BBC:

Troops patrolled Nukus on Sunday

Officials in the Uzbek region of Karakalpakstan say thousands of people are being treated in hospital, after being injured during unrest on Friday.

The regional health minister said hospitals in the regional capital, Nukus, were full of patients.

Clashes broke out with the security forces when protesters took to the streets over plans to withdraw the territory’s right to secede.

…

It led to President Mirziyoyev visiting Karakalpakstan twice over the weekend.

…

„Taking advantage of their numerical superiority, these men attacked law enforcement officers, severely beating them and inflicting severe injuries,“ he was quoted as saying by AFP news agency.

FAZ:

Bei Demonstrationen in der Provinz Karakalpakstan sind mehrere Menschen getötet worden. Die Opposition spricht von fünf Toten. Zudem sollen Tausende Menschen verletzt worden sein.

After being attacked, Uzbek law enforcement officers washed unrest off the street.

Wolfgang Streeck:

Currently the declared war aims of Ukraine include driving all Russian forces back to Russia, the unconditional return of Crimea to Ukraine, the return of the breakaway provinces to the central authority of Kyiv, and Ukrainian membership, if not of NATO, then at least of the EU. NATO and the EU have publicly committed themselves to leaving it to the Ukrainians to decide what to aim for, when to negotiate and what to agree. To the delight of the Ukrainian government, the US and other Western countries including the UK have also indicated that for them, the objective of the war is a ‘victory’ over Russia that would ‘decisively weaken’ its military and economy, while having Putin stand trial in an international criminal court. (Scholz’s line on this is that Russia must not win the war and Ukraine must not lose it, rather than Ukraine having to win and Russia to lose.) It is against this background that Ukrainian access to advanced military hardware matters, since it affects whether Ukraine, fighting on its own without US and NATO forces by its side, might be able to withstand a war lasting, potentially, several years, with a chance, slight as it may be, of ‘winning’ one way or another. For this, the Ukrainian government would have to ask its citizens to accept massive losses of life and wealth for the sake of maximalist national objectives, in a conflict that amounts to a proxy war on behalf of the ‘West’, aimed at eliminating Russia as an independent economic and political power.

Ω Ω Ω

For Europe, the nuclearization of the Ukrainian war would be a catastrophe, whereas the US would hardly be affected if at all. Germany in particular is less interested than the US in a long war fought with freely supplied Western equipment. For Scholz, going slow on arms delivery may be an attempt, if a weak one, to make the Ukrainian government consider a settlement short of Putin having to be handed over to The Hague, provided a Normandy-like deal is still available. (Attempts to affect the Ukrainian war aims by a country threatened by nuclear fallout could be reflected in a slogan like ‘No annihilation without representation’.)

Ω Ω Ω

Unspeakably awful as it is for the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian war is no more than a sideshow in a much larger story: that of an approaching shoot-out between a declining and a rising would-be global hegemon. One function served by the war in this context is the consolidation of the US hold over its European allies, who are required as backing for the American ‘pivot to Asia’ (Obama) – to what used to be the South China Sea and is now referred to by the loyal Western mediacracy as the Indo-Pacific.

Jacob Collins, Jacobin:

Lévy targeted the philosopher Gilles Deleuze in Barbarism, arguing that his book Anti-Oedipus (cowritten with Félix Guattari) was a plea for amoral individualism (and the pursuit of gratification), and as such an enabling condition for fascism. Deleuze delivered a stinging reply, which he had printed and distributed in bookshops for free: “I think that their thought is worthless. [. . .] They have constituted a stifling, asphyxiating space where a little air used to get through. It is the negation of all politics, all experimentation.” Deleuze sensed that a new moment had arrived in French intellectual life, when publicity triumphed over ideas; media access over reason. The philosopher Régis Debray came to a similar conclusion, observing that this was not so much a “new philosophy” as a “new logistics (in that it is not known to have any specific theoretical essence or even ever to have needed one).”

BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting:

Rescinding an individual right in its entirety and conferring it on the State, an action the Court takes today for the first time in history, affects all who have relied on our constitutional system of government and its structure of individual liberties protected from state oversight.

Ω Ω Ω

So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.

One piece of evidence on that score seems especially salient: The majority’s cavalier approach to overturning this Court’s precedents. Stare decisis is the Latin phrase for a foundation stone of the rule of law: that things decided should stay decided unless there is a very good reason for change. It is a doctrine of judicial modesty and humility. Those qualities are not evident in today’s opinion.

Washington Post:

Anne Applebaum, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and former columnist for The Washington Post who now writes for the Atlantic, warned attendees that the traditional fact check — in which individual claims by politicians or advocacy groups are vetted for accuracy — may not be adequate in a world in which a government such as Russia’s not only tells a single lie but has spent years laying the groundwork for “a whole elaborate narrative” to undercut the idea of a sovereign Ukraine.

“A fact isolated from context, whether it’s true or false, is almost meaningless,” Applebaum said. “You have to explain it or tell it as part of a story.”

She said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has striven to demonstrate his authenticity — wearing T-shirts and shunning the trappings of power — to effectively counter the “contrived fake world” of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government. She said his efforts have been especially effective in the West, but less so in countries in Africa and Asia where Russian propaganda has deeper roots and faces less pushback.

John J. Mearsheimer speech at the European University Institute, 16.06.2022:

I will make two main arguments today.

First, the United States is principally responsible for causing the Ukraine crisis. This is not to deny that Putin started the war and that he is responsible for Russia’s conduct of the war. Nor is it to deny that America’s allies bear some responsibility, but they largely follow Washington’s lead on Ukraine. My central claim is that the United States has pushed forward policies toward Ukraine that Putin and other Russian leaders see as an existential threat, a point they have made repeatedly for many years. Specifically, I am talking about America’s obsession with bringing Ukraine into NATO and making it a Western bulwark on Russia’s border. The Biden administration was unwilling to eliminate that threat through diplomacy and indeed in 2021 recommitted the United States to bringing Ukraine into NATO. Putin responded by invading Ukraine on February 24^th of this year.

Second, the Biden administration has reacted to the outbreak of war by doubling down against Russia. Washington and its Western allies are committed to decisively defeating Russia in Ukraine and employing comprehensive sanctions to greatly weaken Russian power. The United States is not seriously interested in finding a diplomatic solution to the war, which means the war is likely to drag on for months if not years. In the process, Ukraine, which has already suffered grievously, is going to experience even greater harm. In essence, the United States is helping lead Ukraine down the primrose path.

Die Zeit:

Various versions of surprise seem to be the majority response to societal and political fracture in the US, global warming. „This is not America“. „A once-in-100-years heat wave“. I wonder if possibly this will be simply a constant, and not a transitional phase: a continued reeling, staggering in dull shock and helpless disbelief?

Spiegel:

SZ: