For the first time in many long years, I was up most of the night worrying about nuclear war. It was odd to slip back into that fear like an old coat, a little tight in the shoulders because I’m a bit broader in the beam than I was 30+ years ago, but it still fits, because of course it does.
As Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the invasion of Ukraine was underway yesterday, he leveled a threat against the wider world that left nothing to the imagination: “To anyone who would consider interfering from the outside: If you do, you will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history. All relevant decisions have been taken. I hope you hear me.”
Meanwhile, Joe Biden shot back that he would “hold Russia accountable.” The details of the plans behind that statement remain murky.
At present, Russia controls more than 6,000 nuclear weapons, the largest arsenal on Earth. The US controls approximately 5,600 nuclear weapons. As was the case years ago, that many nuclear weapons possess the power to scourge all life from Earth many, many times over.
Ukraine, by comparison, has zero. They were left with 3,000 nukes after the fall of the Soviet Union, but voluntarily gave up that arsenal in 1994, in exchange for various protection decrees from the U.S., Great Britain and the Russian Federation. Watching the images of Kyiv on the news, taking in the panicked traffic, the civilian casualties and the occasional hollow “BOOM” in the background, one must wonder how Ukraine feels about that 1994 agreement and the now-hollow “protections” it was offered. Russian forces are attacking Ukraine from three directions simultaneously, and it is becoming ever-clearer that the US and NATO’s militarism-driven responses — military threats and economic warfare — are not preventing Russia’s advances.
“As Russian forces advanced on Ukraine by land, sea and air, more than 40 Ukrainian soldiers were killed and dozens were wounded in fighting on Thursday morning, said Oleksiy Arestovich, an adviser to Mr. Zelensky,” reportsThe New York Times. “At least 18 military officials were killed in an attack outside the Black Sea port city of Odessa, where amphibious commandos from the Russian Navy came ashore, according to Sergey Nazarov, an aide to Odessa’s mayor.”
It’s been a strange, almost surreal experience to watch all this unfold. For the last 31 years, it has usually been my country putting hundreds of thousands of troops in harm’s way with dubious intentions in mind. So odd, now, to see another country do it right there in broad daylight, and on the basis of completely manufactured evidence, too. (Of course, Russia has also taken some of these actions in the past three decades, but the U.S.’s actions have dominated my own radar.) Putin’s latest maneuvers strike pretty close to home. Perhaps Putin will release a “comedy” video of him looking for Ukraine’s reason to exist under his desk. It’s been done, Vlad.
The outcome here is as clear as a bowl of blood, but it is the nukes that keep grabbing my attention. The cruel geometry of nuclear brinksmanship says that Putin’s decision to rattle his nuclear sword makes nuclear war more likely, just as the Soviet placement of ballistic missiles in Cuba 50 years ago this October (history rhymes again!) made nuclear war more likely then. It is, in the parlance of the Cold War, a massively destabilizing move. And escalating rhetoric and actions from the U.S. and NATO are making things much, much worse.
Beyond the bombs are more than a dozen active nuclear power plants in Ukraine that could come under fire if and when this attack expands. The Russian invasion has also broached the highly radioactive Chernobyl exclusion zone, scene of the infamous reactor catastrophe, “touching off a battle that risked damaging the cement-encased nuclear reactor that melted down in 1986,” reports the Times. “‘National Guard troops responsible for protecting the storage unit for dangerous radioactive waste are putting up fierce resistance,’ said Anton Herashchenko, an adviser to the interior minister. Should an artillery shell hit the storage unit, Mr. Herashchenko said, ‘radioactive dust could cover the territory of Ukraine, Belarus and the countries of the European Union.’”
Propaganda-happy advocates for both sides have staked their claim on the moral high ground in the sternest of terms. Here, for one example, is Anne Applebaum for The Atlantic describing Ukraine as every inch the American war we should be fighting immediately: “In the centuries-long struggle between autocracy and democracy, between dictatorship and freedom, Ukraine is now the front line — and our front line too.”
One can almost hear the author humming The Battle Hymn of the Republic as she penned those lines, but for the fact that “pluralist oligarchy” — what Ukraine actually is instead of a democracy — doesn’t rhyme very well with anything.
The war is not yet a day old, and these raggedy-ass tea leaves are barely good for brewing, much less prognosticating. All I know for sure is this: I was eight years old when I first learned what nuclear war was, and could be. The knowledge scarred me for life, and introduced me to the miasma of fear that marked every day of my experience of the Cold War until the Berlin Wall came down on my 18th birthday. I, like many others, allowed the fact of the nuclear threat to fade from immediate consciousness after those heady days. This was beyond foolish: The weapons remained, the threat never went away, and now it’s back in the spotlight — just in time for my daughter to turn eight years old.
We’ve been doing the plague year 1919 since 2020. The specter of 1914 and a European conflagration has been on the doorstep since Putin decided to roll the tanks and the U.S. decided to respond with escalation. Now, this morning, it’s 1962, with a U.S. president in his second year and a nuclear threat dropping out of the clear blue sky. I fear this will take longer than 13 days to resolve. I fear a great many things. Again.
After threatening to do so for months, Russian President Vladimir Putin has launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a move that U.S. President Joe Biden called “a premeditated war that will bring a catastrophic loss of life and human suffering.”
Now, Ukraine is bracing for full-scale conflict.
Below, Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, talks about what to expect for journalists in Ukraine.
What do you fear most for journalists in the country?
There are so many potential risks on so many levels for journalists in Ukraine. First, we’re talking about journalists reporting on war zones—so the risks they face would be similar to those journalists face in any war zone—like being killed, injured, or taken hostage.
But in Ukraine, the situation is slightly different because apart from outright invasion in eastern regions of the country or further toward the capital, Kyiv, what we may see is Russia sending a special unit to try to oust the president and plant a new pro-Kremlin president. If that happens, a lot will depend on the Ukrainian army and how law enforcement will react—if they’ll side with the newly planted president or not. In either case, we are likely to see protests in Kyiv and in other parts of Ukraine. And that would be a different set of risks for journalists. The new regime would likely target journalists and activists, especially those critical of Russia—which would mean any independent journalist, from the Russian point of view.
Another challenge is misinformation and disinformation. The information war between Russia and Ukraine has been going on for eight years. Fake footage—doctored videos or videos from other conflicts from previous years—is being distributed by some outlets. But the positive change since the 2014 occupation of Crimea is that many websites in Ukraine and other countries have emerged that fact check reports and debunk the fake ones. I think for those disseminating lies, this round of the war on information is going to be more difficult to win.
Also, there are risks such as DDoS (distributed denial of service) attacks on websites of media outlets, internet shutdowns, and loss of electricity. We may see a situation in which journalists are not able to easily communicate with each other or their editors. Many newsrooms in Ukraine have been working on contingency plans with this scenario in mind.
And, of course, a lot of people, including journalists, are trying to flee Kyiv to western Ukraine or abroad as we speak. So we could be looking at a situation anywhere between what happened in Belarus and in Afghanistan.
What are Ukrainian journalists saying?
Many of the Ukrainian journalists I speak to feel very patriotic and very supportive of authorities. I see on social media that many are trying to enlist to join Ukrainian forces to fight Russian troops. I’ve also heard about a few journalists who have fled from Kyiv to western parts of the country or to Europe.
In 2014, when Russia occupied Crimea, there were separatists in Donbass, Ukraine’s east, who were allegedly supported by Russia. We saw a lot of reporting in the country that was supportive of Ukrainian authorities and then, if any journalist tried to criticize the government, there would be a negative reaction. People would say, “How can you be critical of authorities when we are at war? You are not patriotic enough.”
This is not true. It’s the job of journalists to report on events without taking any side. That’s the biggest challenge for every Ukrainian journalist who is working in Ukraine these days.
Is CPJ planning to help in any way?
We are ready to start helping journalists in distress in Ukraine and beyond. We have issued safety advisories for journalists covering Ukraine and we have done a lot of prep work. We are coordinating our efforts with other organizations because we understand that there could be lots of pleas for help from journalists and others. We’re looking at different ways to help and respond to assistance requests. We stand ready.
Editor’s note: This interview was conducted for Insider, CPJ’s development newsletter.
This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Shazdeh Omari/CPJ Deputy Director of Development.
What does the Russian invasion of Ukraine mean for the rest of Europe? We speak with Yanis Varoufakis, former Greek finance minister, about the failure of international bodies like the European Union and United Nations in preventing war. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres implored Russia to withdraw all troops in a speech immediately following Thursday’s attack, and the U.S. and allies are moving swiftly to impose sanctions as retaliation against the aggression. Varoufakis warns these threats are “like a pea shooter trying to stop a tank.” The only hope for a peaceful resolution is for NATO to declare Ukraine will not become a member, says Varoufakis.
Putin has launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the goal of which he claims is not to occupy the country but to “demilitarize” and “de-Nazify” it. We’ve no reason to put blind faith in any of those claims. Only time will tell.
As of this writing dozens have reportedly been killed so far. All war is horrific. We can only hope that this one winds up being the least horrific a war can be.
Some thoughts:
1. This whole thing could very easily have been avoided with a little bit of diplomacy. The only reason that didn’t happen was it would have meant the US empire taking a teensy, weensy step back from its agenda of total planetary domination.
