OMNI
UKRAINE WAR #33
September 12, 2024
Compiled by Dick Bennett
for a Culture of Peace, Justice, and Ecology
CONTENTS
Peace
Talks
Abel Tomlinson. Two Messages on Peace
Conference.
Global South v. West
Ben Norton. Ukraine War Unpopular in US
Sachs. “Putin Offers Diplomacy.”
ACURA. Poll: “Putin Wants Ukraine
Ceasefire.”
“A Green Deal for Post-war Ukraine.”
Prashad. China’s 12-Point Peace Plan.
Kevin. China’s Peace Plan.
Quaker Peace Statement.
Fulbright’s Exchange and Bumper’s Peace Links.
Causes
of and Continuation of the War
Benjamin Abelow. How the West Brought
War to Ukraine.
Kit Klarenberg. “Civil War in Donbass 10 Years On.”
Russophobia
ACURA. William Drew.
“The Hoover Institution Declares War on Russia.”
Rubenstein. US Weapons to Azov
Battalion.
Associated Press. “New #225 Million…to
Ukraine.”
Dave DeCamp. “Speaker Johnson Thinks
Ukraine Should Use US Weapons on Russian Territory.”
The War: Military History, Strategies, Tactics,
Failures, Victories
Big Serge. “Russo-Ukraine War: Widening
the Front….”
Nikolai Petro. “Ukraine’s Draft Woes….”
Dick Bennett. Jacques Baud. (Book).
Operation Z. Analyzing
Propaganda.
TEXTS
[These items, dating from 2022, lack
the excitement of breaking news, but gain in perspective. The
categories arose from the articles and books themselves, but some of themfit
more than one category –D]
PEACE
“It has been a mainstay
of this book that successful antiwar movements are those that have been able
to make direct links with those in the flight path
of US aggression and to bring their struggles and concerns
directly into the US political arena. Indeed, direct
comprehension of their urgent struggles has often been a radicalizing factor in
antiwar campaigns.”” Richard Seymour, American Insurgents:
A Brief History of American Anti-Imperialism (2012). p.
193.
Out of the
ignorance and complacency engendered by the avoidance of reality comes hatred
and war.
The opening of a Jewish prayer from the Sabbath
service: “Disturb us, Adonai, ruffle us from our complacency; make us
dissatisfied. Dissatisfied with the peace of ignorance, the
quietude which arises from a shunning of the horror, the defeat, the bitterness
and the poverty, physical and spiritual, of humans. Shock us, Adonai,
deny to us the false Shabbat which gives us the delusions of satisfaction amid
a world of war and hatred.”
"To initiate a war of aggression,
therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international
crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within
itself the accumulated evil of the whole." -- Robert H. Jackson, Chief
U.S. Prosecutor, Nuremberg Military Tribunal
Hello all, With hopeful reason, It looks
like the Ukraine War may end soon, along with the
absolutely batshit insane threat of nuclear war. Finally the West & Zelensky are starting
to talk about serious peace negotiations. This means they are finally coming to
acceptance that the US-led NATO proxy war with Russia is a lost cause, even
mainstream media is increasingly reporting the incredibly bleak reality. The
US-led West will have killed hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians & Russians
for Nothing. The outcome will surely be less favorable than the Istanbul peace
negotiation that was formed at the beginning of the 2022 war escalation, but
sabotaged by the West, just like the other two preceding Minsk peace agreements
following the US-sponsored 2014 fascist Coup & subsequent civil war. Abel.
“German Chancellor says any future Ukraine peace conference must
include Russia.” https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/09/09/german-chancellor-says-any-future-ukraine-peace-conference-must-include-russia
“War in
Ukraine: Zelensky wants Russia to take part in a new peace summit.” https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/07/17/war-in-ukraine-zelensky-wants-russia-to-take-part-in-a-new-peace-summit_6687222_4.html
“Global South Countries Break With West On Ukraine Summit
Declaration” By People's Dispatch. Popular Resistance.org
(6-19-24). Key Global South countries
attending the Ukraine “peace” conference in Switzerland this past weekend
refused to sign the joint communique issued at the end of the two-day summit.
Many of them underlined the need for Russian participation in any such
initiatives for them to be credible. Countries such as Indonesia, Thailand,
Mexico, and BRICS members, India, South Africa, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, the
United Arab Emirates (UAE) did not agree to what was outlined in the communique
despite participating in the summit over the weekend. Russia, which was not
invited to join the summit, had already rejected the outcome ... -more-
“94% Of Americans Want To End Ukraine War,
But US Rejects Peace Deal” By Ben Norton, Geopolitical
Economy. Popular Resistance.org (6-9-24). Polling shows that the vast majority of people
in the United States and Western Europe want negotiations to end the war in
Ukraine. Despite this, NATO opposes a peace proposal made by China and Brazil,
and refuses to invite Russia to a so-called “peace conference” that the Western
powers are holding in Switzerland from June 15-16. The Institute for Global
Affairs of Eurasia Group, an avowedly pro-NATO and anti-Russia consulting firm that
has worked extensively with Western governments, published a study this June
titled “The New Atlanticism”. -more-
PUTIN OFFERS DIPLOMACY MAY 2024
“Russia’s Fifth Offer To Negotiate With US
On Ukraine”
By Jeffrey
Sachs, Consortium News. Popular Resistance.org (6-23-24).
For the fifth time since 2008, Russia has proposed to negotiate with the
U.S. over security arrangements, this time in proposals made by President
Vladimir Putin on June 14. Four previous times, the U.S. rejected the
offer of negotiations in favor of a neocon strategy to weaken or
dismember Russia through war and covert operations. The U.S. neocon tactics
have failed disastrously, devastating Ukraine in the process, and endangering
the whole world. After all the warmongering, it’s time for Biden to open
negotiations for peace with Russia. -more-
“Reuters Exclusive:
Putin wants Ukraine ceasefire on current frontlines.” ACURA.
May 24, 2024 10:57 am.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to halt the war in Ukraine with a
negotiated ceasefire that recognises the current battlefield lines, four
Russian sources told Reuters, saying he is prepared to fight on if Kyiv and the
West do not respond.
