#Sponsored

Sunday, May 24, 2020

Stop Saying Donald Trump Colluded with Russia It’s possible that most people who originally embraced the Russia collusion allegations honestly believed them and concluded that a far-reaching investigation was warranted. But we’ve had that investigation, and given the many exculpatory revelations that have emerged over the past year, Trump’s accusers no longer have a credible excuse for their persistence. by Ted Galen Carpenter

Reuters

The passage of time has not been kind to allegations that Donald Trump and his 2016 presidential campaign colluded with the Russian government. Developments have been even less kind to the argument that Trump as president has been Vladimir Putin’s sycophantic puppet. Trump’s accusers need to abandon their foray into neo-McCarthyism before a weary public focuses its annoyance and disillusionment on them.

The tepid Mueller Report in 2019 struck a damaging blow to the principal rationale for the entire Russia collusion investigation. The (much belated) release of transcripts of witness testimonies before the House Intelligence Committee earlier this month likely has inflicted a death blow.

The Mueller Report did not find evidence to warrant any criminal indictments regarding offenses having to do with those central accusations—not against Trump, his associates, or any other American. Specifically, the report stated: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald provided a succinct summary of the results, asserting that Mueller “did not merely reject the Trump-Russia conspiracy theories. He obliterated them.” Greenwald added: “Several of the media’s most breathless and hyped ‘bombshells’ were dismissed completely.” 

Conspiracy aficionados in Congress and the media did not abandon their Russia collusion theory, however. Indeed, there were constant echoes of the original allegations when House Democrats pressed their case for Trump’s impeachment in late 2019. The ostensible grounds for impeachment were Trump’s supposed misconduct toward the government of Ukraine, but always lurking in the background was the innuendo that his actions deliberately served Moscow’s interests. 

As I’ve written previously, abundant evidence definitively refutes the notion that the Trump administration has pursued a pro-Russia policy. Indeed, from arms sales to Ukraine, to new rounds of NATO expansion, to U.S. withdrawal from the INF treaty, to Washington’s increased harassment of Russia’s allies and clients, Trump’s policies have been noticeably more hardline than those the Obama administration adopted.

The House Intelligence Committee transcripts further underscored the thinness of the Russia collusion allegations. “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election,” former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified.  Other Obama administration officials, including National Security Advisor Susan Rice, made the same grudging admission in response to questions from committee members. Their testimony raised new questions about whether there were ever adequate reasons to launch a criminal investigation into the opposition party’s presidential campaign. 

An even more startling revelation emerged from the hearing transcripts. CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security company that validated Democratic National Committee (DNC) accusations that Russia had hacked Democratic Party emails, had acknowledged to Congress that it had no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the DNC server. It was no trivial admission since the firm had served as a critical source in the long Trump-Russia probe. 

Investigative journalist Aaron Mate has noted that “CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry's admission under oath, raises new questions about whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller, intelligence officials and Democrats misled the public.” Mate added that “Henry’s recently released testimony does not mean that Russia did not hack the DNC. What it does make clear is that Obama administration officials, the DNC and others have misled the public by presenting as fact information that they knew was uncertain.  The fact that the Democratic Party employed the two private firms that generated the core allegations at the heart of Russiagate—Russian email hacking and Trump-Russia collusion—suggests that the federal investigation was compromised from the start.” 

Former intelligence official Ray McGovern points out that the original reliance on CrowdStrike’s information and assessment reflected questionable judgment by the FBI and the Mueller commission. “CrowdStrike already had a tarnished reputation for credibility when the DNC and Clinton campaign chose it to do work the FBI should have been doing to investigate how the DNC emails got to WikiLeaks. It [CrowdStrike] had asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine’s struggle with separatists supported by Russia.” McGovern is correct about that episode. A Voice of America report examined how CrowdStrike was forced to retract that claim. 

It is long past time for proponents of the Russia collusion conspiracy theory to back off. No reasonably objective observer can take the allegations seriously any longer. Persisting in that line of argument reflects little more than rabid partisanship. 

Promotion of the collusion allegations has needlessly increased public animosity toward Russia and heightened already dangerous tensions between the two countries that possess the largest (by far) nuclear arsenals. Granted, the American public’s mounting anger toward China may ultimately cause that country to eclipse Russia as the perceived number one enemy of the United States, but hostility toward Russia nevertheless remains at worrisome levels. It’s possible that most people who originally embraced the Russia collusion allegations honestly believed them and concluded that a far-reaching investigation was warranted. But we’ve had that investigation, and given the many exculpatory revelations that have emerged over the past year, Trump’s accusers no longer have a credible excuse for their persistence. 

The Coronavirus and the US-Russia-China Triangle How might the coronavarius reshape relations between America, Russia and China? Four leading experts discuss the possible answers. by Jacob Heilbrunn

How might the coronavirus pandemic alter the triangular relationship between the United States, China, and Russia? Russia has been among China’s most vocal defenders as the United States and others have accused Beijing of unleashing the coronavirus pandemic on the world. But will closer Chinese-Russian cooperation be an inevitable outcome of COVID-19? Could the repercussions of the pandemic open doors for the United States to rebalance its relations with Moscow and Beijing?