I’ve seen people call it “sad” or “unfortunate” that western powers didn’t make basic low-cost, high-yield concessions like guaranteeing no NATO membership for Ukraine and having Kyiv honor the Minsk agreement, but it’s not sad, and it’s not unfortunate. It’s enraging. That they did this deserves nothing but pure, unadulterated, white hot rage.
2. Narrative managers have been working furiously to quash all discussion of #1, however. Like our good friend Michael McFaul here:
Please don't give Putin propagandists a platform on your media platforms. There is a time and place for hearing two sides of an issue. This tragic moment in European history is not one of them. Do not give false equivalency to voices of evil and voices of good.
This is one of the most influential Russia “experts” in the western world decrying propaganda while demanding media outlets enact propaganda. Saying what your government wants said instead of objective reporting the truth is the thing that propaganda is.
Please don’t report facts on your media platforms. Don’t let anyone talk about the known actions by NATO powers and Kyiv which experts have long warned would lead to this situation. You’re not allowed to talk about the known US/NATO/Ukraine actions which demonstrably led us to where we’re at. You’re only allowed to say Putin attacked Ukraine completely unprovoked, in a vacuum, solely because he is evil and hates freedom.
Your loyalty is to the US empire, not to truth. Whoever controls the narrative controls the world.
3. It’s funny how everyone keeps referring to this as a “World War 2-style invasion” instead of a “US-style invasion”. It’s not like examples of military invasions ended in the 1940s.
Speaking of which:
4. Look at this.
Kyiv and Kharkiv are being bombed. The largest invasion on our planet since WW2. Republicans are rooting for the Russians. God be with Ukraine and democracy.
These people actually believe it’s legitimate to call this “the largest invasion on our planet since WW2.” Just snip out all the pages from the history books between 1950 and 2003 to make western imperialists feel good about themselves. Unbelievable.
5. The primary risk of nuclear war is not that anyone will choose to start one, it’s that one could be triggered by miscommunication, malfunction or misunderstanding amid the chaos and confusion of escalating cold war tensions. This nearly happened, repeatedly, in the last cold war.
Cold war brinkmanship has far too many small, unpredictable moving parts for anyone to feel confident that they can ramp up aggressions without triggering a nuclear exchange. Nobody who feels safe with these games of nuclear chicken understands what they really are.
We survived the last cold war by sheer, dumb luck. We were never once in control. We just got lucky. There’s no reason to trust that we’ll get lucky again. We need to abandon this madness and pursue detente immediately.
Truly terrifying times. If Biden cuts off Russia from the global banking system in retaliation (very possible, if not likely), Russia has states they consider that a declaration of war. People truly don’t understand just how on the brink we are
6. After the bombs drop and I’m dying of radiation poisoning, with my final breath I’m going to thank Joe Biden for denying Putin the moral victory of an assurance that Ukraine won’t join NATO.
7. Probably goes without saying but just in case: anyone who supports any kind of western military confrontation with Russia is an enemy of our entire species.
8. It would now seem the US power alliance has a choice between either (A) escalating aggressions against Russia to world-threatening levels or (B) doing what anti-imperialists have been begging them to do for years and pursuing detente. This is exactly where anti-imperialists have been warning we could wind up if the US didn’t work toward detente with Russia, while being called Kremlin agents and Putin lovers the entire time for years on end.
All the people who’ve called us crazy over the years for warning that cold war brinkmanship against Russia could lead to hot war are the same people calling to ramp up the brinkmanship now that our warnings proved true. Perhaps some serious re-evaluation is in order.
The solution to a crisis that was created by cold war brinkmanship is not more cold war brinkmanship. The solution to a crisis that was created by cold war brinkmanship is detente.
9. Assertions made by secretive government agencies based on classified intelligence should always be subjected to aggressively intense scrutiny, 100 percent of the time, without exception and without apology, regardless of the fact that those assertions occasionally happen to prove true.
10. It sure is a lucky coincidence that westerners have spent the last few years being persuaded to hate Russia by their governments and media. Otherwise the west’s dramatic response to this act of aggression might be difficult to get them to consent to.
11. Remain intensely skeptical of all news coming out of Ukraine. Since 2016 the western empire has been running an extremely aggressive narrative management campaign about Russia the likes of which we’ve never seen before. The news media have been fully complicit in this mass-scale psyop. Watch and wait for hard evidence of every claim made. Recall how snipers were used during the 2014 coup in Kyiv to kill protesters and pin the blame on the ousted Yanukovych government.
12. Unpopular opinion but I think those who are crowing that this marks the dawn of a multipolar world may be jumping the gun a bit. If the US empire can succeed in crippling Russia’s economy and fomenting unrest, balkanization and collapse there, it knocks out a key pillar of China’s support system, and China is the ultimate target in all these unipolarist maneuverings.
If it can do this (and that’s a big if, I know), at that point the empire can set to work on China without its guard bear there to protect it. Which of course would have been the plan all along. Which of course would be why the empire and its propaganda engine have been acting so weird these last few years.
_____________________________
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here.
Citizens who want to fight Russia will be given weapons. That’s the promise of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky as the Russian assault on the country continues. Targets in Ukraine were hit early on Thursday. Months of posturing are now over.
Up to 50 people are reported dead, including civilians, as airstrikes hit targets inside Ukraine. Zelensky tweeted that sanctions would be lifted on all citizens, allowing anyone willing to defend the country by force to take part:
We will give weapons to anyone who wants to defend the country. Be ready to support Ukraine in the squares of our cities.
Russia’s vastly superior numbers are no secret. So, the idea of arming the population smacks of desperation. Western allies rallied to the Ukrainian cause. Among them Boris Johnson:
This is a catastrophe for our continent.
I will make an address to the nation this morning on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
I will also speak to fellow G7 leaders and I am calling for an urgent meeting of all NATO leaders as soon as possible.
NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg also condemned the invasion, speaking of Russia’s “renewed aggression”. But while Russian ambitions have been the western focus, the alliance’s own expansion into Russia’s sphere of influence, which many critics cite as key context in the current situation, went unmentioned:
I strongly condemn #Russia’s reckless attack on #Ukraine, which puts at risk countless civilian lives. This is a grave breach of international law & a serious threat to Euro-Atlantic security. #NATO Allies will meet to address Russia’s renewed aggression. https://t.co/FPpyuzmUXD
Anti-war voices also made themselves heard. They included Labour MP Dawn Butler-Brent. She expressed solidarity with the Ukrainian people and with antiwar advocates. She also called for tough sanctions on British arms sales to Russia. The first layer of UK sanctions, aimed at only three individuals and five banks, were criticised as being weak:
Putin’s attack on Ukraine is unjustifiable and a breach of international law. The UK Government must immediately bring in tough sanctions on assets in the UK, and end military exports to Russia
Solidarity with the people of Ukraine and all those in Russia who want peace, not war
Amid reports Russian jets had been shot down, there were warnings about misinformation. One BBC fact-checker said a video circulating of Russian troops raising a flag in Ukraine was from 2014. And another of a jet coming down was actually from Libya in 2011.
This video does not show the shooting down of a "Russian fighter jet" in Ukraine. It is from 2011 when Libyan rebels shot down a government warplane bombing Benghazi. pic.twitter.com/jOp6X20gUd
And Ukrainians are also feeling the bite. With the country’s central bank placing limits on bank withdrawals, there are fears of economic turmoil.
US President Joe Biden promised his support. But as ground forces and air attacks rock Ukraine, a promise of more talks must appear impotent to many:
He asked me to call on the leaders of the world to speak out clearly against President Putin’s flagrant aggression, and to stand with the people of Ukraine.
But the overall financial impacts of the conflict began to show straight away. Russian stocks plunged as the fighting started. Al-Jazeera reported the Russian currency had hit an all-time low against the US dollar. The effects this will have domestically aren’t yet clear:
Russia's currency has plunged to an all-time low against the US dollar after Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Confusion reigns in Ukraine. And in an age of misinformation, it is hard to get a picture of what is happening on the ground. Yet, it is clear is that Vladimir Putin feels confident enough to launch strikes within Ukraine. This could mean international rivals no longer view the US and its allies as seriously as before. And as the bombs land and the death tolls rise, Zelensky’s offer to arm the population could be both a deadly and desperate move.
Russia has launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, prompting condemnation and the threat of new sanctions from the U.S. and allies. Russian President Vladimir Putin referred to the move early Thursday morning in Moscow as a “special military operation,” coming just days after Putin recognized two breakaway regions of eastern Ukraine as independent states. The sound of explosions was reported across the country, and authorities have reported scores of deaths in the early hours of the attack. As Russian forces appear to have invaded from the north and headed for Kyiv, Putin may try to take over all of Ukraine and replace its government, says Anatol Lieven, senior fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, who adds, “The implications are truly, truly appalling.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, New Zealand’s government is implementing a range of measures, including a travel ban on Russian officials and limiting diplomatic engagements.
Earlier today, Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta condemned Russia’s actions and said she would provide another update later.
An adviser to Ukraine’s president said about 40 people had been killed so far amid Russia’s invasion with multiple air, land and sea attacks, according to Al Jazeera.