Read in browser »
“A Green Deal for post-war Ukraine.”
Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists https://thebulletin.org › Climate Change
Nov 1, 2022 — A Green Deal for post-war Ukraine · Planning for recovery in the midst of
war. A group of more than 50 nongovernmental
organizations are advocating for a post-war reconstruction plan for Ukraine
that prioritizes development of the green economy and integration of
environmental and climate.
“Birth Again the Dream of Global Peace and Mutual Respect.”
Vijay Prashad.
Mronline.org (3-18-23).
On 24 February 2023, the
Chinese Foreign Ministry released a twelve-point plan entitled ‘China’s
Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis’.
Tony Kevin.
“China’s
peace plan for Ukraine.”
Editor. Mronline.org
(3-14-23).
It will be attractive to
the Global South, writes Tony Kevin. It will cause consternation in the Western
war party camp. For the full article go
to https://mronline.org/2023/03/13/chinas-peace-plan-for-ukraine/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=chinas-peace-plan-for-ukraine&mc_cid=f91a5581c0&mc_eid=ab2f7bf95e
. . .China
has recently launched an activist peace diplomacy, setting out its “Position
on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis.” This impressive general document, based
on the U.N. Charter and the Five Principles, indicates China’s support for an
immediate ceasefire without preconditions; no more Western arms supplies; and
offering massive reconstruction aid to a post-settlement new government in
Ukraine.
It will be attractive
to the Global South. It will cause consternation in the Western war party camp.
Russia has welcomed it. We will see the Chinese peace
plan talked about in coming weeks. It may offer the breakthrough for peace for
which many Ukrainians pray.
Tony Kevin is a former Australian senior diplomat,
having served as ambassador to Cambodia and Poland, as well as being posted to
Australia’s embassy in Moscow. He is the author of six published books on
public policy and international relations.
China’s proposal on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis.
1. Respecting the sovereignty of all
countries. Universally
recognized international law, including the purposes and principles of the
United Nations Charter, must be strictly observed. The sovereignty,
independence and territorial integrity of all countries must be effectively
upheld. All countries, big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are equal
members of the international community. All parties should jointly uphold the
basic norms governing international relations and defend international fairness
and justice. Equal and uniform application of international law should be
promoted, while double standards must be rejected.
2. Abandoning the Cold War mentality. The security of a country should not be
pursued at the expense of others. The security of a region should not be
achieved by strengthening or expanding military blocs. The legitimate security
interests and concerns of all countries must be taken seriously and addressed
properly. There is no simple solution to a complex issue. All parties should,
following the vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable
security and bearing in mind the long-term peace and stability of the world,
help forge a balanced, effective and sustainable European security
architecture. All parties should oppose the pursuit of one’s own security at
the cost of others’ security, prevent bloc confrontation, and work together for
peace and stability on the Eurasian Continent.
3. Ceasing hostilities. Conflict and war benefit no one. All
parties must stay rational and exercise restraint, avoid fanning the flames and
aggravating tensions, and prevent the crisis from deteriorating further or even
spiraling out of control. All parties should support Russia and Ukraine in
working in the same direction and resuming direct dialogue as quickly as
possible, so as to gradually deescalate the situation and ultimately reach a
comprehensive ceasefire.
4. Resuming peace talks. Dialogue and negotiation are the only
viable solution to the Ukraine crisis. All efforts conducive to the peaceful
settlement of the crisis must be encouraged and supported. The international
community should stay committed to the right approach of promoting talks for
peace, help parties to the conflict open the door to a political settlement as
soon as possible, and create conditions and platforms for the resumption of
negotiation. China will continue to play a constructive role in this regard.
5. Resolving the humanitarian crisis. All measures conducive to easing the
humanitarian crisis must be encouraged and supported. Humanitarian operations
should follow the principles of neutrality and impartiality, and humanitarian
issues should not be politicized. The safety of civilians must be effectively
protected, and humanitarian corridors should be set up for the evacuation of
civilians from conflict zones. Efforts are needed to increase humanitarian
assistance to relevant areas, improve humanitarian conditions, and provide
rapid, safe and unimpeded humanitarian access, with a view to preventing a
humanitarian crisis on a larger scale. The UN should be supported in playing a
coordinating role in channeling humanitarian aid to conflict zones.
6. Protecting civilians and prisoners of war
(POWs). Parties to the
conflict should strictly abide by international humanitarian law, avoid
attacking civilians or civilian facilities, protect women, children and other
victims of the conflict, and respect the basic rights of POWs. China supports
the exchange of POWs between Russia and Ukraine, and calls on all parties to
create more favorable conditions for this purpose.
7. Keeping nuclear power plants safe. China opposes armed attacks against
nuclear power plants or other peaceful nuclear facilities, and calls on all
parties to comply with international law including the Convention on Nuclear
Safety (CNS) and resolutely avoid man-made nuclear accidents. China supports
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in playing a constructive role in
promoting the safety and security of peaceful nuclear facilities.
8. Reducing strategic risks. Nuclear weapons must not be used and
nuclear wars must not be fought. The threat or use of nuclear weapons should be
opposed. Nuclear proliferation must be prevented and nuclear crisis avoided.
China opposes the research, development and use of chemical and biological
weapons by any country under any circumstances.
9. Facilitating grain exports. All parties need to implement the Black
Sea Grain Initiative signed by Russia, Türkiye, Ukraine and the UN fully and
effectively in a balanced manner, and support the UN in playing an important
role in this regard. The cooperation initiative on global food security
proposed by China provides a feasible solution to the global food crisis.
10. Stopping unilateral sanctions. Unilateral sanctions and maximum
pressure cannot solve the issue; they only create new problems. China opposes
unilateral sanctions unauthorized by the UN Security Council. Relevant
countries should stop abusing unilateral sanctions and “long-arm jurisdiction”
against other countries, so as to do their share in deescalating the Ukraine
crisis and create conditions for developing countries to grow their economies
and better the lives of their people.
11. Keeping industrial and supply chains
stable. All parties
should earnestly maintain the existing world economic system and oppose using
the world economy as a tool or weapon for political purposes. Joint efforts are
needed to mitigate the spillovers of the crisis and prevent it from disrupting
international cooperation in energy, finance, food trade and transportation and
undermining the global economic recovery.