An all-star team of American and Russian experts addressed these questions and their answers can be learned in the video below:

• Paul Heer recently became the Center for the National Interest’s Distinguished Fellow for China and East Asia. A former National Intelligence Officer for East Asia, Dr. Heer has established himself as a key voice in our country’s public debate over rising Chinese power since leaving government service in 2015. His book, Mr. X and the Pacific: George Kennan and American Policy in East Asia, was published in 2018.

• Aleksey Maslov is Acting Director of the Institute of Far Eastern Studies of Russian Academy of Sciences. He is also Professor of East Asian Studies at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow.

• Stapleton Roy is a former U.S. ambassador to China and one of our country’s foremost China experts. He is the founding director emeritus of the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and author of countless publications on the U.S.-China relationship.

• Dmitry Suslov is Deputy Director at the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies, at the National Research University Higher School of Economics in Moscow. One of Russia’s top foreign policy experts, Suslov is co-author of an influential study produced in cooperation with Russia’s Foreign Ministry on new directions in Russian foreign policy.

North Korea Post-Kim Jong-un Reappearance: Expect Business as Usual in the Hermit Kingdom Kim Jong-un does not appear to have the intention to change the course of his strategy to reduce tensions with Washington.   by Soo Kim

Reuters

If North Korea’s fate begins and ends with the Kim family, then whither U.S.-North Korea relations for the remainder of the year? Kim Jong-un broke his twenty-day submergence by attending a ribbon-cutting ceremony at the Sunchon Phosphatic Fertilizer Factory—a facility that may serve a dual-purpose of fertilizer production and uranium extraction to make nuclear weapons. Granted, his skin color and gait appeared off-kilter to even the less discerning spectator, but Kim seems to have moderately succeeded in keeping up appearances of a functioning regime by Pyongyang’s standards. 

In time-tested North Korean fashion, several days following Kim’s resurfacing, Pyongyang’s military fired multiple shots at a South Korean guard post in the demilitarized zone. Seoul’s military returned with a short volley of shots, but perhaps in an effort to downplay tensions, ROK officials have promptly dismissed the incident as a mishap. 

Kim’s return, while it leaves much to be desired in the way of explanation, should send one message to the international audience: North Korea’s fate rests still in the hands of Kim Jong-un. And judging by appearances in recent days, Kim does not appear to have the intention to change the course of his strategy to reduce tensions with Washington.   

This means, of course, a continuation in the buildup of nuclear tensions and missile provocations—as alluded to in the recent analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Illicit trade, ship-to-ship transfers, and cybercrimes will continue to serve as funding sources for Kim’s nuclear arsenal and indulgent lifestyle. South Korea and Japan, Washington’s two critical allies in the region, will continue to bear the brunt as unwilling targets of Pyongyang’s shorter-range missile intimidation and conventional military aggression.

If North Korea’s fate begins and ends with the Kim family, Kim Jong-un’s return signifies plainly that by and large, it’s business as usual in the Hermit Kingdom. 

Botched Venezuela Raid Echoes History of U.S.-Backed Coups Events in Venezuela echo past U.S. secret sponsorship of private armies to overthrow foreign governments. by Andrew Thomson

Members of the Venezuelan opposition have been accused of conspiring with an American private military company, Silvercorp USA, to invade Venezuela and overthrow the government of Nicolás Maduro.

In early May, the Venezuelan military intercepted a group of dissidents and American mercenaries. The Venezuelan military said it killed eight of the insurgents and captured many others. It also arrested two men it claims are former US Special Forces soldiers. No evidence has surfaced to link the US government to the recent attempted invasion – and it has denied responsibility for the incident.

Juan Guaidó, the Venezuelan opposition leader, has also denied involvement in the thwarted coup attempt. Some of his advisers who were allegedly involved in planning the mission have resigned.

The Washington Post subsequently published an agreement between members of the Venezuelan opposition and Silvercorp, including signatures of two of Guaidó’s advisers, though not Guaidó, and the chief executive of Silvercorp. The US$1.5 million (£1.2 million) contract outlined Silvercorp’s role in the invasion. One of the detained Silvercorp mercenaries made a televised confession (possibly under duress) that he was hired to capture Maduro and bring him to the US.

The incident has worsened relations between the US and Venezuela, which were already tense. In March 2020, the US charged Maduro with “narco-terrorism” and offered a US$15m reward for his capture. The Trump administration has also previously considered military options to remove Maduro from power.

These events in Venezuela echo past US secret sponsorship of private armies to overthrow governments elsewhere. The US has an extended history of sponsoring insurgents and mercenaries to undermine unwanted foreign regimes.

From Guatemala to Indonesia

In 1954 the US supported ex-Guatemalan military officer Carlos Castillo Armas in his efforts to overthrow Guatemalan leader Jacobo Arbenz. Armas was the leader of a guerilla army that was trained by the CIA of Guatemalan to invade from Honduras and Nicaragua. The CIA also hired a US company called Civil Air Transport to bomb Guatemala. Arbenz resigned under pressure and went into exile. Armas became president of a new authoritarian regime.

