Ukrainians need more weapons than what we’re giving them. They need to start getting them faster, and they need new capabilities like long-range ATACMS missiles, large drones and tanks,” McConnell said.

Senator Marco Rubio added, “I think the concern some would say is that the longer-range missiles could target deep inside of Russia and trigger a broader conflict. I’m not sure I’m as troubled by that.”

These demands for expanding the range of weapons delivered to Ukraine were accompanied by the most explicit declaration to date of US goals in the conflict.

“The momentum has really shifted in favour of Ukraine and they’re the ones that are literally calling the shots,” declared former US Army Europe Commander Ben Hodges.

He added that “we may be looking at the beginning of the collapse of the Russian Federation, adding, “ it’s a population that by and large is not truly let’s say ethnic Russian, I mean there’s 120 different ethnic groups out there…

“I think people out in Tuva and Siberia and Chechnya and others... may see opportunity… to to break away so… um i think that we... collectively the west need to be... thinking… about what are the implications for this?”

The statement by Hodges developed his declaration in April, in the aftermath of Russia’s retreat from Kiev and the allegations of Russian atrocities in Bucha, that the aim of the United States is “breaking the back of Russia’s ability to project power outside of Russia.”

As in April, the renewed escalation of US involvement in the war is accompanied by allegations that Russia systematically murdered civilians, this time in the outskirts of Izum.

These military moves have been accompanied by an escalation of the US-NATO economic war. On Friday, the German government took control of three refineries owned by Russian oil company Rosneft. “This is a far-reaching energy policy decision to protect our country,” German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said.

Alongside the escalation of the war with Russia, the US escalated its conflict with China in the wake of the Russian collapse.

On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign relations Committee voted to move forward the Taiwan Policy Act, a bill that would send $6.5 billion in weapons to Taiwan and effectively end the US’s One China Policy.

The Bill states that “Taiwan shall be treated as though it were designated a major non-NATO ally,” effectively implementing a military treaty with Taiwan, obliterating the US’s formal position that it has no diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

Critically, it replaces provisions that arms provided to Taiwan be used in a “defensive manner” with the declaration that the US will provide “arms conducive to deterring acts of aggression by the People’s Liberation Army,” raising the prospect that this weapons could be used in a “preemptive” conflict.

As the US escalated its involvement in the war against Russia and its conflict with China, Russian president Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping held their first in-person meeting since the start of the war at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit. The crisis triggered by Russia’s military debacle was on display.

“We highly appreciate the balanced position of our Chinese friends in connection with the Ukrainian crisis,” Putin said at the start of the meeting. “We understand your questions and concerns in this regard.”

Similar tensions were on display in Putin’s discussion with Indian President Narendra Modi. “I know that today’s era is not an era of war, and I have spoken to you on the phone about this,” Modi told Putin. “I know your position on the conflict in Ukraine, the concerns that you constantly express,” Putin said. “We will do everything to stop this as soon as possible.”

Despite the crisis triggered by the Russian military debacle, Russia and China are being objectively driven closer together by the escalating US war drive.

In a statement to the Financial Times, Alexander Gabuev, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, commented  “If Putin is that obsessed with Ukraine, what can [Xi] realistically do?” Gabuev said… “the departure of the Putin regime and the unlikely prospect of a pro-western government in Russia is a terrible nightmare for China.”

Emboldened by the Russian debacle in Northern Ukraine, the US is only escalating its preparations for a global military conflict that threatens all of humanity.

16 Sept 2022

Luring Doctors from Poorer Countries is the UK’s Quiet Scandal

Patrick Cockburn


The looting of artistic and religious objects from Africa and Asia by British invaders in the 19th century causes much rancorous debate about whether the artefacts should be returned to the countries they were originally stolen from. But discussion is much more muted about equally acquisitive expeditions launched by Britain today that may ultimately cause more suffering than those imperialist ventures long ago.

At issue is the policy of deliberately luring badly needed and expensively trained doctors and nurses from poor African and Asian countries to Britain. This happens because we train far too few doctors and nurses, offering only 7,500 medical school places when twice that number is needed. The shortage is made up by battening on the disintegrating health systems of poor and middle-income countries, mostly in Africa and Asia.

The exodus from there of medical professionals is high and getting higher. From the start, the National Health Service (NHS) has recruited from overseas. But within the last decade the influx has vastly increased, with the share of doctors recruited by the NHS from outside the UK and EU rising from 18 to 34 per cent and nurses from seven to 34 per cent between 2015 and 2021, according to statistics compiled by the BBC’s Shared Data Unit. The proportion of British-trained doctors in the health service has fallen from 69 to 58 per cent and nurses from 74 to 61 per cent over the same period.