12. Promoting post-conflict reconstruction. The international community needs to
take measures to support post-conflict reconstruction in conflict zones. China
stands ready to provide assistance and play a constructive role in this
endeavor.
Quaker “Statement on the
Peace Testimony and Ukraine.” Nov 2, 2022.
Quakers are
a people who follow after peace, love and unity. Our peace testimony is our
witness to the Truth as we experience it.
Our testimony manifests
as a cumulative set of actions, continually tested and added to over centuries.
These actions are diverse in form, but have been broadly united by:
1.
Refusal to kill,
2.
Relief of suffering,
3.
Building the
institutions of peace, and
4.
Supporting peacebuilding
and removing the causes of war.
At the onset of the full
scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the Friends World Committee for
Consultation issued a Christian Call for Peace, affirming that invasion and
occupation are the opposite of Christ’s universal call to reconciliation and
unity, and echoing church statements in many countries, including Ukraine,
calling for an immediate ceasefire replaced by a peacemaking dialogue. This
call would echo the Golden Rule (treat others as you would want to be treated),
which is a foundational value of all major world religions, has the potential
to eliminate violence, and helps us to recognize one another.
Almost by definition,
peacemaking often involves engaging with people making war and understanding
the reasons they do so. Nevertheless, our vocation as a peace church is to seek
and make real the peaceful alternatives to armed conflict, which with God’s
help, are possible, and to ensure that the long-lasting human costs of war are
not forgotten or neglected.
We continue to uphold
the right to refuse to kill. We stand with conscientious objectors on all sides
of this conflict, with the people in Russia who stand up against their leaders’
belligerent actions, and the people in Ukraine employing creative forms of
nonviolent civil resistance.
We continue to help
relieve suffering and hold that all nations must radically improve their
approach to welcoming refugees, to fully honor the United Nations’ Refugee
Convention and ensure that all displaced people—no matter their origin—have
access to civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. We will
continue to press for this.
We continue to seek to
build the institutions of peace. Justice with peace requires binding frameworks
of international law and restorative justice, as well as global investment in
violence prevention at the community level. We know that all of these have been
insufficient to prevent the injustice in Ukraine, and must be strengthened to
win peace.
And we continue to
support peacebuilding measures. We call on the governments of Ukraine, Russia,
neighboring countries, the United States, NATO, and the European Union, to
explore all avenues—whether public or private—for a renewed conversation to
address the human security needs of all the peoples and countries in the
region, to help provide the basis for long term peace.
Whichever way this war
ends, we are realistic that healing and sustainable peacemaking will in all
likelihood take more than a generation, and will only be possible through
inclusive and sustainable processes from the international to the local. That
process must begin now.
We are ready to play our
part.
Signed by, Timothy Gee
General Secretary, Friends World Committee
for Consultation, et
al.
ARKANSAS LEADERS ONCE LED
THE NATION IN US/RUSSIA FRIENDSHIP. Had
we followed their example, no Ukraine War 2022 would have occurred. J. William Fulbright during the height of the
Cold War attempted to extend his Exchange Program to the Soviet Union,
but his plan to acquire a part of WWII Lend Lease money the Russians were
repaying was scuttled by US Sovietphobes. See The Price of
Empire. Another Arkansas native, Betty Bumpers, wife
of then Senator Bumpers, created the women’s organization, Peace Links,
to exchange women from the US and Russia and other
countries. Both programs are
urgently needed.
[Several
of the articles in the categories that follow could be placed with Peace, such
as items critical of Western Russophobia: If that pathology were eliminated, hope
for peace would be significantly increased.]
CAUSES
AND CONTINUATION OF THE WAR
US Chiefly
Caused the Ukraine War by Repeated Provocations
Benjamin Abelow. (Book). How
the West Brought [Provoked] War to
Ukraine: Understanding How U.S. and NATO Policies Led to Crisis, War, and the
Risk of Nuclear Catastrophe.”
2022.
“…primary responsibility lies with the West, in particular with the United
States. . . .Had the United States not pushed NATO to the border of Russia; not
deployed nuclear-capable missile launch systems in Romania …not contributed to
the overthrow of the democratically elected Ukrainian government in 2014; not
abrogated the ABM treaty, and then the intermediate range nuclear missile treaty,
and then disregarded Russian attempts to negotiate a bilateral moratorium on
deployments; not conducted live-fire exercises with rockets in Estonia to practice
striking targets inside Russia. . .the war in Ukraine probably would not have
taken place” (56-57).
Kit Klarenberg. “Civil War in Donbass 10 Years On.” mronline.org
(7-25-24).
Originally published: Global Delinguents on July 8, 2024 (more
by Global
Delinguents). Culture, Ideology, Inequality, WarEurope, UkraineNewswirecivil war, Donbass, Ukraine
President Volodymyr Zelensky
July 1st marked
the 10th
anniversary of
a brutal resumption of hostilities in the Donbass civil war. Perhaps
unsurprisingly, it passed without comment in the Western media. On June 20th
2014, far-right Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko called
a ceasefire in
Kiev’s “anti-terrorist operation”. Launched two months prior following vast
protests, and violent clashes between Russian-speaking anti-Maidan activists
and authorities throughout eastern Ukraine, the intended lightning strike
routing of internal opposition to the Maidan government quickly became an
unwinnable quagmire.
Ukrainian forces were
consistently beaten
back by
well-organised and determined rebel forces, hailing from the breakaway
“People’s Republics” in Donetsk and Lugansk. Resultantly, Poroshenko outlined a
peace plan intended to compel the separatists to put down their arms, during
the ceasefire. They refused, prompting the President to order an even
more savage
crackdown. This too was a counterproductive
failure, with the rebels
inflicting a series of embarrassing defeats on Western-sponsored government
forces. Kiev was ultimately
forced to accept the
terms of the first Minsk Accords.
This agreement, like
its successor, did not provide for secession or
independence for the breakaway republics, but their full autonomy within
Ukraine. Russia was named as a mediator, not party, in the conflict. Kiev was
to resolve its dispute with rebel leaders directly. Successive Ukrainian
governments consistently refused to do so, however. Instead, officials endlessly
stonewalled,
while pressuring Moscow to formally designate itself a party to the civil war.