Similarly, President Dwight Eisenhower authorised the CIA to subvert the Sukarno government in Indonesia in 1957-58. The CIA supported local insurgent factions to carry out guerrilla attacks and also hired mercenary airline companies for logistics and combat missions.

The American role was exposed in 1958 when the Indonesian authorities downed the aeroplane of Allen Pope, a contractor for Civil Air Transport, the company that had been involved in Guatemala. The US government tried to deny involvement, stating Pope was a “soldier of fortune” motivated by profit. But the US later quietly withdrew its plans for the forced removal of Sukarno.

Bay of Pigs and Nicaragua

In 1961 the CIA tried to overthrow Fidel Castro’s government in Cuba by organising an invasion of Cuban dissidents and mercenary forces in a notorious incident known as the Bay of Pigs. According to US government documents, the CIA sponsored Cuban exiles that opposed Castro to “avoid any appearance of US intervention”. The CIA trained a Cuban insurgent force called Brigade 2506 and also hired mercenary airline companies for airborne attacks. Castro’s military defeated the US-sponsored invasion.

During the 1980s, the US also secretly hired mercenary forces to support the Contra insurgency against the socialist Sandanista government of Nicaragua. The CIA mobilised mercenaries to sabotage oil refineries and Nicaraguan ports. Later, the International Court of Justice ruled against the US for employing mercenaries to place underwater mines in Nicaraguan ports. The CIA also asked a company called Keenie Meenie Services to conduct “sabotage operations for the resistance” against the Sandanista government.

In October 1986, Eugene Hasenfus, a pilot hired by the CIA, was captured when the Nicaraguan military shot down his plane. His confessions exposed secret US arms shipments to the Contras and also helped unravel the Iran-Contra scandal, which revealed secret weapons sales to Iran in order to fund the Contras in Nicaragua in violation of US law.

Irregular war on terror

More recently the US has renewed its commitment to what it calls “irregular warfare”. This includes supporting insurgents, militias and mercenaries to weaken unwanted governments, as well as in its counter-terrorism efforts.

The US has covertly supported private armed forces in countries across the Middle East in the “war on terror”. For example, in 2001 the CIA and Special Forces paid warlord factions to help remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. Before the US military invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US also supported militias fighting against the regime of Saddam Hussein. The US secretly trained insurgents in attempts to oust President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

Of course, an extensive record of supporting insurgents and mercenary forces is not evidence that the US was involved in the recent events in Venezuela. But it does demonstrate that there are precedents for such activities.

From Peace To War: How Emperor Constantine Came To Rule Rome The Great Emperor Constantine’s victory at Milvian Bridge in AD 312 forever changed the path of Western civilization as we know it. by Warfare History Network

In ad 305, there occurred an event unprecedented in the history of the Roman Empire. Emperor Diocletian voluntarily abdicated to live the simple life of a farmer on his country estate. Diocletian wasn’t just any emperor; he was the founder of the Tetrarchy, by which the empire was ruled by four co-emperors, and brought order to the political turmoil of the late third century. But it was Diocletian’s strong leadership, not the system itself, that made the Tetrarchy work. If anything, the Tetrarchy ensured that following Diocletian’s retirement the Empire would again plunge into civil war.

So it was that a year two new emperors arose: one in Britain, Flavius Valerius Constantius, destined to go down in history as “Constantine the Great”; the other in Rome, “Prince of the Romans,” Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maxentius. Both were sons of former emperors and both were made emperor by their troops. Initially allies, they were set to collide as each sought to become the undisputed master of the Western Roman Empire.

On July 25, 306, at York on the northernmost frontier of the Roman Empire, Augustus Constantius Chlorus lay dying. At his bedside stood his many children. All but one were teenagers or younger, the offspring of Chlorus’s second marriage to the noble Theodora. In stark contrast, Constantine, the sole child of Chlorus’s first marriage to the barmaid Helena, was 32 years old.

Constantine’s Rise to Power and Respect

Constantine’s tall, muscular frame bespoke a life of hard fighting and campaigning. He and his father had recently returned from warfare against the Picts. Those wild marauders struck south into Roman Britain, but Chlorus and Constantine flung them back across Hadrian’s wall. Chlorus could not have wished for a worthier heir. Before the old emperor breathed his last, he flung his arms around Constantine and named him his successor.

During the battles against the Picts, Constantine won the respect and admiration of the troops. So much so that his barbarian friend, King Crocus, commander of the German cavalry, lost no time in proclaiming Constantine as the new Augustus. The Imperial purple toga was clasped around his shoulders while his face was still wet with tears of sorrow over his father’s death. When he emerged to address the troops, they raised him high on their shields and acknowledged their approval with a thunderous cheer. Their cry soon spread throughout Chlorus’s domains in Gaul where one province after another heralded allegiance to his son.