A Russian missile hits an unnamed city in Ukraine today. Image: Al Jazeera screenshot APR
Oleksii Arestovich, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s aide, also said that several dozen people had been wounded. He did not specify whether the casualties included civilians.
In a statement after 10.30pm, Mahuta and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern released a joint statement once again condemning Russia and calling on the country to cease its military operations in Ukraine.
“This is an unprovoked and unnecessary attack by Russia,” Ardern said. “By choosing to pursue this entirely avoidable path, an unthinkable number of innocent lives could be lost because of Russia’s decision.
“We call on Russia to do what is right and immediately cease military operations in Ukraine, and permanently withdraw to avoid a catastrophic and pointless loss of innocent life.”
International efforts disregarded
Mahuta said Russia had disregarded consistent international efforts for a diplomatic de-escalation of the Ukraine crisis and “they must now face the consequences of their decision to invade”.
New Zealand will introduce targeted a travel ban against Russian government officials and other individuals associated with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, prohibit the export of goods to Russian military and security forces, and suspend bilateral foreign ministry engagement until further notice.
Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta … Russia “must now face the consequences of their decision to invade.” Image: Samuel Rillstone/RNZ
The travel ban will stop intended individuals from obtaining visas to enter or transit New Zealand.
The government said while exports from New Zealand under the now-prohibited category were extremely limited, a blanket ban removed the ability for exporters to apply for a permit, and sent a clear signal of support to Ukraine.
“Officials have been engaging with affected businesses about the possible economic and trade impacts a military conflict could have on them. Russia is our 27th largest export market, with dairy accounting for about of half of those exports,” Mahuta said.
“In applying these measures, New Zealand joins other members of the international community, in responding to this breach of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.”
The new sanctions are in addition to existing bans put in place following Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea.
Mahuta said she had also asked officials to give advice on how New Zealand could contribute to possible humanitarian response options, given “serious concerns” about the military conflict.
She said her “thoughts today are with the people in Ukraine impacted by this conflict”.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
A column of Russian armoured vehicles enters Ukraine territory today. Image: Al Jazeera screenshot APR
The conflict in Ukraine has escalated to a dangerous level between two nuclear armed states. The United States and its allies continue to portray the current situation as one of Russian aggression without acknowledging that US-backed Ukrainian forces are attacking the Eastern region of the country and killing citizens of Russian ethnicity.
This current escalation is a serious threat to world peace and requires a unified and rapid response by anti-war organizations from around the globe to stop a major war.
To that end, we, the undersigned groups, have agreed to support a week of international action from March 1 to 7 with the following demands on our governments:
Russian President Vladimir Putin has recognized the independence from Ukraine of two breakaway provinces in Donbass as violence in the region continues to escalate.
In Monday evening televised remarks after signing decrees recognizing the independence of Lugansk and Donetsk, Putin denounced the government of Ukraine as “puppets” of the United States.
“Minsk, Minsk, Minsk,” they cried after Russia recognized Donetsk and Luhansk. But those Western diplomats and pundits did not hear those of us in the Anti-war, pro-peace and anti-imperialist movements who insisted that Minsk II was the only conceivable way out of the crisis!
There will be reams of words attempting to provide a coherent analysis of the manufactured crisis dramatically unfolding in Ukraine, which took another unanticipated turn when Russia extended recognition to the Peoples’ Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in the territory referred to as the Donbas in Eastern Ukraine.
I will not add to that mountain of ink because, for me, the story is relatively simple. I have argued since 2015 that it was greed informed by miscalculations that drove the U.S. — with the support of European capital salivating from prospect of profits generated by gaining full control of the Ukrainian economy through the European Association agreement — to decide to overthrow the government of Viktor Yanukovych when he turned to Russia instead of surrendering Ukrainian sovereignty to U.S. and European capital.
This was the genesis of the crisis. For U.S. policymakers it did not matter that the coup government was made up of literal neo-Nazis and extremist white supremacists and antisemitic ultra-nationalists from the neo-Nazi Svoboda party — the National Socialist Party of Ukraine.
Nor was there any concern that one of the former commanders of the Azov Battalion, a violent right-wing gang that was merged into the Ukrainian National Guard and is now being trained by the British, said that Ukraine’s mission is to “lead in a final crusade … against the Semite-led Untermenschen” (sub-humans).
No concern because aligning with rightist elements in order to advance the economic and geostrategic interests of the U.S. state and capitalist class behind the backs of the U.S. public is nothing new. That is why it is so ironic, or perhaps contradictory, that while Democratic Party activists are mobilized to struggle against the far-right in the U.S., Biden’s Ukrainian policies are affirming once again that the neoliberal right does not mind aligning with naked fascism to advance the imperial interests of capital.
From rightist Islamic forces to right-wing apartheid state of Israel, to anti-democratic monarchs of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), there is usually never a state too odious for the U.S. to deal with as long as there was the possibility of a buck to be made.
That is why it is almost surreal to read U.S. propaganda messages that still frame U.S. intentions in themes that suggest a benevolent character to U.S. behavior — and getting away with it! And even among African/Black radicals who should know better, instead of educating Africans on what was in play in Ukraine with the expansion of the white supremacist NATO structure, the gangster move being made on Ukraine in order for U.S. capital to continue to assert control over the European market, and the crude attempt to divert attention away from the failures of Biden’s domestic policies — some Africans, along with elements of the white left, were more interested in having abstract discussions on the class nature of the Russian state and economy — as if there was anything to debate there!
Like other subversive actions by the U.S. state, the destabilization and then capturing of the Ukrainian state, and the installation of a puppet government had nothing to do with any concerns for democracy. It is impossible for the U.S. to be concerned about democracy when it is the principal state undermining democracy around the world. If the U.S. were committed to upholding democratic processes, it would not have overthrown a democratically elected government in Ukraine.
And U.S. policy certainly did not reflect any concern for human rights in Ukraine. The war that was sparked after the coup government decided to attack its own citizens in the Donbas who rejected its legitimacy resulted in thousands of Ukrainians losing their lives.
The U.S. was not concerned with the territorial integrity of Ukraine either, because it was the coup government, backed by their bosses in Washington, that forced the separation of the Donbas from Ukraine by defining them as non-Ukrainians. Ukrainian citizens in Donbas became “pro-Russia separatists and terrorists,” which made them eligible for massive human rights violations, including murder as foreign entities.
Yet, with all of that, up until February 21, 2022 the 57th anniversary of the assassination of the Black internationalist revolutionary Malcolm X, a route to a peaceful resolution to the crisis existed — the Minsk II agreement. It was the Minsk II agreement, put in place after the independent republics fought the Ukrainian neo-fascists to a military stand-still, along with provisions for a ceasefire, that provided a path to peaceful resolution. The agreement would have provided political autonomy for the Donbas within the Ukrainian state, thus preserving the existing borders of Ukraine before the coup of 2014.
Unfortunately, with the election of Joe Biden, who was the Obama administration’s point person on Ukraine, the Democrats immediately picked-up where U.S. policy left off in 2016 and started to encourage the Ukrainian government to ignore the Minsk II agreement and to consider taking back the Donbas by force.
Today, after the U.S. flooded Ukraine with weapons, including long-range artillery that was introduced into the conflict area in violation of the Minsk ceasefire deal, the deployment of 150,000 Ukrainian troops positioned along the contact line between Ukraine and Donbas, and the shelling from the Ukrainian forces right during the period that the U.S. predicted that Russia would invade, the Minsk agreement has become another casualty of war.
On February 18, 2022, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov stated that he was “alarmed” by a reported spike in Ukrainian artillery attacks against rebels in the eastern region of Donbas with weapons prohibited by the Minsk agreement. Reports from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which was tasked with the responsibility, since 2015, to monitor and report on violations of the agreement, indicated that in Donetsk, between February 18 and February 20, 2022, there were 591 ceasefire violations, and in Luhansk it recorded 975 ceasefire violations, including 860 explosions.
What was the response from the Ukraine government? The government claims that OSCE is biased because the data it is gathering seems to indicate that it is the Ukrainian forces that are responsible for the increase in military actions.
But that controversy and debate over that data failed to find itself in the daily coverage of the situation by the Western press, even though the empirical data clearly showed that Ukrainian forces were responsible for escalating the military engagement.
Ukraine is just the symptom; the Disease is U.S. Doctrine of “Full Spectrum Dominance”
The U.S. has its pretext to move the Europeans to impose economic sanctions against Russia, even though it is clear to many in Europe that the Biden administration’s policies are no more than the “liberal” version of “America First” as it relates to Europe.
European capital, especially the Germans, are expected to take another hit for the team like it did during the first round of sanctions against Russia and the money they all lost with the Trump administration’s abrogation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the Iran Nuclear Deal).
The capitalist oligarchy that is the base of Putin’s governing coalition may understand something that U.S. policymakers in their arrogance are underestimating, namely, that European capital is getting closer to a breaking point with the U.S., especially when money can be made in a context of relative stability in Europe as opposed to the destabilizing effects of conflict.
They also know that the world is changing and that multipolarity is rapidly becoming the new reality and that European capital will have to make careful choices.