. . . MORE
RUSSOPHOBIA
“ACURA ViewPoint: William M. Drew: The Hoover
Institution Declares War on Russia.” Jun 19, 2024 03:27 am.
In sharp contrast to the original Cold War of 1946-1989 which generally
differentiated between Russia as a nation and its then-Communist government,
the renewed hostilities between Russia and the West over the Ukraine conflict
have seen an ominous wave of Russophobic propaganda targeting the
history and culture of Russia. The West’s ideological crusade has repeatedly
[…]
Read in browser »
“US Lifts Ban On Weapons To Ukraine’s Nazi
Azov Battalion”
By Alex Rubinstein, Scheer Post. Popular
Resistance.org (6-19-24). Well, it’s
official. The United States has lifted its ban on the transfer of American
weapons to neo-Nazi Azov Battalion in Ukraine. Today, Azov is led by Denis
Prokopenko, a recipient of the ‘Hero of Ukraine’ award from interim
Ukrainian President Vlodomyr Zelensky, a figure he once refused to salute.
Prior to becoming its commander, Prokopenko was featured on the front cover of
Azov’s magazine, called “Black Sun” – named after the Nazi sonnenrad symbol.
Prokopenko is a longtime member of Azov, but before he joined the group, he was
a member of the Ukrainian soccer ultra gang. -more-
“US
to send new $225M aid package to Ukraine.“ Arkansas
Democrat-Gazette (Jun 07, 2024). COMPILED BY DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE STAFF FROM WIRE
REPORTS, Information for
this article was contributed by Lolita C. Baldor, Matthew Lee and staff
writers of The Associated Press. Read
more...
PRO-WAR CONGRESS
Dave DeCamp: Speaker Johnson Thinks Ukraine
Should Use US Weapons on Russian Territory. US Committee for US/Russia Accord. May 27, 2024.
A bipartisan group of House members asked Biden to lift any
restrictions on Ukraine’s use of US-provided weapons. Read in browser »
THE
WAR, Military History, Strategies, Tactics, Failures, Victories
Big Serge from Big Serge Thought <bigserge@substack.com> 5-25-24. [This long, encompassing, and well-supported article
seems authoritative. I have presented a
bit of the opening and the closing to enable you to choose whether you wish to
read the whole or not. I found it
engrossing as a war story told by someone who knows about the facts on the
ground and the history. –D]
BIG SERGE. “Russo-Ukrainian War: Widening the Front. The Fifth Battle of Kharkov.”
May 25, 2024.
There are certain regions of the world that
seemed destined by the cruel caprice of geography and chance to be perennial
battlegrounds. Often these ravaged lands lay at the crossroads of imperial
interests, as in the case of Afghanistan or Poland, which have been so
frequently trampled by armies going this way or that, or else they are simply
plagued by perennially unstable governance or roiling ethnic conflict.
Sometimes, however, it is the peculiar logic of military operations that brings
violence to the same place, again and again. One such notorious sufferer is the
great industrial city of Kharkov, in northeastern Ukraine.
Originally founded as a modest fortress in the
17th Century, Kharkov was fated to play an unusual role in the Second World
War. The city became a sort of symbol of frustration for the warring Soviet and
German armies: it was the place that both armies wanted to get to, but could
not quite seem to take and hold. In 1941 the city was captured in the waning
phases of Germany’s colossal invasion of the USSR, and fell under occupation through the winter. In 1942, the
city’s environs became the scene of an enormous battle when the Germans planned to launch an
offensive out of Kharkov at exactly the same time that the Red
Army planned an offensive towards it. The following year, the
city was briefly recaptured by the Red Army as it pursued retreating German armies
away from Stalingrad, before once again changing hands after a timely German counterattack. Finally, at the end of August 1943, the
Soviets retook the city for good as they began their inexorable drive towards
Berlin.
No major city changed hands as many times in
World War Two as did Kharkov, which became the scene of no less than four
substantial battles. The cruelty of fate had turned Kharkov into a sort of
mutual culmination point - the spot on the map beyond which both armies
repeatedly found it difficult to advance.
History does not repeat, as they say, but it
does rhyme. Kharkov’s strategic position, as the great urban center blocking
the inner bend of the northern Donets River, has not changed much in the eighty
years since the Soviets and the Germans last fought in the forests here, and
Kharkov Oblast is once more becoming the rope in a deadly game of tug of war.
The area was briefly overrun by the Russian army in the opening weeks of the
Special Military Operation, with the Russians establishing a screening line to
cover their capture of the Lugansk shoulder. Later that year, Kharkov became
the scene of Ukraine’s seminal military achievement of the war, when they
overran the thin Russian defenses and launched a pursuit all the way to the
Oskil River. And now, the Russians are back, launching a fresh attack into
Kharkov Oblast on May 10 [2024]. The sound of artillery is once again heard in
the city.
The Northern Front
I understand the impulse to draw “big arrows”,
as the parlance goes. Many people are becoming frustrated with the pace of the
war and the positional nature of the combat, and so Russia opening a new front
looks like a chance to unlock the frontline and restore mobile operations. I
think this is misguided for several reasons, and more generally the idea that
the Russians are making some sort of serious play for Kharkov is very
wrongheaded. In fact, the opposite is true - it’s likely that we will see the Russians
attempt to avoid fighting in Kharkov’s shadow. On the other end of the spectrum
are those labeling the new offensive a “feint”, which is wrong both as a
misunderstanding of the military nomenclature and of the Russian intentions.
First off, let’s clarify something about the
word “feint”, and see how it does not at all apply to Russia’s Kharkov
operation. A feint refers to a deceptive or distracting maneuver designed to
disrupt the enemy’s decision making or pull his forces out of position. That is
not what is happening here, for two reasons. First, the Kharkov operation is a
real attack involving meaningful Russian forces. Russia currently has two Army
Corps in this area of operations - the 11th and 44th, along with elements of the
6th Combined Arms Army and the 1st Guards Tank Army. This is a grouping with
serious punch - the Ukrainians are of course forced to divert forces in
response, but they are doing this not because they have been deceived but
because the Russians are presenting a serious threat that warrants response.