Far to the south at Rome, Maxentius fumed over Constantine’s succession. To him it was intolerable that “the son of a harlot” had become emperor, while he himself had been considered unsuitable to succeed his retired father, Emperor Maximian. Determined to usurp Imperial power, Maxentius became the figurehead of a popular revolt at Rome.

The revolt was brought about by the loss of Rome’s prominent political status and its five-century-old exemption from taxation. Under the Tetrarchy, Italy became just another province with the Imperial residence at Milan. The people howled in protest that Diocletian, an Illyrian peasant, dared to dictate the affairs of noble Rome.

With Rome’s decline and the absence of a resident emperor, the superfluous Praetorians (the Imperial Guard of Rome) were reduced to the rank of a garrison. They hoped that Maxentius would restore to Rome and to themselves the glory that once had been theirs. On October 28 the Praetorians and all of Rome proclaimed Maxentius, the “Prince of the Romans,” as emperor.

Southern Italy and Africa declared for Maxentius. The problem was that they already belonged to another emperor who ruled out of Milan. Such legalities mattered little if Maxentius could back his claim with martial might. To do this he needed, and got, powerful allies. His battle-tested father, Maximian, came out of retirement to lead his son’s armies. Another ally was found in Constantine, who married Maxentius’s sister and in return acknowledged Maxentius’s position.

A Battle of Two Emporors

Maxentius’s usurpation precipitated the breakdown of the Tetrarchy and led to a convoluted civil war. Under the original Tetrarchy there were supposed to be two Augusti (senior emperors) assisted by their two Caesars (junior emperors). In the ensuing four years, the lesser title of Caesar became obsolete and everyone became an Augustus; during one year there were as many as six. To make matters worse, while emperor fought emperor, the frontiers strained under the pressure of hostile barbarian tribes.

Brutal campaigns against Franks and Alamanni along the Rhine demanded Constantine’s full attention and initially kept him out of the civil war. In contrast, Maxentius was at the center of the Roman infighting. With his father’s help he successfully strengthened his power base in the west, repulsed two invasions of rival emperors, killed one of them, annexed northern Italy, and gained Spain.

Fate turned against Maxentius when Spain declared for Constantine, who consequently broke off relations with Maxentius. Worse was in store when Maxentius’s father attempted to regain Imperial power for himself. In front of the assembled troops of Rome, Maximian tore the purple from his son’s shoulders. To Maximian’s dismay the army remained loyal to his son. In fear of Maxentius’s wrath, Maximian fled to the safety of his son-in-law Constantine. Hungry for power, Maximian treacherously repaid Constantine by attempting yet another palace coup. The debacle ended with Constantine laying siege to Maximian at Marseilles and apparently having him executed in 310.

Maxentius pretended grief over his father’s death and foolishly lashed out at Constantine, whose name he removed from all inscriptions and commemorations throughout Italy. The same year, to add to Maxentius’s woes, Africa, with its crucial grain supply, defected and proclaimed yet another Augustus. Although Maxentius recovered Africa and exacted terrible retribution on Carthage, Rome suffered through severe starvation and riots.

Maxentius’s answer to all his problems was to degenerate into a tyrant. The Praetorians carried out massacres to suppress the people, and his numerous mercenaries caroused throughout Italy at will. From the Senate he extorted “free gifts” and threw into the dungeons or murdered anyone who did not agree with his every whim.

Like a wolf senses his wounded prey, Constantine sensed that Maxentius had become weak. Rome and Italy seemed ripe for the taking and in 310 he gained the approval of the Augustus of the Danube region, Valerius Licinius, to march on Italy. Such approval was needed because Italy theoretically belonged to Licinius. However, he had his own hands full with another rival Augustus in the east and was only too happy to have Constantine deal with the troublesome Maxentius. To strengthen their bond, Constantine promised his sister’s hand in marriage to Licinius.

In the fall of 311 Constantine left for Colmar. There he spent the winter planning his strategy and gathering supplies for his coming campaign into Italy. Constantine probably commanded over 100,000 troops. Most of these were needed to guard the Rhine. His comitatus, or mobile field army, including his “scholae” personal guard of German cavalry, comprised only a quarter of the total available forces. To augment his field army, Constantine levied additional Germans and Gauls to give him almost 40,000 men for the invasion of Italy. Nearly all of them were veterans, hardened by years of warfare along the Rhine and in Britain.

Awaiting him in Italy would be Maxentius’s army, whose numerical strength was roughly on par with Constantine’s. However, Maxentius would be on the defensive and thus could count on the use of his entire army. The bulk of the latter was concentrated in the northeast Italian province of Venetia, where Maxentius wrongly expected an attack from Licinius.

Liberators, Not Conquerors

According to custom, Constantine consulted soothsayers before marching on Italy. Their warnings were ominous and not easily ignored in an age of superstitions. Regardless, in 312 Constantine led his army across the Alps via the Mont Cenis Pass, no doubt hoping for a quick victory to dispel any misgivings among the troops.