China is the number one trade and investment partner with the European Union states, the Chinese inspired “Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) ” is the largest “free trade” agreement on the planet constituting one third of humanity and one third of global GDP. Russia is sitting on top of the Eurasia Economic Union that, in terms of land, is the largest trade union on the planet, and, of course, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
The Russian recognition of the republics of Donbas was no more than the open acknowledgment of the dismembering of Ukraine. A process that started with the U.S. coup and the imposition of a government that completely turned over Ukrainian sovereignty to U.S. and European capital.
The lesson for the colonized, working classes and nationally oppressed? Authentic national liberation, people(s)-centered human rights, and self-determination for peoples and nations are impossible in a world in which capitalist competition and war are the defining characteristics of global relations.
We must, as we say in the Black is Back Coalition and the Black Alliance for Peace, turn imperialist wars into wars against imperialism! That is our task and responsibility. To do otherwise is to fail the historical mission of our generation.
Under pressure from ultra-nationalists and Russophobes, successive governments in Ukraine have failed to address the grievances of the Russian speaking majority in the Donbass region. Ukraine has also not implemented the provisions of the Minsk agreement signed in 2015 to end the conflict in the region.
JUST before the start of the Winter Olympics in Beijing, Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping issued a joint statement on international relations and on co-operation between China and Russia. It is a document of about 10 pages that comes at a time of great tensions with Nato over Ukraine and of a diplomatic boycott of the Winter Games. The text can be read as a plea for a new world order in which the US and its allies are no longer in charge, but in which the aim is to create a multipolar world, with respect for the sovereignty of countries.
The American and British intelligence services seldom got things right during the Iraq, Libyan and Syrian conflicts, but they are now being cited as reliable guarantors of the credibility of stories about an impending Russian invasion of Ukraine.
This narrative is sold to the public as the fruit of “open intelligence”, supposedly more democratic than the more secretive approach of the past. The US Secretary of State Antony Blinken this week told the UN, apparently relying on information provided by US intelligence, that Russia could stage a provocation to provide a casus belli by fabricating “so-called terrorist bombing inside Russia, the invented discovery of a mass grave, a staged drone strike against civilians, or a fake – even a real attack – using chemical weapons.”
In a decision that unsettled the Western chancelleries, Vladimir Putin signed the diplomatic protocol recognizing the independent republics of Lugansk and Donetsk. The recognition was immediately followed by the signing of a cooperation and mutual assistance agreement, which will imply a Russian military presence in defense of the two republics and, at the same time, a clear warning to Kiev and its self-interested supporters.
Thus ends the dirty war, the only one that was really being waged despite the fact that the international media system was hiding it: that is, the Ukrainian shooting practices on the civilian population of Donbass, which for years have turned 4 million citizens into hostages of Kiev, with inhabitants becoming displaced, schools becoming targets, territory becoming cemetery.
On February 21, after Russian President Vladimir Putin recognized the independence and sovereignty of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR), he sent troops into those regions to carry out what he called “peacekeeping functions.” This was undertaken in response to actions that Russia characterized as a Ukranian government offensive.
During the previous weekend, Ukraine had significantly increased fire against residential sections of DPR and LPR, reportedly launching 1,600 projectiles and killing civilians. Nikolai Pankov, deputy Russian defense minister, said that Ukraine has 60,000 troops prepared to attack DPR and LPR, an intention Ukraine has denied.
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres characterized “the decision of the Russian Federation to be a violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine and inconsistent with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”
Claiming that Russia had begun an “invasion of Ukraine,” U.S. President Joe Biden has imposed a “first tranche” of sanctions to effectively “cut off Russia’s government from Western finance.”
When Putin announced Russia’s recognition of the DPR and LPR in the Donbas region, he stated that if Ukraine was to join NATO, it would be a “direct threat” to Russia. The situation is “like having a knife against our throat,” Putin said, adding that Russia has “a right to take countermeasures to enhance our own security.”
This uptick in tensions is taking place in the context of a structural escalation from the U.S. that deserves more than a passing mention by the media: On February 16, The New York Times reported that the United States is building “a highly sensitive U.S. military installation” in Poland, just 100 miles from Russia’s border. The base, which is scheduled to begin operation this year, is a site from which the U.S. could deploy nuclear-armed missiles.
“The advanced and potentially nuclear armed missile deployments in Poland, Romania, and on the Black Sea constituted a clear threat to Russia,” Jack Rasmus, professor of politics and economics at St. Mary’s College, wrote.
Russia is seeking a legally binding agreement from the United States that Ukraine will not be invited to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a historically anti-Russia military alliance, as well as other security guarantees. “A NATO Ukraine could mean moving Romanian and Black Sea US missiles still further north into Ukraine right up to Russia’s border,” Rasmus noted. “With similar NATO forces in the Baltics on its border, Russia would be surrounded with NATO missiles just a few minutes from Moscow.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on February 14 that Russia wants “radical changes in the sphere of European security,” a pullback of NATO troops in Eastern Europe, and limitations on offensive weapons as well as restrictions on intermediate-range missiles. These proposals are enshrined in two treaties that Russia proposed on December 22, 2021, to make the region more secure and less vulnerable to war. The parties to one treaty would be NATO and the Russian Federation. The United States and the Russian Federation would be parties to the other treaty.
The Proposed NATO-Russian Federation Treaty
The proposed NATO-Russia treaty provides in Article 5 that the parties “shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties.”
In Article 6 of the proposed treaty, the parties “commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.”
Article 7 states that “member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, in the South Caucasus and in Central Asia.”
The Proposed U.S.-Russian Federation Treaty
In the proposed U.S.-Russia treaty, the parties would agree “to avoid any military confrontation and armed conflict between the Parties and realiz[e] that direct military clash between them could result in the use of nuclear weapons that would have far-reaching consequences.”
Article 3 of the proposed treaty provides: “The Parties shall not use the territories of other States with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other Party.”
Article 4 reads: “The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”
Article 4 also says that the United States “shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.”
Article 7 states, “The Parties shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed outside their national territories at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty to their national territories. The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories.”
The U.S. Facilitated the 2014 Coup That Overthrew Ukraine’s Elected President
Absent from the corporate media’s Ukraine coverage are discussions of the U.S. role in the 2014 coup in Ukraine, when the United States helped to overthrow Ukraine’s elected president. In 2013, President Viktor Yanukovych had resisted economic reforms sought by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to make Ukraine more enticing to investors. Those reforms included lowering wages and reducing the education and health sectors (which comprised most of Ukrainian employment), as well as cutting natural gas subsidies that facilitated affordable energy for Ukrainians. After the coup, the new U.S.-backed government cut heating subsidies in half, and in return, secured a $27 billion commitment from the IMF.
In the run-up to the coup, the United States promoted anti-government opinion through the use of USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). “The NED is a key organization in the network of American soft power that pours $170 million a year into organizations dedicated to defending or installing US-friendly regimes,” according to Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). “The NED targets governments who oppose US military or economic policy, stirring up anti-government opposition.” In 2013, NED President Carl Gershman wrote in TheWashington Post that Ukraine was the “biggest prize” in the rivalry between the East and West.
Then-U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland was instrumental in engineering the coup, which drew momentum from neo-Nazi groups within Ukraine. As FAIR explains, “The Washington-backed opposition that toppled the government was fueled by far-right and openly Nazi elements.” Following the coup, those neo-Nazi elements were incorporated into the Ukrainian military, to which the United States has funneled $2.5 billion.
Regime change advocate Nuland is now serving as under secretary for political affairs in the Biden administration’s State Department. Only the United States and Ukraine voted against a December 2021 United Nations General Assembly resolution on “combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism.”
Russia Considered the U.S.-Backed Coup a Threat to Its Security
Russia saw the installation of a U.S.-backed government in Ukraine as a threat to its security. The Crimean Peninsula, historically part of Russia, was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954. It is the site of one of Russia’s two naval bases that access the Mediterranean and Black seas. “A Crimea controlled by a US-backed Ukrainian government was a major threat to Russian naval access,” Bryce Greene wrote at FAIR.
Moreover, 82 percent of households in Crimea speak Russian and just 2 percent speak primarily Ukrainian. In a plebiscite held right after the 2014 coup, 95 percent of voters chose to join Russia instead of remaining under the new Ukrainian government. Russia then annexed Crimea.
In 2014, the mainly Russian areas of Ukraine — Donetsk and Luhansk — on the Russian border also chose to secede from Ukraine. Since then, those regions have functioned separately from Ukraine with support from Russia and have seen ongoing intermittent fighting.
Russia Fears That Ukraine Will Join NATO
As the USSR was breaking up in 1990-1, the U.S. government promised the Soviet Union it would not expand NATO eastward in return for Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s agreement not to oppose the reunification of Germany.
By 1999, however, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic had all joined NATO. Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia joined in 2004, followed by Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, notwithstanding George Kennan’s admonition, “Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era.”
Although there is skepticism from some well-informed quarters that Ukraine will actually become a NATO member, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg reaffirmed NATO’s 2008 pledge to offer membership in the alliance to Ukraine and Georgia. “We stand by that decision,” Stoltenberg declared on December 16, 2021.
A week after Stoltenberg’s declaration, Putin said, “We have made it clear that NATO’s move to the east is unacceptable,” adding that, “the United States is standing with missiles on our doorstep.” Putin queried, “How would the Americans react if missiles were placed at the border with Canada or Mexico?”