Secondly (as we will see shortly), this is an operation that has the potential
to be supportive of Russia’s operations on the Oskil front (around Kupyansk).
In other words, it’s not a deception or a
feint, but a real front that forces Ukraine to reallocate assets. By extending
the front, they are drawing in Ukrainian reserves and fixing them in place -
more on that later. But the new front is far more than just a distraction.
It may be useful to look a stripped down map
of the area to get a handle on things. There are of course a variety of great
mappers out there, like Kalibrated and Suryiak who do excellent work geolocating the war and marking
front lines, but one drawback that they all share is that they use Google Maps
for their base, which can make things look rather cluttered. In this case, a
more minimalist view can help us see what is going on.
Right now, Russian operations are directed on
two towns close to the border - Volchansk and Lypsti. Let’s consider what this
means.
The first thing that we have to note is that
Volchansk is on the east bank of the Donets River, meaning it is on the
Kupyansk side and not the Kharkov side. The initial Russian thrust managed to
cut Volchansk off from the west bank of the river, which means the main route
for AFU forces to access the town would be the arterial road running north and
crossing the river at Staryi Saltiv. However, on May 11 the Russians managed
to destroy the bridge in Staryi Saltiv. There were only two bridges over the Donets
within 30 miles of Volchansk; one is now physically blocked by the Russians
after they captured the village of Staritsa, and the other is destroyed. Russia has also
struck several ancillary bridges on the Volchya river, preventing the
Ukrainians from efficiently moving reserves to the flanks of Volchansk.. .
. MORE click on the title
[Readers, ready to read more? --D]
. . .The problem for Ukraine is that
they tend to maniacally focus on token “big ticket” items that do not
ameliorate their broader strategic crisis. License to hurl ATACMs at targets
inside Russia is not a panacea for Ukraine’s bigger problem. Ukraine has
already showed the ability to hit Russian strategic assets - sniping naval
installations, radar, and air defense batteries. Ukraine’s successful strikes
on such assets have continually trickled in as the west has propped up their
strike capability with Storm Shadows, ATACMs, and more. And yet, Ukraine
continues to give ground in the Donbas amid an increasingly dire shortage of basic war making necessities like infantry.
The trajectory of the war suggests that the NATO
bloc will do everything in its power to prop up Ukraine’s strike
capabilities, and that Ukraine will continue to hunt for high profile strategic
assets, even as it continues to be ground down in the critical theater, which
is the Donbas. When the AFU is finally ejected from their last toeholds
along the line -- losing Kramatorsk and Slovyansk, being squeezed out of
southern Donetsk Oblast, and forced back on the west bank of the Oskil-- the
temptation in Kiev will be to blame the west-- that they gave too little, too
slowly, too late. This is one lie that they must not be allowed to get away
with. The NATO Bloc has, virtually without exception, given Ukraine
everything they’ve asked for. It just didn’t matter.
Nicolai N. Petro. “Ukraine’s draft woes
leave the West facing pressure to make up for the troop shortfall.”
US Committee
for US/Russia Accord. Jun 19, 2024.Ukraine’s current military recruitment campaign is not going
according to plan. Announced on April 16, 2024, the drive was aimed at
enlisting hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainian men to help push back
against a Russian invasion that has gained momentum in recent months.
ANALYZINGPROPAGANDA.
Dick Bennett on Jacques Baud. Operation
Z. Max Milo, 2022.
[Baud’s books gives, as CN says about the Palestinian conflict, “a completely different way from what Western
governments and media are telling us” about the Ukraine War. I’ll
start with section #5 of the book, entitled “Operation Z.” But let me first quote Baud’s “Methodology”
(p. 17).
“In order to counterbalance the radical, simplistic, and
under-informed discourse that hinders understanding of the conflict and favours
the recitation of an anti-Russian vulgate to the detriment of informational
objectivity, my approach is different from the media that respect neither the
Munich Charter nor the most elementary journalistic deontology—among which are
Swiss RadioTelevision, France 5 or LCI.
It is also different from those who fight the propaganda of one party by
using the propaganda of the other (and often of the extreme right), such as
heidi.news. My aim is to combat the
propaganda of each party by examining its own information and therefore its own
contradictions. There, I will use
exclusively Western and Ukrainian sources (governmental side), as well as those
from the Russian [speaking] opposition. . . .most of my sources [are from] the
Anglo-Saxon mainstream media, which are often more honest than their
French-speaking counterparts, even if they remain fiercely opposed to
Russia.”
Sounds like a good plan, but let’s check it out, as he invites
readers to do, for although he offers no Index he organizes the entire book
logically, the way manuals sometime appear, with all of the ten sections of his
argument numbered: 1. Fundamentals and
perceptions. 1.1 The emotional and
cultural level, etc. 5. Operation
Z. 5.1 The issues. 5.1.1. Ukrainian issues. 5.1.2. Russian issues. 5. 2. Planning, etc. Baud offers a transparent diagram of the
rational order of his book to enable us better to follow and to test his
argument and claims. For example:
5.1Theissues.5.1.1.Ukrainianissues.
Ukraine’s “main stake is accession to NATO.” (p. 181). It cannot gain that status if civil war
continues. Because nationalist Uk
leaders in Kiev want a unified Uk, they must defeat the Russian speaking
Donbass (Uhansk/Donetsk), but to do that they must defeat Russia. How does Baud know this? He quotes “Oleksei Arestovich, advisor and
spokesman for President Zelensky…in an interview with Ukrainian channel
Apostrof TV on 18 March 2019.” And a
whole page quoting Apostrof (“With a 99.9% probability, our price for joining
NATO is a big war with Russia. . . .”).
Of course, you have to have read pp. 1-180 to understand the conflict
between western Ukraine and the eastern “Russian speaking Donbass,” but he follows the same transparent procedure
of stating what he will argue, making the argument, and documenting every
claim. We can check him out; i.e., we
can search out his contradictions easily. Do we still receive the truth? My approach is relative: how clearly,
substantially, evidentially do the Biden and Zelensky administrations make
their case? And how many contradictions
do we find there, compared to Baud?