Thanks to the excellent Roman roads, Constantine descended onto the plain of Piedmont before Maxentius knew what happened. Constantine wasted no time in assaulting Susa, the first enemy city in his way. The gates were set aflame and, supported by a barrage of stones and arrows, his soldiers stormed up ladders and cut the garrison to pieces. To spare the civilian population, Constantine kept his troops from plundering the city. Constantine told them that they were liberators, not conquerors.

Forty miles from Susa a more difficult task awaited him. Drawn up in front of the walls of Turin in a convex wedge was an army of Italians. Infantry formed the wings and, more worrisome, a large corps of clibanarii the center. Originally of Persian origin, the fearsome clibanarii were heavy lancers. Both rider and mount were fully armored in bronze and iron scale mail.

Constantine arrayed his army in a concave formation, with infantry in the center and probably cavalry on the flanks. His horsemen were likely outclassed and outnumbered by the clibanarii. Perhaps because of this, Constantine chose to avoid a cavalry versus cavalry engagement. Instead, he had another plan.

The clibanarii thundered down upon Constantine’s infantry ranks like an avalanche of flesh and iron. Constantine knew full well that if asked to hold the line, his infantry might scatter in fear of being ridden down. Instead he pulled their ranks inward from the center to form a rough V shape. As expected the clibanarii continued to ride straight into the V, exposing their flanks. This was exactly what Constantine had hoped for. Groups of barbarians, swinging huge iron-knobbed clubs at shoulder height, assailed the enemy horsemen. The clibanarii were knocked off their mounts, bludgeoned to death on the ground, or trampled by their own confused steeds. Others tottered half-dead in their saddles. Those who were not unhorsed beat a hasty retreat to the city gate, only to find that the citizens refused to let them in. While the clibanarii went down in defeat, Constantine sent his cavalry wings forward and outward to encircle and finish off the remaining enemy infantry. 

The citizens of Turin opened the city gates and welcomed Constantine as their emperor. Their example was followed by many other northern Italian cities, which sent embassies and supplies. Constantine next moved on to Milan, where the leading men greeted him in honor to the exuberant cheers of the populace. Constantine remained at Milan for a few days, giving his troops some well-deserved rest.

Verona Proved a Worthy Challenge for Constantine

From Milan, the Aemilian and Flaminian highways put Constantine about 400 miles from Rome. However, to the east, at Verona, Prefect Ruricius Pompeianus, one of Maxentius’s most able generals, hastily assembled what armed forces he could from Venetia. Not wishing to have Pompeianus follow in his rear and risk being caught between Pompeianus and Maxentius’s army at Rome, Constantine moved eastward to first clear Venetia of the enemy. Near Brescia he skirmished with some enemy cavalry sent there by Pompeianus. Pompeianus probably hoped to further delay Constantine’s approach, but his cavalry faltered at the first onset of Constantine’s legions and made a hasty retreat back to Verona.

Verona proved a daunting task for Constantine. The Adige River flows south from the Alps and at Verona bends toward the southeast. It effectively blocked the city from the west and south and allowed supplies to come in from the east. Constantine left part of his troops in “siege” position on the far side of the river from the city. With the remainder he marched north in search of a suitable crossing. The rough waters of the Adige, with its strong currents and numerous eddies and whirlpools, frustrated several attempts at reaching its eastern bank. It was not until Constantine neared the foothills of the Alps that he was able to ford the river. From there he descended south to lay siege to the eastern walls of the city and sever its supply line to the rest of Venetia.

Infected by the remnants of the beaten cavalry from Brescia, morale in the city rapidly declined. A sally from the city only resulted in heavy casualties. Constantine’s troops pushed the assault with such vigor that it seemed only a matter of time before Verona’s defenses cracked. Pompeianus knew that reinforcements were needed. Evidently, these were close by for Pompeianus secretly fled from the city, and just a few days later returned at the head of a large army.

The sun was setting and darkness began to shroud the land when Pompeianus’s tired soldiers and horses arrived. Worried about besieged Verona, Pompeianus was eager for battle. So was Constantine, who advanced at the head of his best troops. Behind them the remainder of his legions continued the siege. Caught between Pompeianus’s relief force and the walls of the city, there could be no thought of retreat for Constantine, only victory or death.

Constantine Stood Covered in Blood Among His Men, Victorious

Pompeianus’s army was so large that Constantine was forced to reduce the second of his two battle lines to extend the first. Only then did the width of his first line match that of the enemy. Such tactics proved scarcely necessary. The battle lasted deep into the night and in the darkness, chaos reigned. Trumpets blared, swords clashed, men cried, and pure courage mattered more than battle maneuvers.

None surpassed Constantine in valor that night, for he was not a commander who safely watched the battle from afar. Reckless for his personal safety, blade in hand, Constantine tore into the enemy ranks. Like some crimson whirlwind of destruction he left a grim path of slaughter. Missiles and swords passed about him, but none could find their mark. His eyes gleamed with the madness of the berserk, and woe to any that faced his fury.

When finally the din of battle died down, Constantine, his armor smeared with blood, stood panting among his victorious men. His example no doubt inspired the rank and file but the legionary officers and tribunes bewailed that Constantine should so foolishly risk his life. Constantine had little patience for their grumbling and, with barely a rest, hastened back to press the siege of Verona.