Putin was incensed by the George W. Bush administration’s 2001 withdrawal from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which had worked for almost 30 years.
Likewise, Lavrov denounced the U.S.’s 2019 withdrawal from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, in which the parties had agreed not to deploy nuclear-armed missiles in Eastern Europe or on the western border of Russia.
From Russia’s point of view, NATO’s “eastward expansion has created an unacceptable national security risk,” Scott Ritter wrote at Energy Intelligence. “Any accession to Nato by the former Soviet Republics of Ukraine or Georgia is viewed [by Russia] as an existential threat that would require a ‘military-technical’ response.”
“We don’t have a border with Ukraine — we have a border with America, because they are the masters in that country,” Viktor Zolotny, head of Russia’s National Guard, declared before Putin’s February 21 announcement. “Of course we must recognize the republics, but I want to say that we must go farther in order to defend our country.”
Enforce the Minsk Agreements
As the Beijing Winter Olympics began in early February, Putin and China’s President Xi Jinping signed a joint statement opposing the expansion of NATO. China and Russia stated they “oppose the further expansion of Nato, call on the North Atlantic alliance to abandon the ideologised approaches of the cold war, respect the sovereignty, security and interests of other countries, the diversity of their civilisational and cultural-historical patterns, and treat the peaceful development of other states objectively and fairly.”
Minsk II, a package of measures aimed at ending the war in the Donbas region of Ukraine, was agreed to in 2015 by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France. The talks that resulted in the agreement were overseen by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). A UN Security Council resolution of February 17, 2015 — labeled as S/RES/2202 — endorsed the “Package of measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements” signed on February 12, 2015.
In a recent meeting between Putin and President Joe Biden, Russia demanded that the West pressure Ukraine to fulfill its obligation under the 2015 Minsk Agreement. After Russia recognized the independence of DPR and LPR,UN Secretary-General Guterres called for “the peaceful settlement of the conflict in eastern Ukraine, in accordance with the Minsk Agreements, as endorsed by the Security Council in resolution 2202 (2015).”
UN Expert Says Russians in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea Have a Right to Self-Determination
The United Nations Charter, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, enshrine the right of peoples to self-determination. According to professor Alfred de Zayas, who served as UN Independent Expert on International Order from 2012-2018, the Russians in Ukraine constitute a “people,” and therefore “the Russians in Donetsk, [Luhansk] and Crimea have the right to self-determination.”
On February 18, the U.K.-based Stop the War coalition issued a statement saying, “The crisis should be settled on a basis which recognizes the right of the Ukrainian people to self-determination and addresses Russia’s security concerns.”
The thousands of signatories to the statement declared, “We refute the idea that NATO is a defensive alliance, and believe its record in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Libya over the last generation, not to mention the U.S.-British attack on Iraq, clearly proves otherwise.”
Russia and Ukraine should reach a diplomatic settlement on the basis of the Minsk II agreement already signed by both states, the statement says.
Signatories to the Stop the War statement include former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, a dozen members of Parliament and the heads of several U.K. unions.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers and a coalition of anti-war groups reminded President Joe Biden on Tuesday that he is legally required to seek authorization from Congress before involving U.S. troops in any military conflict with Russia, which began moving forces of its own into eastern Ukraine earlier this week.
“Our nation’s laws are highly relevant to the ongoing situation in Ukraine,” 43 U.S. House members led by Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) wrote in a letter to the White House on Tuesday. “Were an attack by Russia to be imminent or underway, the War Powers Resolution would clearly require congressional authorization before the president may command U.S. Armed Forces to engage in hostilities.”
Signed by an ideologically diverse cohort of lawmakers spanning from right-wing Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) to progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the letter was delivered after Biden announced new economic sanctions against Russia and said he “authorized additional movements of U.S. forces and equipment already stationed in Europe to strengthen our Baltic allies.”
“Let me be clear: These are totally defensive moves on our part,” added Biden, who has approved the deployment of thousands of U.S. troops to Eastern Europe in recent weeks. “We have no intention of fighting Russia.”
But no matter the president’s stated intentions, the lawmakers argued in their letter that he must “seek specific congressional authorization” in order to “leave any remaining U.S. advisers, trainers, special forces, or other U.S. military personnel in areas of these imminent or active hostilities.”
“You must also receive congressional approval before initiating any preemptive strike,” they wrote. “We strongly urge your administration to respect the separation of powers, U.S. law, and Congress’ constitutional war powers authority. Should your administration seek to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or decline to remove any U.S. military personnel currently deployed inside Ukraine from unauthorized hostilities or imminent hostilities, Congress stands ready to deliberate over the potentially monumental implications of such scenarios.”
“The American people, through their representatives in Congress, deserve to have a say before U.S. troops are placed in harm’s way or the U.S. becomes involved in yet another foreign conflict,” the lawmakers added.
I’m urging Pres Biden to follow the Constitution and the law and receive authorization from Congress before involving US forces in Russia-Ukraine conflict. The American people deserve to have a say before we become involved in yet another foreign conflict.pic.twitter.com/0RJKEi1k9u
The letter came as the situation on the ground in Ukraine continued to deteriorate and fears of an all-out war mounted. On Wednesday, Ukraine began preparations to impose a nationwide state of emergency and instructed its citizens to leave Russia, warning of a broader invasion.
With congressional Republicans and hawkish Democrats clamoring for Biden to respond more forcefully to Russia’s latest aggressive actions in Ukraine, DeFazio toldPolitico on Tuesday that the president should instead show restraint and consult with Congress.
“Americans are fed up with risking U.S. troops’ lives and spending taxpayer dollars on endless overseas wars,” said DeFazio. “I’m calling on President Biden to ignore the warmongers and receive authorization from Congress — as required by the Constitution and U.S. law — before even considering any involvement by the U.S. military in a conflict between Russia and Ukraine.”
Nearly a dozen advocacy groups — including the progressive anti-war organizations Just Foreign Policy, Peace Action, and Demand Progress — endorsed DeFazio’s message, hailing it as a “timely” and “level-headed” intervention amid loudening drumbeats of war.
“Even allowing U.S. advisers and special forces to remain in harm’s way in Ukraine without authorization creates the potential for direct conflict between the world’s leading nuclear powers,” Erik Sperling, executive director of Just Foreign Policy, said in a statement Tuesday. “Regardless of one’s view on how the U.S. should respond to tensions over Ukraine, these are precisely the critical questions that the framers of our Constitution sought to entrust to the American people through their representatives in Congress.”
Cavan Kharrazian, a foreign policy campaigner for Demand Progress added that “by no means should the president put American troops — including embedded military advisors and special forces — into harm’s way in Ukraine without a debate and vote in Congress.”
“While Congress remains divided on many issues,” Kharrazian added, “we are glad to see such a diverse range of representatives defending our constitutional system of checks and balances when it comes to war.”
Internet censors in China have ordered news outlets and social media accounts to avoid posting anything critical of Russia or favorable to NATO, after Russia began moving troops across the border into Ukraine, prompting a flurry of international sanctions against the country’s leaders.
“With immediate effect, regarding all Weibo posts about Ukraine: Horizon News to post first [on this topic], to be reposted by other major accounts,” a directive from the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP)’s central propaganda department posted to Weibo ordered.
“No pro-Western posts, no posts critical of Russia. All initial copy to be reviewed by us [the CCP propaganda department] prior to posting,” the order, quoted by a video account linked to the Beijing News, said.
“Comments must be selectively moderated, and only appropriate comments must be published,” the order said. “Anyone publishing content will be deemed responsible for it, and genuine care must be taken. Each post much be watched for at least two days, and great care must be taken when handing over [to the incoming shift].”
The order, which was published by the China Digital Times, which curates and publishes similar directives under its “Ministry of Truth” column, said all topics should be confined to stories already published by Xinhua, the People’s Daily and CCTV.
Former Beijing News founding editor Cheng Yizhong confirmed the order was genuine.
“This is a multimedia account managed by the Beijing News … and it doesn’t just apply to them, but to other media as well,” Cheng said. “It’s always the case during a major international conflict that only opinions from Xinhua, CCTV and the People’s Daily may be published.”
“It’s one size fits all,” Cheng said.
Calls to the Beijing News rang unanswered during office hours onWednesday, with a request for an interview to a senior editor going unanswered at the time of writing. An employee who answered the phone at the central propaganda department said they couldn’t answer questions over the phone.
A senior Chinese journalist who requested anonymity said the directive is necessary because Chinese nationalists hold a number of grievances against Russia, including the claim that the country occupies “huge swathes” of Chinese territory.
Russian military trucks and buses are seen on the side of a road in Russia’s southern Rostov region, which borders the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic, Feb. 23, 2022. Credit: AFP
Swift deletion of criticism
He said the propaganda directive was likely posted in error.
“Anti-Russian comments won’t get through on social media … even the comments will be cleaned up,” the journalist said. “The attitude of intellectuals hasn’t changed, but any criticism of Russia gets deleted from Weibo.”
He said Chinese investors generally avoid investing in Russia.
“Investors aren’t bullish about Russia at all, and they have all the information; they watch the markets,” he said. “You can make a lot of money by betting against Russia on investment markets; they think life there will get very miserable under sanctions, and this could even bring Putin down.”
Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying onWednesdayaccused the U.S. of “adding fuel to the fire” by sending weapons to Ukraine.