On occasion, the scale of the loss of skilled medical staff has caused a scandal in their own country. In July 2020, for instance, Nigeria’s immigration service stopped 58 Nigerian doctors from flying out of Lagos international airport on a single plane bound for Britain. The Nigerian press protested that there were already 4,000 Nigerian doctors working in Britain, despite the fact that Nigeria has less than 15 per cent of the doctors needed by its 182 million people.

Syphoning off skilled medical workers from those who can least afford to lose them is not new, but the numbers involved have risen sharply. The NHS has always known that it is training too few doctors but the Treasury has refused to pay for more. Britain has tried to have a first-class health service on the cheap, but this has meant recurrent crises even before Covid-19 along with increasing reliance on medical expertise paid for by others.

Since Brexit the proportion of doctors and nurses coming from EU members has fallen and the numbers coming from poorer non-EU states has increased. Dr Alexia Tsigka, a consultant histopathologist at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, is quoted by the BBC Data Unit as saying that in her specialty only three per cent of UK departments are fully staffed.

“And I haven’t seen anyone European coming after Brexit, at least in our department,” says Dr Tsigka. “Doctors that have applied to our department mostly come from India, Egypt and some from Sri Lanka.”

In the past the NHS has denied or played down its dependence on poaching staff abroad. In August, the then Health Secretary Steve Barclay was reported as wanting to send NHS managers to countries like India and the Philippines to recruit thousands of nurses. A Department of Health and Social Care spokesman said the department would be “working with recruitment experts to examine how to recruit staff from overseas more effectively”.

“It is a ghastly development since most of the recruits will come from low and middle income countries that have a low proportion of doctors [to patients] and high infant and maternal mortality rates,” says Rachel Jenkins, professor emeritus of epidemiology and international mental health policy at King’s College London, who has previously emphasised the damage done to poor countries by lessening their already limited medical resources which they cannot afford to replace.

She is scornful about the British health authorities’ claim that they are only accessing a global pool of doctors and nurses, saying “there is no pool but a desert out there”.

Despite knowing that the biggest problem facing the health service is the lack of doctors and nurses, the Government makes clear that it will not train more of them in Britain. A letter to Jesse Norman MP from the Department of Health and Social Care says that it has increased the number of places in medical schools it funds each year from 6,000 to 7,500. “The Government currently has no plans to increase the number of places beyond this,” says the letter.

The parasitic dependence of the UK heath service on recruiting staff who would naturally prefer to work and live in a rich country than a poor one is set to grow rather than diminish. It is foreign aid in reverse, flowing from the poor to the rich and works too much to the advantage of the latter for them to give it up. Bogus claims made in justification for this include the claim that doctors go back to their countries of origin bringing back fresh expertise, but in reality there are few who return.

The real reason for sticking with the present toxic system is simply that the NHS would cease to function without foreign trained medical staff in huge numbers. Personal experience fully supports the statistics as in every medical facility I have been in in the last few years, foreign born staff have been in the majority.

When I broke my leg in 2009, the three doctors who carried out surgery were all from the Middle East. Impressed by their expertise, I wondered about the gap their departure must have left in Cairo or Beirut.

The impact on the NHS of its dependence on non-EU foreign staff is becoming greater, but the same thing has happened in other walks of life. This is strange since Brexit was in part propelled by the belief that Britain was being swamped by immigrants over whose inflow the British government had no control.

A Leave voter might naturally have assumed that, once Britain had left the EU, that the flow of immigrants would be reduced. But instead the number has soared. The Home Office says that 1.1 million visas were issued to those coming to work or study in the UK in the last year, which is an 80 per cent increase on the year before.

This is all legal immigration and it completely dwarfs the 23,000 migrants who have crossed the Channel illegally so far this year. But it is the pictures of migrants being picked up at sea or landing on the beaches of south east Kent that dominate the newscasts about immigration.

So far, the arrival of great numbers of legal immigrants has had surprisingly little political effect. The Government is happy to point to its non-functional plan to deport migrants to Rwanda as its response to the boat people. Labour wants to keep away from the topic. The fact that many migrants are qualified and are being absorbed into big diverse cities makes them less of a rival for jobs in the eyes of poorly educated workers.

Unlike 2016, no political party or media outlet has whipped up anti-immigrant feelings. Nevertheless, I would be surprised if such a big demographic change will not create some sort of backlash.

Japan to further militarize the East China Sea

Ben McGrath


Japan is engaging in the militarization of the East China Sea while increasing the ability of its military to launch offensive, first-strike attacks amid preparations for war with China by the US and its allies.

US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin stands with Japan's Minister of Defense Yasukazu Hamada at the Pentagon, Wednesday, Sept. 14, 2022, in Washington. [AP Photo]

In an interview with Nikkei Asia on September 6, Japan’s Defense Minister Yasukazu Hamada stated that the ministry would “radically strengthen the defense capabilities we need, including our capacity for sustained and flexible deployment… To protect Japan, it’s important for us to have not only hardware such as aircraft and ships, but also enough ammunition for them.”