The light of dawn revealed the dreadful destruction of Pompeianus’s army, among the dead of which was Pompeianus himself. With no hope left, Verona surrendered. The remnants of Pompeianus’s army were placed in shackles to prevent them from fighting for Maxentius elsewhere.

After taking Verona, Constantine continued to push eastward past Aquileia, which capitulated, and all the way around the Gulf of Venice to Trieste. From there he swung back west to take Ravenna and then Modena. Venetia was subdued and the Via Flaminia was freed of the enemy. Nothing stood between Constantine and Maxentius at Rome.

While his troops fought and died for him in northern Italy, Maxentius heeded the advice of his generals and remained at Rome. The effeminate Maxentius had no great desire to lead his troops anyway, preferring to indulge in a life of pleasure. But the news of his defeats at Turin and Verona and the rapid approach of Constantine was not lost on the Roman people. There were riots in the streets and shouts of “Constantine cannot be conquered” during the games. Even Maxentius at last began to realize that something had to be done.

Visions and Prophecies

According to most Christian historians and even a few pagan ones, Maxentius attempted to ward off the approach of the conqueror with morbid occult rituals—casting spells, summoning demons, and sacrificing unborn babies in hopes of invoking supernatural aid. Most of this was pure Christian propaganda aimed at vilifying the “pagan” Maxentius. What Maxentius did do was consult the Sibylline Books.

The legendary prophetess Sibyl of Cumae presented these tomes to the last of the Roman kings. For eight centuries thereafter, the Senate consulted the verses for answers whenever a crisis threatened Rome. They now told Maxentius that “the enemy of Rome would perish.” Even though Maxentius had amassed ample corn supplies from Africa and the islands in anticipation of a siege, the seemingly favorable prophecy and increasing unrest in the city convinced him to seek out Constantine instead.

Some time before the battle Constantine received divine guidance of his own, his famous “vision” that would change the course of history. The Christian scholar Lactantius wrote a year or two after the battle that Constantine was told in a dream to put the heavenly sign of Chi (X) and Rho (P), the first two Greek letters in the name of Christ, on his soldiers’ shields. In the Life of Constantine, written after Constantine’s death, the Christian historian Eusebius added that Constantine told him of a cross of light that appeared in the heavens above his army and subsequently became his war standard.

The reason for Constantine’s vision may have been his religious uncertainties and his intense desire to receive a favorable sign before his final reckoning with Maxentius. On his way to Rome, Constantine prayed diligently and thus was “ready” for a vision. It would not be the first time he was “divinely” aided. During his Frankish campaign he received similar aid from the ancient sun god Helios. Constantine may have even considered Christ one of Helios’s incarnations. Indeed, if the cross of light was not a fabrication, it could have been a rare “halo phenomenon” caused by ice crystals in the sun’s rays, similar to a rainbow. More mundanely, Constantine may have simply wished to endear himself to the large Christian faction of Rome. The true events may never be known. What mattered is that Constantine’s troops went into battle with the Chi-Rho emblazoned on their shields.

Resplendent in a gold-embroidered purple cape and ornamented armor, Maxentius led his army across the Tiber at the Milvian Bridge. Here, a few miles from Rome, he planned to bar Constantine’s advance. Maxentius deployed his army with its back to the river. To facilitate a speedy crossing in the event of a retreat, he built another bridge, a wooden pontoon bridge, beside the narrow Milvian stone bridge. The pontoon bridge was so designed that iron rivets could be withdrawn to break the bridge in the middle and cut off a pursuing army.

On October 28, 312, the armies met. Constantine for one was glad that his foe chose to face him in the open. It meant that Constantine would not have to deal with Rome’s redoubtable defenses and at the same time spare the city the hardships of a siege. Avoidance of a siege was all the more welcome since the need to garrison conquered cities and casualties suffered during the campaign meant that Constantine’s army had probably dwindled to about 30,000 men. 

Rome’s Praetorians Made (and Unmade) Emperors

Maxentius’s losses in northern Italy had been much greater, but so vast was the treasury of Rome that he was able to raise yet another formidable army. Its ranks included allied Tyrrhenians and Sicilians, and Carthaginians and Numidian and Moorish light cavalry from Africa. In addition, Maxentius also had the Urban Cohorts (Rome’s paramilitary police) and his Praetorian Guard.

For centuries, the Praetorians made and unmade emperors. Restored to perhaps 15,000 men by Maxentius, they now prepared to fight their most important battle. Not only their own future, but the prominence of the Eternal City of Rome and the Western Empire was at stake.

The proud guardsmen wore white tunics with stripes of Imperial purple underneath scale mail cuirasses. White plumes or crests decorated their helmets. Their painted shields might have sported scorpions, the birth sign of Emperor Tiberius, one of the founders of the guard, or Hercules, the patron deity of Maxentius’s family.
Both sides positioned their cavalry on their flanks and the infantry in the center. Maxentius enjoyed the numerical advantage, and was able to equal the breadth of Constantine’s line with unusually deep ranks. This was a common sign of unreliable troops since the back ranks would forestall those in the front from fleeing.