“Lately the US has been sending weapons to Ukraine, heightening tensions, creating panic and even hyping up the possibility of warfare,” Hua told a regular news briefing in Beijing, referring to the U.S. as the “culprit.”
“If someone keeps pouring oil on the flames while accusing others of not doing their best to put out the fire, such kind of behavior is clearly irresponsible and immoral,” Hua said.
Hua’s colleague Wang Wenbin said on Feb. 22 that “the legitimate security concerns of any country should be respected,” but called for dialogue and negotiation.
Foreign minister Wang Yi is known to be concerned about any eastward expansion of NATO, according to current affair commentator Guo Chonglun, but China has generally not been openly supportive of Russian incursions into Ukraine, nor its 2014 occupation of Crimea.
“China is facing a dilemma on this right now, because Putin has torn up the Minsk agreement, and forcibly separated [Moscow-backed Donetsk and Luhansk, or Donbas, from Ukraine],” Guo told RFA. “Yet China has yet to recognize Crimea as being part of Russia.”
Taiwan worries
Guo said “China is worried that in future, the U.S. might do the same to Taiwan,” in reference to the democratic island that has never been ruled by the CCP, nor formed part of the People’s Republic of China.
“Everyone is watching to see how China chooses its words … no country, not even an ally as close as Russia, should just destroy other people’s territorial integrity; that’s the crux of the matter,” Guo said.
Taiwan defense expert Shen Ming Shih agreed that Russia’s actions have a close bearing on Taiwan.
“If Russia is allowed to unilaterally recognize the independence of those two territories, then the U.S. could also recognize Taiwan as an independent, sovereign nation at some point in the future, should the CCP want to invade,” Shen told RFA.
“This is not a good thing for the CCP … currently, the U.S. neither recognizes Taiwan as an independent country, nor opposes its independence.”
While China and Russia are currently close allies, China will also be unwilling to set itself against the E.U. and NATO, as well as the U.S., Shen said.
Ting-hui Lin, deputy secretary-general of the Taiwan International Law Society, said Putin is unlikely to be deterred, given the massive public approval ratings his 2014 invasion of Crimea garnered.
“Putin sees his task as restoring the former glory of the old, imperialist Russia,” Lin said. “He doesn’t want to invade Eastern Europe or the rest of Europe, or the U.S., or China; he wants to … shore up the stability of his regime at home.”
Lin said CCP leader Xi Jinping could use an invasion of Taiwan in a similar manner, and that the Ukraine crisis for Xi could be a test of U.S. resolve when it came to defending the island against a Chinese invasion.
Translated and edited by Luisetta Mudie.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Xiaoshan Huang, Chingman and Hsia Hsiao-hwa.
A renowned organization comprised of U.S. and Russian physicians warned late Tuesday that a military conflict involving the two powers in Ukraine risks a nuclear “catastrophe” that could have horrific effects on all of Europe — and potentially the entire planet.
In a new statement, nuclear energy specialists joined members of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) — a coalition of medical groups that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985 for its non-proliferation work — in noting that while Ukraine does not possess nuclear weapons, it does maintain more than a dozen nuclear power reactors that could be in the line of fire should the current situation descend into all-out war.
Linda Pentz Gunter, founder of the advocacy group Beyond Nuclear, said a conflict in Ukraine could result in a disaster on par with — or even worse than — the devastating 1986 Chernobyl reactor crisis.
“No matter the genesis, the cause, or who started what, the reality remains that there are 15 operating nuclear reactors in Ukraine that, if conflict breaks out there, could be in peril,” said Gunter. “If the reactors find themselves amidst a conflict or war, they cannot simply be abandoned by the workforce. This makes the prospects of a war in Ukraine all the more alarming, and the imperative to avoid this all the more urgent.”
Additionally, physicians voiced concerns that the present crisis could ultimately escalate to the use of nuclear weaponry. While the U.S. and Russia — which together control more than 90% of the world’s nuclear arsenal — signed a joint statement earlier this year affirming that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” the military doctrines of both nations allow for the first use of nukes in conflict.
“If even a single 100-kiloton nuclear weapon exploded over the Kremlin, it could kill a quarter of a million people and injure a million more, completely overwhelming the disaster response capability of the Russian capital,” said Dr. Ira Helfand, co-president of IPPNW. “A single 100 kiloton bomb detonated over the U.S. capital would kill over 170,000 people and injure nearly 400,000.”
“But it is unlikely that an escalating nuclear conflict between the U.S. and Russia would involve single warheads over their respective capitals,” Helfand added. “Rather it is more likely that there would be many weapons directed against many cities and many of these weapons would be substantially larger than 100 Kt.”
Over the weekend, Dr. Olga Mironova — a cardiologist in Moscow and president of IPPNW’s Russian affiliate —led an emergency discussion focused on the health impacts of a potential nuclear war involving the U.S. and Russia, which have roughly 6,000 nuclear warheads each.
The physicians’ dire warnings came as tensions between Russia and the West continued to grow in the aftermath of President Vladimir Putin’s decision Monday to send troops into breakaway regions of eastern Ukraine — a move that the U.S. and European countries met with a barrage of economic sanctions.
Citing Russia’s deployment of troops into Ukraine, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced late Tuesday that he canceled his planned meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, a potential blow to diplomatic negotiations that peace groups say are the only way to step back from the brink of war.
In recent weeks, observers have lamented how little attention the possibility of a nuclear conflict has received from political leaders and the press relative to the threat it poses. Further heightening peace advocates’ concerns was Russia’s recent staging of nuclear drills, exercises that included practice launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles.
“Of all the obvious dangers that come with war, one of the most far-reaching in the current Russia-Ukraine conflict has been woefully underappreciated. Even if commanders took pains to avoid striking Ukraine’s 15 nuclear power reactors, that might not be enough to avoid a catastrophe,” Bennett Ramberg, an expert on nuclear weapons, wrote in an op-ed for Project Syndicate last week.
“The reactors present a daunting specter. If struck, the installations could effectively become radiological mines. And Russia itself would be a victim of the ensuing wind-borne radioactive debris,” Ramberg observed. “Were a reactor core to melt, explosive gases or belching radioactive debris would exit the containment structure. Once in the atmosphere, the effluents would settle over thousands of miles, dumping light to very toxic radioactive elements on urban and rural landscapes. And spent nuclear fuel could cause further devastation if storage pools were set afire.”
But Dr. Barry Levy, a leading expert on the health consequences of military conflicts, stressed Tuesday that even if a nuclear disaster is averted, “much death and illness could occur among noncombatant civilians from explosive weapons, population displacement, and damage to hospitals and clinics, water treatment plants, and the food supply system” in the case of a conventional war.
“As a result, children and pregnant women would suffer from malnutrition, more infants would be born prematurely, and more women would die during childbirth,” said Levy. “More people would contract communicable diseases, including Covid-19. More older people, who comprise more than one-sixth of Ukraine’s population, would develop complications of heart disease, lung disorders, and diabetes. And many Ukrainians would suffer from depression and posttraumatic stress disorder.”
I believe that the situation in Ukraine is a crisis created solely by Moscow and that the US power alliance is just an innocent little flower who is being unfairly blamed. I also believe Santa is real, because I am a tiny little child who will believe anything.
❖
After watching the way the US and its allies have been handling the Ukraine situation, how confident are you that they can be trusted to navigate all these dangerous cold war escalations without inadvertently triggering a nuclear exchange? I’m not in the slightest bit confident, myself.
❖
I keep seeing people on the left making awkward, labored statements condemning Russia’s Donbas intervention in these weird “Look at me I can criticize Putin just like I criticize the US” performances that they’re clearly only putting on to avoid accusations of Kremlin loyalty, and it’s just silly. The US empire is still the power structure one’s criticisms should be focused on, no matter how badly empire apologists wish it weren’t so.
Don’t feel pressured to denounce Russia’s actions just to make a show of appearing impartial. If you understand that the US empire both (A) created this problem and (B) is many orders of magnitude worse than Russia, then stand by that, because you’re right and they’re wrong.
It’s so stupid how the Overton window of acceptable debate has been moved so far in favor of the empire that we’re now expected to treat this very mild step by Moscow like it’s on equal footing with the worst atrocities of the most powerful and destructive government on earth. Imperial narrative management has made people feel so ashamed and apologetic for criticizing the empire that they’ll seize even the dopiest opportunity to show everyone that they’re not some kind of Russian troll or secret agent or whatever. It’s dumb, it’s debasing, and it should stop.
Focusing one’s criticisms on the most powerful and destructive government on earth requires no justification and no apology, and it’s certainly nothing to feel ashamed of. It’s not strange and suspicious that you do it, it’s strange and suspicious that more people don’t.
❖
The US is the very last government on this entire planet who has any business talking about respecting the sovereignty of other nations. Absolute dead last.
Pointing out things the US has done while it shrieks about the actions of a foreign government will get you accused of “whataboutism”, but it’s not a whataboutism. It’s pointing out that the US is the absolute least qualified government on earth to comment on the issue at hand.
❖
It’s not actually legitimate to constantly violate international law all around the world and then cry when another nation does it. You don’t get to make the rules meaningless and then bitch when they are treated like they’re meaningless. That’s not a thing.