Note on Munich Charter, which I had to
look up: “ The Munich Declaration of the Duties and Rights of Journalists, signed in 1971, affirmed telling the truth no
matter what consequences it might bring about to journalists, because the right
of the public is to know the truth.”
[A long interview but covering many essential topics straightforwardly and clearly. I couldn’t find an especially appropriate place to shorten so informative was each section.] “The Chris Hedges Report Show with Medea Benjamin on her book War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict."
Nov. 6, 2022.
TRANSCRIPT
Chris Hedges: No one, including the most bullish supporters
of Ukraine, expect the nation’s war with Russia to end soon. The fighting has
been reduced to artillery duels across hundreds of miles of front lines and
creeping advances and retreats. Ukraine, like Afghanistan, will bleed for a
very long time, and this is by design. The militarists who have waged permanent
war costing trillions of dollars over the past two decades have invested
heavily in controlling the public narrative. The enemy, whether Saddam Hussein
or Vladimir Putin, is always the epitome of evil, the new Hitler. Those we
support are always heroic defenders of liberty and democracy. Anyone who
questions the righteousness of the cause is accused of being an agent of a
foreign power and a traitor.
The mass media cravenly disseminates these
binary absurdities in 24-hour news cycles. Its news, celebrities, and experts,
universally drawn from the intelligence community and the military, rarely
deviate from the approved script. Day and night, the drums of war never stop
beating. Its goal: to keep billions of dollars flowing into the hands of the
war industry and prevent the public from asking inconvenient questions.
Medea Benjamin, who, along with Nicolas
Davies, authored War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict,
placed the war in Ukraine in its proper historical and cultural context,
warning that protracted war in Ukraine threatens open warfare between the
United States and Russia, a nuclear Armageddon. Joining me to discuss her book
is Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink, and author of Drone Warfare, Kingdom
of the Unjust: Behind the US Saudi Connection, and Inside Iran.
So in the book, Medea, you begin first by
setting Ukraine in historical context, and in particular the Russian speaking
regions. Just lay out for us, because I think there is this perception that
Ukraine or Russia’s interest or claims over Ukraine are somehow new.
Medea Benjamin: I think people don’t understand how close
Ukraine and Russia have been for centuries, how many Russian speakers there are
in Ukraine, how the connection between Ukraine and Russia has gone back and
forth for a long time, but Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. And places
like Crimea, people in Russia have told me that the Americans might think of
the state of Alaska, that’s how people in Russia see Ukraine, as a part of
their country for a long time. And it’s really recently that there has been
this discrimination against Russian speakers, against Russian publications,
against using Russian language in the schools. And of course, that is part of
the conflict that we have seen raging in the last decade.
Chris Hedges: Well, with this caveat that Crimea was part of
Russia a century before we got Alaska, wasn’t it?
Medea Benjamin: That’s right. And I think just the idea that
anyone would say that Crimea’s not part of Russia, for the people in Ukraine
now calling for all of Crimea to be taken back, and the way the US media is
portraying it as part of this fight right now is to get Crimea back into
Russia. I think people should think of how it would feel if a hostile power in
Canada, for example, decided that Alaska would no longer be part of the United
States.
Chris Hedges: Let’s talk a little bit about the antecedents
to the conflict. I was in Eastern Europe in 1989. I covered the revolutions in
East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Romania. I was there when promises were made
to Gorbachev– Who, by the way, wanted to build a security and economic
alliance with Europe and the United States. But promises were made not to
expand NATO beyond the border of a unified Germany. This is a historical fact.
It’s one I reported. And yet, to even bring this up is an anathema among the
media. So before we talk about what happened in 2014, let’s talk a little bit
about what happened between 1989 and 2014.
Medea Benjamin: Well, in terms of the NATO expansion, as you
said, people today are trying to act like that promise was never made because
it wasn’t written down in some kind of treaty. But we do have evidence from all
kinds of US politicians, academics, diplomats, saying that this was just common
knowledge, that it was part of the deal brokered between secretary of State
James Baker and Gorbachev, and how this was part of the agreement around the
reunification of Germany. It’s also important to note that the Warsaw Pact was
dissolved after the downfall of the Soviet Union. And it was at that time that
many thought that would be the end of NATO, that NATO had done its job
protecting the West from the Soviet Union.
And yet, these promises were violated by
Democratic presidents like Clinton, Republican presidents like George Bush. In
fact, it was at that 2008 meeting of NATO in Budapest where George Bush twisted
the arms of other leaders in NATO to say that we would promise membership to
Georgia and to Ukraine, against the best interests of the region and against
many of the other NATO members that knew that would be tremendously
problematic, which is why they agreed to make the announcement but not to set a
date. And then as progressive from there, the continuous US expansions that not
only went Eastward but went right to Russia’s border are somehow disregarded
today.
But it is important to try to imagine what it
would be like in the United States if a hostile force, let’s say in Mexico or
in Canada, were building bases right on our borders, and the NATO expansion was
also accompanied by the redesign of NATO not to be a defensive alliance but to
be an offensive one. We saw that in Yugoslavia, and then we saw it far from the
North Atlantic countries when NATO got involved in the invasion of Afghanistan,
in the invasion of Libya, and not in the beginning, but later on in the US
occupation of Iraq as well. So Russia was seeing not only the movement of NATO
towards its borders, but it also saw the increasingly aggressive nature of NATO
itself.
Chris Hedges: And despite this, Putin, in the beginning,
cooperated within the so-called war on terror. Of course, they had problems
with Islamic extremism after the wars in Chechnya. Russia provided resupply
routes for US troops in Afghanistan. There was a real effort on the part of the
Russian government to reach out.
Medea Benjamin: Well, yes. And that has been the case even in
more recent times when Russia worked with the United States, for example, to
get an agreement on the Iran nuclear deal; when Russia worked with the United
States around Syria to try to solve this crisis around Syrian biological
weapons. I think there are many examples that we can point to today of Russia
working with the United States, which is one of the reasons why it’s so
ridiculous to hear this common phrase that you can’t negotiate with Putin, you
can’t negotiate with Russia. The US has been doing it for quite a long time.