Constantine personally led his cavalry against that of the enemy. Riding at the vanguard, his gold-gilded armor sparkled in the sun’s rays. From walk to trot, Constantine’s barbarian horsemen accelerated to a gallop and sliced through the enemy ranks. The Numidian and Moorish light cavalry were no match for Constantine’s Celts and Germans, or for Constantine himself. His spear struck down many foes, to be unhorsed and trampled beneath his steed’s hooves. As long as his cavalry stood their ground, Maxentius had some chance of victory, but when the Numidians and Moors bolted in flight all hope was lost.

Constantine’s infantry joined the fray while his cavalry stormed around the flanks of Maxentius’s infantry. About to be enveloped in a pincer movement, Maxentius’s auxiliary infantry and Urban Cohorts broke in panic. In a mad strive to escape the enemy, they crowded upon the pontoon bridge. Either Maxentius’s engineers lost their nerve and drew the iron rivets too early or the wooden beams gave way beneath the great weight. The bridge collapsed and hundreds of men and horses plunged into the depths. Among them was Emperor Maxentius, who was pulled under by his heavy armor. Beside the broken pontoon bridge, the congested old stone bridge turned into a deadly bottleneck. Men were crushed to death or pushed over the edge by comrades eager to save their own lives. Constantine’s cavalry chopped down those of the enemy that made a stand on the river’s shore while volleys of arrows, stones, and darts showered upon the confused multitude on the bridge.

Alone among Maxentius’s soldiers, the Praetorians valiantly stood their ground. It was the last battle in their 300-year history and they went out in a blaze of glory. Surrounded and outnumbered, the Praetorians fought on well into the night. When the battle finally died down, swaths of slain Praetorians lay at the same spot where they first had taken up formation. Behind them more red carnage covered the river’s banks while heaps of cadavers and broken timbers choked the current.

Constantine Put to Death Maxentius’s Family and Closest Friends

The dramatic end of the Praetorians follows the Panegyrici Latini, our most complete source on the campaign. An alternate version is depicted on the Arch of Constantine: Harassed by Constantine’s heavy cavalry and horse archers, the Praetorians retreat over the pontoon bridge, which breaks under their weight.

Maxentius’s body was found washed up on the shore. Impaled on a spear, the vanquished emperor’s head served as Constantine’s war trophy when he entered Rome in triumph on October 29. Everywhere the people crowded the streets, hoping to catch a glimpse of the liberator. He was greeted with resounding applause, while the crowd cursed and booed at the sight of Maxentius’s head. Constantine put to death Maxentius’s family and closest friends, but refrained from the wholesale executions demanded by the bloodthirsty Roman mob. Maxentius’s head was sent to Africa as a warning and his name was erased from all public monuments.

The victory at the Milvian Bridge made Constantine sole emperor of the west. Games and festivities were held to appease the crowd, and Senators were restored to their former positions. However, if the Romans thought that Constantine was going to restore Rome to its bygone exalted position, they were gravely mistaken. He turned Maxentius’s “free gifts” into a perpetual tax and even tried to abolish the bloody “circus” games. As for the symbol of “Roman” martial might, the Praetorian Guard, they were disbanded forever. Their barracks were demolished and the few surviving soldiers distributed among the frontier garrisons.

Constantine would not even reside in Rome. After only two or three months, he left in early 313 to meet co-Emperor Licinius at Milan. Constantine returned to Rome only twice during the remaining 24 years of his reign. Of course, in the end he founded the “new” Rome of Constantinople in the east.

At Milan, Licinius applauded Constantine’s victory and further cemented his alliance with his betrothal to Constantine’s sister. More importantly, convinced that his victory was due to the God of the Christians, Constantine persuaded Licinius to adopt a policy of complete religious toleration for all the subjects of the Empire.

The depth of Constantine’s conversion is a matter of debate. Suffice to say he made Constantinople a Christian capital, built numerous churches, and was partial to his Christian advisers. Shortly before his death he banned all sacrifices and finally accepted baptism, although he never submitted to the authority of the Church. At first he did his best to maintain the peace between the Christian and pagan factions in his Empire, but later issued decrees to close down all pagan temples.

Much of this was still in the future. For now there was still the third emperor, Maximinus Daia, a relentless oppressor of the Christians, to deal with in the east. Even after Daia was defeated by Licinius, the remaining two emperors proved one too many. Relations between Constantine and Licinius deteriorated until they thrust the Empire into the final round of the civil war.

As Collective Memory Fades, so Will our Ability to Prepare for the Next Pandemic It takes roughly 90 years for the living memory of an event to disappear. by Sean Donahue

Just below the Japanese village of Aneyoshi, there’s a stone carved with a warning: “Remember the calamity of the great tsunamis. Do not build any homes below this point.”

Placed there after a tsunami devastated the area in 1933, it helped those who listened to it remain safe from a similar disaster in 2011, almost 80 years later.