It’s not really about hypocrisy; being hypocritical is no great evil in and of itself. What it’s about is actively creating an environment which causes these things to happen, and then shrieking bloody murder when they happen. It’s about placing the blame exactly where it belongs.
If you want nations to respect international law, Step 1 is to cease being the single worst violator of international law in the entire world. It’s not valid to create an environment of lawlessness and then rend your garments when people treat it like what it is.
If someone starts stealing everyone’s stuff and nobody stops him, pretty soon you’re going to see other people start stealing to make sure they have stuff too. Whose fault would that be in that situation? It’s the one who created that Wild West environment in the first place.
You can’t have a serious conversation about opposing Russia’s actions in Ukraine without answering these questions:
If we're against annexation, why aren't we sanctioning Israel? If we're against illegal wars, why are we supplying bombs to Saudi Arabia? If we oppose brutal dictators, why are we training the military of Cameroon? Incredible double-standards from Britain and America.
You can’t just bleat “whataboutism” or “two wrongs don’t make a right”; you have to answer them. Otherwise it looks like you’re just making whatever empty noises will let you rule the planet.
You can’t just put your fingers in your ears and compartmentalize away from the fact that everything the western political/media class is saying about Russia and Ukraine today is completely meaningless under the shadow of the behavior of the globe-spanning US-centralized empire. Either squarely address the fact that the US and its allies do not play by the rules they are demanding Russia play by or stop pretending you’re doing anything other than pro bono propaganda work for the largest and deadliest power structure on earth.
❖
The country with no democracy says it’s important to defend the democracy of the other country with no democracy.
❖
Ukraine’s sovereignty is important enough to risk World War 3 over but not important enough to refrain from backing neo-Nazi militias to stage a coup there in 2014.
❖
If the Democrats have been moving to the left then why are they indistinguishable from Bush administration Republicans?
❖
Not that anyone cares but the fastest way to lose my respect as an anti-imperialist is to spend your energy attacking other anti-imperialists. Because it shows that your understanding is so shallow that you think we’re doing well enough for us to be able to afford wasting our firepower on each other. Either that or it shows that your ego comes before the cause. It’s one or the other, and either way you’ve shown yourself to be fairly worthless.
❖
Mass-scale psychological manipulation is a science that’s still advancing. The government agencies who use that science would have every reason to test out mass psyops for no other reason than to learn and gather data to advance the science. It’s not like you can test it in a lab.
I mean, we know for a fact that they’ve already done this. We just don’t know how far it goes.
_______________________
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here.
Pending French mediation, Putin-Biden talks, German distancing, Italian fears, Spanish uncertainties and opposition from the former Eastern bloc, as well as the regularly discredited deadlines of the improbable Russian invasions, the war always announced but never started has had its first outcome.
In a decision that displaced the Western chancelleries, Vladimir Putin signed the diplomatic protocol recognizing the independent republics of Lugansk and Donetsk. The recognition was immediately followed by the signing of a cooperation and mutual assistance agreement, which will imply a Russian military presence in defense of the two republics and, at the same time, a clear warning to Kiev and its self-interested supporters.
Thus ends the dirty war, the only one that was really being waged despite the fact that the international media system was hiding it: that is, the Ukrainian shooting practices on the civilian population of Donbass, which for years, have turned 4 million citizens into hostages of Kiev, with inhabitants becoming displaced, schools becoming targets, territory becoming cemetery. Until yesterday, this was the result of the recent offensive of the Ukrainian army in the Donbass, which tells better than a thousand lies what really happens on the border between Russia and Ukraine and who are the ones who really work tirelessly for the war.
Putin’s move opens an unprecedented political, diplomatic and military scenario. Political, because it initiates the Russian political counteroffensive, which has as its fundamental lever the security of its population and its borders. The recognition of the independent republics of the Donbass region now deprives Ukraine of a part of its territory, certainly; but it is a territory that had become independent since 2014, just like Crimea. Nothing strange, in fact: a people that feel Russian by historical, religious, political, linguistic and cultural belonging, has no desire to be incorporated into the model of the Third Reich dressed as McDonalds that governs Kiev thanks to a coup d’état.
Militarily and diplomatically it represents a double success for Moscow: it creates a buffer zone between Russia and Ukraine and further covers the border with Kiev and openly challenges Ukraine and the United States to continue the war against independent Donbass. It sets aside Ukrainian security as the only issue to be addressed in the geopolitical issue and puts the issue of Russian security back at the center of a possible political-diplomatic negotiation with the Western masters of Ukraine. Moreover, it leaves the future steps to be taken to diplomatic negotiations, suggesting that a possible Ukrainian military response against the Donbass could lead to a counter-offensive on a local scale that would also involve the ports of Mariupol and Odessa, strategic for Kiev.
Reactions
NATO’s response seems for the moment much more prudent than the threats made until yesterday. Politically, one would have to be very brazen not to accept the recognition of the two independent republics, given that in 1992 the entire West, under pressure from Germany, Austria, the Vatican and the United States, immediately recognized the Croatian and Bosnian secession from Yugoslavia and armed, financed and supported them politically and militarily against Serbia. It even went so far as to ethically and legally abhor the recognition of secession on ethnic grounds. It did the same thing years later with Kosovo, which seceded from Albania. It is not clear why in this case the principle of legitimate secession should not apply.
On the military level, as Ukraine is not (yet) a NATO country, the Russian counter-offensive does not allow invoking Article 5 of the Atlantic Pact. The EU, as usual, has no policy and is waiting to hear from the United States about what to do. With the exception of Borrell, (a modest mixture of Francoism and narcissism that the EU has chosen to represent itself internationally, thus gaining more scorn than it already deserved) the European comments that matter are geared to take advantage of Putin’s move, hoping that it will end with the acceptance of the state of affairs and the imposition of sanctions aimed only at the two independent republics. These sanctions have no real effect and only serve to save the already worn-out face of a NATO unable to unite even on the feasibility of Kiev’s accession to the Alliance, let alone respond to Moscow.
The idea that, above all, France, Germany and Italy are cultivating, in fact – and which is giving Washington serious headaches – is that beyond the generic declarations of unity, the most important part of the EU wants to restart a global negotiation between the West and Russia. A negotiation partly different from the one imagined until yesterday, because Putin’s movement has already set a clear line in the negotiations: we are able to operate in any scenario, be it peace or war; if the thought of threatening Moscow by targeting it with missile batteries becomes reality, it will be guaranteed by all means that they cannot be deployed.
What is needed, therefore, is a table that puts regional security policies back on the agenda, in the knowledge that a refusal to consider Russia’s security needs will only cause Moscow to proceed autonomously to defend them. This would put on the ground the issues that Europe wants to avoid at all costs; i.e., military. Putin, moreover, has already demonstrated throughout his presidential career, from Chechnya to Donbass to Georgia and Belarus, Kazakhstan and above all Syria, that he is not willing to be surrounded by NATO, nor to be threatened militarily. That in matters of national security it does not accept threats and does not hesitate to act quickly and effectively to defend Russian national interests.
The Russian political counteroffensive belies the heavy succession of shameful forecasts, completed with dates for imaginary Russian invasions, which have created a new and deep crack in the credibility of the United States and its British butlers who, after the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Taliban responsible for the Twin Towers and the Syrian chemical weapons, are rightly entering the circle of ridicule.
Therefore, economic and financial sanctions to curb Russia’s growth is an indispensable objective. Laying further siege to Russia could provoke a reaction from Russia, leading to new international sanctions against Moscow. The result would be fantastic for the United States: it would weaken the trade relationship between Russia and Europe and, above all, block the implementation of the North Stream 2 gas pipeline.
Sanctions: who is threatening whom?
It is said that the Western sanctions that would follow an eventual “invasion” would be extremely harsh for Russia (which already suffers unfairly). There is no doubt that, in the short term, they would disrupt foreign investment and force Moscow first to retaliate and then to differentiate its import and export market. But while sanctions would be a big deal for the U.S., they would also be very damaging for the EU: for example, blocking the pipeline from coming on line would mean the EU giving up gas supplies at a limited price.
The EU imports about 40% of its gas needs from Russia), so a blockage of supplies would not so much be a threat to Moscow as to Brussels, because it would make the enforcement of Western sanctions against the Kremlin self-punishing. Moscow has already authorized the construction of a new pipeline through Mongolia that will carry Russian gas to China, which needs energy to sustain its growth.
For Europe, however, the scenario would be complicated. In the event of a further reduction in available gas, the price would rise to unacceptable levels for EU countries, which would be forced to proceed randomly and not with a common policy, given the different options. It is no coincidence that Draghi has already indicated that Italy will not adhere to sanctions affecting the energy sector. Even Germany, which has Russian gas as its main source of energy supply, would be forced to resort to coal, which would blow up all environmental constraints and would not provide a short-term solution to the problem.
Also on the financial level, although Moscow would find it difficult, structural problems would arise for Europe, given the exposure of several countries to Moscow (the EU’s fifth largest trading partner), amounting to 56 billion euros, which would obviously no longer be repayable. These debts would no longer be recoverable, and the repercussions for banks would be extremely serious. In return, since the U.S. exposure is minimal, the U.S. would have no problem in the short to medium term in disrupting financial flows with Russia.