Chris Hedges: What do you think is driving the hostility
towards, or what drove it? I’m not defending, of course, the war in Ukraine, as
you don’t either. A preemptive war is a war crime. But what drove that
hostility? Andrew Bacevich argues that it was just the hubris of a broken
Soviet empire and a weakened Russia. I’ve got to believe that the billions in
profit that were made, are being made by the war industry, by refitting Warsaw
Pact countries with NATO equipment was also a factor. But what do you believe
drove this hostility?
Medea Benjamin: I think there are many factors behind it, and
you named some of it. We also have, within the Democratic Party, the last years
of the demonization of Russia around Russia-gate, instead of admitting that
Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate, blaming the Russians on the victory of
Donald Trump. We know that we have two war parties. I think the Republicans are
more focused on China as the adversary and the Democrats more focused on
Russia. But in any case, we have this growing militarization that has taken
over NATO, but a militarization of Ukraine by the US. And even under Obama, we
see that right after the Minsk Agreement was signed and there was supposed to
be some peaceful solution to the conflict in the Donbas, you see him sending
weapons to Ukraine, supposedly defensive weapons.
And now of course, all of that charade of
defensive versus offensive have been lifted, but it has been both Democrats and
Republicans who have really pushed for increased hostility towards Russia,
increased militarization of Europe. And this is also a way to get Europe
totally behind the United States, whereas I think with the Europeans, like the
Germans and many other European countries becoming so dependent on Russia for
their energy supplies, the US was trying to find a way to sever the ties
between Western Europe and Russia, and make sure that Western Europe was
solidly behind the United States. And this terrible invasion by Putin has given
them exactly what the US wanted.
Chris Hedges: Let’s talk about the Minsk Agreement. This was
an agreement that Ukraine never honored. Explain what it was and what it was
meant to do.
Medea Benjamin: When the Maidan protests began and they were
overtaken by violent protests and a government that was corrupt, but an elected
government was overthrown, there was the protest that happened in the Donbas,
and the civil war broke out between the supporters of Russia inside the Donbas
and the opponents, many of them hard right elements that had neo-Nazi origins
like the Azov Brigade. And the European security organization sent in monitors
after an agreement was reached that there would be greater autonomy given to
Donbas, that there would be elections there, that there would be talks between
the leaders of the breakaway republics and the heads of state in Ukraine. That
political part never happened.
What happened was that the monitors did indeed
come in, and many of the explosions of the conflict, of the killing that
happened in the first year, was calmed down by the presence of these monitors.
But the political agreement was never implemented. There was never an election
that was held. There were never the talks with the leaders of the breakaway
republics. And every time one of the leaders in Ukraine tried to go ahead and
implement the process, they were threatened by the extreme right. And this is
true when Zelenskyy came in, having come to power on a popular agenda of
creating peace in the Ukraine, of implementing these Minsk accords. Then he was
threatened, his life was threatened by the extreme right, saying that they
would hang him from a tree if indeed he went ahead with this. So the political
elements of the Minsk II were never implemented, but they actually did form the
basis of what could have been and still could be a solution to the conflict in
the Donbas.
Chris Hedges: We should be clear, when Zelenskyy ran, he
made quite a fact of the fact, or he brought up the fact that he was a Russian
speaker, which was seen as an asset.
Let’s go back to 2014, Victoria Nuland. I
think the US put $5 million. Explain what happened. Many Russian speakers in
Ukraine argue this was a coup, and I think there’s much validity to that, but
explain. And also the intrusion of the United States into the domestic politics
of Ukraine, something that Soviet experts like George Kennan, even Burns,
argued was dangerous. . . . MORE
World
at War and Anti-War
“Worse than Ukraine..but doesn't get Western
media's attention.” Forwarded by Sonny
San Juan.
“Ethiopia crisis worse
than Ukraine .” - EU official . Will Ross, Africa editor, BBC World
Service AFP, Nov. 4, 2022.
More than four million Ethiopians are now
refugees in their own country.
Achieving a permanent ceasefire in
Ethiopia won't be easy after a brutal two-year war in which more than 100,000
people are believed to have been killed, warns the EU's foreign policy chief,
Josep Borrell.
At a G7 meeting in Germany, Mr Borrell
said attention was focused on Ukraine but the humanitarian crisis was worse in
Ethiopia.
The Ethiopian government and Tigrayan
officials signed a cessation of hostilities deal on Wednesday after coming
under international pressure.
However the Tigrayan authorities have
accused government forces of carrying out attacks against civilians in the city
of Maychew since then.
By Alex de Waal, Africa
analyst
Foreign powers have hailed the truce signed by the Ethiopian
government and Tigrayan leaders to end the brutal war in the north of the
country and open up the flow of aid to those at risk of famine, but questions
remain over whether it will succeed. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-63503615
“War is always an atrocity: Let's consider
U.S. bombing.” Art Hobson, ahobson@uark.edu. NWADG, 1 November 2022.
When existential threats cause nations to take up arms, all available means are
employed to achieve victory. Propaganda and hypocrisy are part of the
arsenal. Thus, U.S. reporting on the Ukraine War inevitably reeks of
hypocrisy.
The "available means" have always included burning the enemy's towns,
raping its women, and pillaging its homes. Such atrocities against
civilians can devastate the enemy's morale, destroy its ability to fight, and
satisfy the victor's righteous anger.
As humankind "advanced" from arrows and swords to rifles and cannons,
civilian suffering became more widespread. For example, America's Civil
War killed an estimated 750,000, of whom 50,000 were civilians.
The invention of dynamite and airplanes around 1900 made warfare far more
deadly. WW1 killed about 20 million, including 10 million
civilians. WW2 killed 70-85 million, 3 percent of all humans on the
planet, including 50-55 million civilians.
It's a plus that civilian wartime deaths are today largely viewed as
atrocities. But paradoxically, this very concern results in the use of
civilian deaths as evidence of the cruelty of one's adversary, heightening the
bitterness and anger on all sides. In fact, it is war itself--the
purposeful and organized slaughter of large numbers of our own species--that is
the ultimate atrocity. Rather than banishing any particular nation, war
must be banished if we are to survive.