Tokyo intends to construct an ammunition depot on Amami Island in the Ryukyu Island chain that is part of Kagoshima Prefecture. The depot will be located at the current site of a Ground Self-Defense Force (GSDF) base. The GSDF is the formal name of Japan’s army. The government is also examining building additional port facilities and fuel tanks in the region, which also includes Okinawa Prefecture.

Hamada claimed in the interview that the decision is based on a potential crisis over Taiwan and the military’s need to shift resources into the region. At present, approximately 70 percent of the Japanese military’s ammunition is stored on Hokkaido, in the north, while only 10 percent is stored in Kyushu and Okinawa.

Tokyo also intends to conclude the scheduled deployment of surface-to-ship and surface-to-air missiles to islands in the region. The deployment of the missile batteries, with a range of 300 kilometers, was announced in 2016. They have subsequently been installed on Amami Island in 2019 and Miyako Island in 2020. A third deployment to Ishigaki Island will be completed by next March. Miyako and Ishigaki are further south of Amami and are a part of Okinawa Prefecture.

Tokyo also intends to send electronic warfare units to at least three locations in the Ryukyu Island chain, including Yonaguni Island next year. These units are used to jam an enemy’s communications and radar and would target Chinese vessels that use the sea routes around the islands to access the Pacific Ocean. Yonaguni Island lies just 110 kilometers to the east of Taiwan.

The Ryukyu Islands, also known as the Nansei Islands, stretch from Kyushu in an arc down to Taiwan. For the past decade, Tokyo has exploited and inflamed tensions over the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands—claimed by Tokyo and Beijing—in the East China Sea in order to justify militarizing the Ryukyus. In 2015, Tokyo also announced it would deploy hundreds of additional troops to the islands of Ishigaki, Yonaguni, Miyako, and Amami.

Hamada’s statement that Tokyo is planning for a “sustained and flexible deployment” violates Japan’s constitution, specifically Article 9, known as the pacifist clause. The article explicitly states “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.”

However, Tokyo has exploited both the US/NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine as well as the US manufactured tensions over Taiwan to further dispense with the constitutional restraints on the Japanese military and to push through remilitarization in the face of widespread anti-war sentiment. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has regularly stated that “Ukraine today may be East Asia tomorrow,” claiming that Beijing may invade Taiwan in the near future.

In reality, the United States, backed by allies like Japan and Australia, have denounced China over phony “human rights” concerns; accused Beijing of being responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic; and dangerously challenged the “One China” policy, which states Taiwan is a part of Chinese territory. Both Washington and Tokyo acknowledge the “One China” policy and have no formal diplomatic relations with Taipei. This has not stopped the US from agreeing to massive arms deals with Taipei and conducting provocative visits to the island, including a trip last month by US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

In line with this agenda, Japan’s Defense Ministry recently requested its largest-ever military budget for the 2023 fiscal year, surpassing last year’s record budget. The Defense Ministry submitted its request for 5.59 trillion yen ($US39.19 billion) on August 31, which will likely grow in the future when supplementary budgets are added. The latest increase, which is sure to pass with little to no opposition, comes as Tokyo plans to raise military spending over the next five years to two percent of GDP, a doubling of the current budget. This would make Japan the third-largest spender on the military in the world.

There are seven “pillars” to the new budget, which the Defense Ministry states are “necessary efforts to drastically strengthen Japan’s defense capabilities within five years.” This includes the development and mass production of longer-range missiles, which would give Japan the ability to launch offensive strikes on distant targets. Tokyo also intends to produce the upgraded Type-12 missile with a range of up to 1,000 kilometers that will also be deployed to the East China Sea region.

Another significant item includes additional funds to further modify Japan’s two “helicopter carriers,” JS Izumo and JS Kaga, to convert them into full-fledged aircraft carriers capable of handling F-35B fighter jets. In the past, Japan has avoided the acquisition of nakedly offensive weaponry such as aircraft carriers so as to maintain the presence of abiding by Article 9. The conversion of the Izumo and Kaga would make the two vessels the first new aircraft carriers in Japan’s fleet since World War II.

The other “pillars” in the budget request include improving air and missile defense capabilities, the use of drones, the improvement of intelligence-related functions, “sustainability and resiliency,” deployment capability, and the improvement of capabilities in space, cyberspace, and electromagnetic fields.

In an indication of how far Japan may go in acquiring offensive weaponry, in February, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe seized on the war in Ukraine to raise the possibility of Japan hosting US nuclear weapons as part of a weapons sharing program. Before his assassination in July, Abe had been one of the most belligerent anti-China voices in Tokyo. With the issue raised, it has already become an open debate in the Japanese establishment.