In addition, there is the threat of Moscow withdrawing from the SWIFT financial transmission system (which links 11,000 banks in 200 countries). The decision would hurt Moscow, of course, but not to the point of paralyzing it, as it was prepared since 2014 for this scenario. Similarly, the inclusion of Russian banks on the “blacklist” would not have particularly serious effects for Moscow either.
Excluding Moscow from SWIFT would be the most classic boomerang, as it would provoke a series of chain reactions from countries hostile to the US that would risk turning the international economy into a clash of blocks. The first and most important consequence would be the acceleration of the “independent financial infrastructure” project decided by Moscow and Beijing and, given the weight and emergence of economies not aligned with Washington and Brussels, now intercontinental leaders of debt and certainly not of expansionary policies, the risk of a systemic implosion in the short term seems well founded.
The inescapable question is: is the West really ready for a reset that will also punish its interests harshly? To give even more strength and strategic perspective to the alliance between Beijing and Moscow? And all this for Ukraine and its Nazi government?
By the end of 2021, the total flight time of helicopters under warranty maintenance and servicing produced by the Ulan-Ude Aviation Plant (U-UAP) of the Russian Helicopters Holding Company (Rostec State Corporation) amounted to 26,430 hours. The flight time of such helicopters has increased by almost 50% compared to 2020. “Over the past year, more […]
UN Security Council members China and Russia have continued to provide Myanmar’s military junta with weapons used to attack civilians a year after a coup deposed the elected government, a U.N. rights expert said Tuesday.
In a report to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Tom Andrews called on the UN Security Council to impose a ban on transfers of arms that can be used against civilians in the Southeast Asian country.
“Despite the evidence of the military junta’s atrocity crimes being committed with impunity since launching a coup last year, UN Security Council members Russia and China continue to provide the Myanmar military junta with numerous fighter jets, armored vehicles, and in the case of Russia, the promise of further arms,” Andrews said in a statement.
“During this same period, Serbia has authorized rockets and artillery for export to the Myanmar military,” said the former U.S. Congressman, who serves as UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights in Myanmar.
“It should be incontrovertible that weapons used to kill civilians should no longer be transferred to Myanmar. These transfers truly shock the conscience,” Andrews said.
“Stopping the junta’s atrocity crimes begins with blocking their access to weapons. The more the world delays, the more innocent people, including children, will die in Myanmar,” he added.
Noting that the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution last June calling got a halt to arms flows, Andrews called for the convening of an emergency Security Council session to pass a resolution to “at minimum, ban those arms transfers that the Myanmar military are known to use to attack and kill Myanmar civilians.”
The report, titled Enabling Atrocities: UN Member States’ Arms Transfers to the Myanmar Military, said China had transferred fighter jets, while Russia had supplied drones, two types of fighter jets, and two kinds of armored vehicles, Serbia had sold rockets and artillery shells to the Myanmar military.
While those three countries were the only ones found to have sold weapons to the junta since the Feb. 1, 2021 coup, the report said Belarus, Israel, India, Pakistan, South Korea, and Ukraine had also transferred arms to Myanmar in recent years.
Reuters news agency quoted China’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Wang Wenbin, as responding to the report by saying Beijing “has always advocated that all parties and factions should proceed in the long-term interests of the country” and “resolve contradictions through political dialogue.”
The junta has cracked down on its opponents through attacks on peaceful protesters, arrests, and beatings and killings. The military regime has also attacked opposition strongholds with helicopter gunships, fighter jets, and troops that burn villages they accuse of supporting anti-junta militias.
As of Tuesday, nearly 1,570 people had been killed since the coup and almost 12,300 arrested, according to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, a human rights organization based in Thailand.
Andrews in his report also called on UN members to work together to cut the junta’s revenue flows from oil and gas, timber and gemstones. The U.S. Britain and Canada have imposed trade sanctions on Myanmar junta figures and military-linked companies.
“If the revenues necessary to maintain such a military are reduced, the junta’s capacity to assault and terrorize the people of Myanmar will diminish,” Andrews said.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Paul Eckert.
(February 21) – The Russian National Security Council met to discuss the recognition of the Donetzk People’s Republic (DNR) and Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR) as independent states.
The whole meeting was shown on public TV. RT-English provided a live translation. The purpose of the show was to present Russia’s arguments to an international public.
Last week the Russian parliament submitted a resolution which asked the president of Russia to recognize the DNR and LNR. Earlier today the leaders of the DNR and LNR made a formal official request to recognize their republics.
The security council heard the opinions of the prime minister, foreign minister and defense minister. The leaders of parliament and of the security services also spoke.
A US official on Monday signaled that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s deployment of troops into the Donbas as “peacekeepers” might not trigger the “massive” sanctions the US has been threatening to hit Russia with if it “invades” Ukraine.
The US has long accused Russia of having troops deployed in the Donbas, which Moscow has denied. A senior administration official told reporters on Monday that Putin’s peacekeeping deployment would “not be a new step” and would only make the Russian presence in the region “more overt.”
In response to Putin’s recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, the Biden administration imposed minor sanctions that prohibit US citizens from doing business in the two republics.
In the second half of the 1970s, the task for those not busy flinching from the U.S. defeat in Vietnam was to understand why America failed in Indochina and the implications of this failure—how, notably, America should conduct itself among what then came to 170 sovereign nations. We got it wrong, the honest among us said. Now what do we do?
I have always counted those years an exceptional passage in the American story. Self-examination of that kind does not come often to our republic. The only other such interim I can recall, a much briefer break from our incessantly shrill triumphalism, followed the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington. Then, too, a few of us asked similar questions. Why? What had we done? What do we need to do differently?
Going to war and using expensive war machinery and missiles can be enticing and perversely exhilarating, but the lethality and devastation of war must not be downplayed as a game. The latest political maneuver by Russian president Vladimir Putin was a game-changing masterstroke to avoid the American war trap. At every step in the build-up of tensions surrounding Ukraine, Russia has foiled US enticements to attack. To understand it all, one needs to start further back in time.
9 February 1990 — US secretary-of-state James Baker promised USSR president Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would “not [move] one inch eastward” in exchange for allowing German unification.
1999 — Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland join NATO and move several inches nearer the dissolved USSR.
February 2014 — A US-backed coup in Ukraine results in a Nazi-friendly government coming to power.
March 2014 — Crimeans vote overwhelmingly in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and become part of Russia.
September 2014 — The Minsk I Agreement is signed by Ukraine, Russia, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) calling for an immediate ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, and prisoner exchanges.
February 2015 — The Minsk II Agreement calls again for a ceasefire, the withdrawal of weapons, ceasefire monitoring by the OSCE, and the holding of local elections in the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics on their future status in Ukraine. Differing interpretations have led to major disagreements over Minsk II.
2017 — Montenegro joins NATO.
2020 — North Macedonia joins NATO. It is apparent that there is an increasing eastward crawl, and Ukraine is also seeking membership.
18 November 2021 — Russia reiterates its red lines.
17 December 2021 — Russia presents its concerns about security in proposals to the US.
16 January 2022 — Putin identifies Ukraine’s membership in NATO as a red line in Russia-NATO relations that impinge upon Russian security. US secretary-of-state Antony Blinken dismissed Russian security concerns: “I can’t be more clear — NATO’s door is open, remains open, and that is our commitment.”
26 January 2022 — Russia received a written response from the US to its security proposals. Russia would not be pleased.
16 February 2022 — According to national-security adviser Jake Sullivan, based on credible US intelligence, this was the date that Russia would invade Ukraine. The date came and went without any invasion.
17 February 2022 — Russia responds to US and NATO proposals about Ukraine and European security.
There have been many provocations leading up to the Russian recognition of the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. Among them are NATO expansion, not taking Russian security concerns seriously, the arming of Ukraine, and demonizing Russia via the western monopoly media. The final nail was the shelling from Ukraine into Donbass causing the evacuation of its civilians into Russia.
It appears to be a foolhardy act by Ukraine. If Ukraine had adhered to the Minsk Agreements, Donetsk and Luhansk would still be a part of Ukraine, autonomous though they may be. Autonomy is not uncommon within countries. Guangxi, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Tibet, Xinjiang are autonomous provinces in China. Russia also has one autonomous region and 10 autonomous areas. Nonetheless, the lure of war and playing with fire has caused Ukraine to shrink a little bit more.
Russia, for its part, did not take the bait and invade Ukraine. It has instead sent peacekeepers into Donbass. It would seem highly unlikely that Ukraine would attack the powerful state-of-the-art Russian military.
So Joe Biden does not get his Russian invasion. Biden’s planners have been foiled again. Biden made the right call to withdraw the US forces from Afghanistan, but that withdrawal was badly botched, recalling memories of the tail-between-the-legs escape from rooftops in Viet Nam by US troops. Then to compound the fiasco of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, Biden had the shamelessness and heartlessness to steal the poor Afghan peoples’ monies. He follows in the footsteps of his predecessor Donald Trump who openly stole Syrian oil — a theft that continues under Biden.
Meanwhile, the situation in and around Ukraine and the breakaway republics will continue to evolve. It is hoped that saner heads will deescalate the tensions and avoid war.
(@KyleKulinski) 
(@DawnButlerBrent) 
LIVE updates: 