America, whose military budget equals that of the next 9 countries combined, is
by far the most militarily powerful nation the world has ever seen. If
humankind is ever to understand the atrocious nature of all wars, it is
imperative that we Americans understand the consequences of our own
actions. Here is part of the record.
During WW2 in the Pacific Theater, American air raids attacked 67 Japanese
cities, burning down 25 to 75 percent of each. Tokyo was 51 percent
destroyed, including 16 square miles in the city's center where many died in
the ensuing firestorm. Japanese cities, where civilian houses were made
of wood and paper, were especially vulnerable to U.S. incendiary bombs.
Repeated attacks focused on the large cities of Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and
Kobe. And of course U.S. nuclear bombs destroyed the cities of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, raising firestorms and killing about 200,000, largely
civilians. All of these bombings were clearly designed to terrorize
civilians and force Japan's surrender. They were quite successful in this
task.
There was a similar story in the European Theater. Allied (mostly U.S.
and U.K.) bombing killed between 400,000 and 600,000 German civilians, while
7.5 million German civilians were rendered homeless. Air raids against
Hamburg and Dresden raised firestorms., and Berlin was bombed into
rubble.
During the Korean War, U.S. bombing destroyed nearly all North Korea's cities,
including 85 percent of its buildings. Total North Korean civilian
casualties (dead, injured, missing) were 1.5 million. U.S. bombs
destroyed five hydroelectric and irrigation dams, resulting in flooding and
starvation.
The bombing campaigns during the U.S. invasion of Vietnam constituted the
longest and heaviest aerial bombardment in history. We dropped more than
three times as much explosive energy on that small nation as we dropped in all
theaters of WW2. A careful study calculated between 0.8 million and 1.1
million deaths on all sides during the war, of which 30,000 to 182,000 were
estimated to be North Vietnamese civilians killed in U.S. bombings.
Finally, an estimated 387,000 civilians have died violent deaths as a direct
result of the U.S. post-9/11 wars on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thus, bombing civilians has been standard intentional practice for America
since at least 1941. Set against this backdrop, Russian-caused civilian
wartime deaths in Ukraine are deplorable but hundreds of times less
numerous. The United Nations, which carefully studies civilian
casualties, provides an estimate of about 6,000 civilian deaths through
October. For comparison, the number of military deaths in Ukraine appears
to be around 20,000 on each side. The numbers of Russian-killed civilians
in the present Ukraine War is at least hundreds of times smaller than the
number of U.S.-killed civilians killed during our wars.
Has Russia killed many civilians in Ukraine? Yes. Was some
of this intentionally directed at civilians? Yes. Is this an
atrocity? Yes. But it pales beside past U.S. atrocities.
Be careful before you point your finger, and be sure to first look into the
mirror. If you wish to help the human race rather than just thoughtlessly
letting off steam, remember that the real enemy is neither President Putin nor
Russia, nor is it America. The real enemy is war itself. The real
solution is war prevention.
[References omitted—D]
Art Hobson is professor emeritus of physics at
the University of Arkansas. He worked at the Stockholm International
Peace Research Institute and co-authored "The Future of Land-Based
Strategic Missiles" (Am. Inst. of Physics, 1989). Email him at ahobson@uark.edu.
CONTENTS UKRAINE WAR #32
What’s at Stake: “I think that this is something the people of the West need to
come to grips with; that the government of Ukraine has done great violence
against its own people in the Donbas, and that the people of the Donbas had
every right to choose to leave Ukraine and join Russia. If Westerners
understood this reality, they would think twice about ‘standing with’ and
continuing to arm Ukraine.” Daniel
Kovalik
Part I: ORIGINS
OF THE WAR : Why Is the US in Ukraine?
THE WAR(9
articles)
Vijay Prashad. “UN or NATO?”
Ivan
Katchanovski. “Buried Trial Verdict Confirms
False-flag Maidan Massacre in Ukraine.”
Natylie Baldwin. “The Maidan Massacre, Censorship &
Ukraine.” Interview of Katchanovski.
Joe Lauria. “US Victim
of Own Propaganda in Ukraine War”:
Odessa.
Swiss Standpoint. Background and elements of the war in
Ukraine [Minsk Agreements etc.]: Interview of Jacques Baud.
Schwarz
and Layne. US and NATO Expansion.
Oleg Nesterenko. Ukraine’s “Atlanticist” Narratives.
Jeremy Kuzmarov. Western Intelligence Services.
Yossi Alpher: “Ukraine, NATO: the ‘Israel
Model’?”
(Sources:
Canadian Dimension, Consortium News, Covert Action Magazine, Donbas Insider,
Harper’s Magazine, Schweizer Standpunkt)
Part II: THE
WAR
(6 articles)
Seymour
Hersh. “Harold Pinter had it right.” Destruction of
Nord Stream Pipelines, Roles of Biden and Scholz , Consequences.
A
Scott Ritter Investigation: “Agent Zelensky (Part 1).” Audio.
Daniel Kovalik. “Russia,
Donbass and the Reality of Conflict in Ukraine.”
M. K. Bhadrakumar. “Glimpses
of an Endgame in Ukraine.”
VijayPrashad. “World Hunger & War in Ukraine. “
Yossi
Alpher. “Ukraine, NATO: the ‘Israel
Model’?”
(Sources: Consortium News, Covert Action Magazine, Indian
Punchline, Peoples Dispatch, Scheer Post, Scott Ritter Extra)
Part III: MAKE
PEACE
(8 articles)
Roger
Harris. “The North American Peace Movement at an Inflection Point.”
Veterans
Speak in NYT Ad. “The U. S.
Should Be a Force for Peace in the World.”
Gerry
Condon, Veterans for Peace. “Why
Veterans are Calling for Peace.”
Jeffrey Sachs. YouTube Interview.
John
Mearsheimer. “What Should Be Done.”
Abel Tomlinson. Three Essays. Senator Blumenthal. “Negotiate Ukraine Peace Now.” “Stop
the War, Make Peace.”
(Sources: Dissident Voice, NYT advert., Popular Resistance,
Abel Tomlinson direct, YouTube)
END UKRAINE WAR ANTHOLOGY #33
Subscribed