When the last wave of the coronavirus recedes, what kind of guide stone will exist for future generations?

This question is not just about recording history for history’s sake. As a political philosopher, I see it addressing an ancient problem of my field: how to ensure societies remain stable over time. Tangible reminders – anything from stone tablets to digital artifacts storing information about an event – help sustain collective memory of risk.

However, the global scope and relative infrequency of pandemics like the coronavirus make them especially challenging to collectively remember.

Burdens of bias

An unprecedented effort is underway to fill vast digital archives with information related to the pandemic. Researchers at the University of Arizona, for example, have started a project called A Journal of the Plague Year: An Archive of Covid-19 that invites the public to contribute everything from personal videos to Instagram posts and internet memes about life during the coronavirus.

But simply storing information in a repository isn’t enough; people will neither be able to access nor interpret it without the proper social and technological infrastructure.

For a reminder to be truly effective, huge swaths of the population must recognize the risk and be able to adequately prepare.

Motivating people to achieve this latter aim is the biggest challenge. We are biased in many ways toward our personal experience, and we tend to underestimate or dismiss risks unless we encounter them firsthand.

Take the town of Eilenburg, Germany, which sits along the Mulde River. Residents had lived through many small floods, so they knew that water posed a hazard. They were nonetheless unprepared when, in 2002, a flood event of a kind that hits Europe about once every 100 years inundated the town. Because the smaller floods hadn’t been a big deal, they had a warped understanding of the true risk of a major flood. Many consequently doubted official warnings that the river was about to rise as high as it did. The same pattern of bias has been observed in other disasters, such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

Challenges from this bias grow over time. All events eventually disappear from living memory – a process that takes about 90 years. Once this happens, later generations have fewer opportunities to have compelling conversations with eyewitnesses. These interactions are important motivators for taking the threat of recurrence seriously. The disappearance of vivid personal memories of polio, whooping cough and measles has plausibly contributed to the rise of anti-vaccination sentiment, in spite of the well-documented danger of these diseases.

Challenges from technology

Perhaps bias can be overcome to some extent through technology. Watching videos of life in quarantine or interviews of those impacted by the coronavirus is the closest that future generations can get to experiencing the pandemic firsthand or having conversations with those who did.

But video and other media ultimately don’t provide conversation – only monologue. There were videos of eyewitness testimony and prudent accounts from historians about the last comparable global pandemic, the 1918 Spanish Flu. And yet tangible reminders like these do not seem to have caused the public to form an accurate perception of risk.

Counterintuitively, technology can interfere with this effort. Digital media makes spreading misinformation easier. And the emergence of deep fakes suggests that there will be unforeseeable ways that people in the future might doubt convincing evidence about the coronavirus. In fact, many today continue to downplay the threat in spite of the high death toll or dismiss other realities of the pandemic as a hoax.

There remains a more basic problem. By enabling us to better preserve and spread information, technology has overloaded us with it. The amount of attention given to any topic is decreasing as the amount of information produced grows. A global pandemic might be at the forefront of everyone’s minds now. But can we assume that the reminders left behind will automatically get the attention they deserve from people living in an information saturated world?

The hope of institutions

In the long run, actively remembering the coronavirus cannot be everyone’s job; perhaps it’s best to depend on a relatively small number of people. They would, in effect, have to form a living guide stone with the power of warning the rest of the world when necessary.

Existing institutions don’t look like they’re up to this task. Universities broadly focus on creating new information and preparing students for the job market, not selectively spreading old warnings. Libraries are great at storing information but not at interpreting and communicating it to the public.

Government agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization seemingly have the power to capture the public’s attention. Yet even well-intentioned agencies can become manipulated for other purposes. Among the reminders to keep alive is that these institutions must be guarded from corruption, and the prospect of defunding or reorganizing them cannot be taken lightly.

Meeting the challenges described above perhaps requires new institutions of memory that are resistant to corruption and that both the government and the public would be generally expected to consult. These institutions would have to provide a certificate of authenticity for the information they preserve by earning and keeping the public’s trust. Furthermore, those who maintain them would have to be experts at communicating these reminders in a way that grabs the public’s attention and overcomes bias.

One of the institutions that fulfills some of these criteria is the Museum of the City of Volos, in Greece. Originally built to house general information about the region – including facts about earthquakes and floods from the 1950s – the museum has recently increased its focus on promoting disaster risk awareness. It consulted with disaster preparedness experts and civil authorities to identify and reach at-risk groups, develop cultural memory games, and play a more visible role in the life of the city. Today, it serves as a case study in how institutions can help preserve collective memory about risk.

Future generations deserve to be in the best position possible to deal with the next inevitable pandemic. This preparation includes regular reminders about what happened in 2020.

What Will Happen if the Coronavirus Vaccine Fails? A vaccine could provide a way to end the pandemic, but with no prospect of natural herd immunity we could well be facing the threat of COVID-19 for a long time to come. by Sarah Pitt

  There are  over 175  COVID-19 vaccines in development. Almost all government strategies for dealing with the coronavirus pandemic are base...