OMNI
UKRAINE WAR ANTHOLOGY #34
Compiled
by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace, Justice, and Ecology
May 25,
2025
Https://omnicenter.org/donate
What’s at
Stake: A true—a complete and accurate-- martial history
of the USA. Walter Hixson: “From Columbus to the "forever
wars" of the modern Middle East, Americans have sought imperial domination
over other peoples, invariably deemed inferior, and have regularly chosen to go
to war with them.” These 34 anthologies
(approx. 500 articles and books) provide that history for the US, Russia, and
Ukraine, giving citizens the foundation for resistance; indeed, the foundation,
available since 2014, had it been taught instead of the false war narrative promoted
by both Parties and the corporate media, could have prevented the war.
CONTENTS 25
articles and books
Trump’s Call to Putin: [VFP-all]
Is peace at hand in the long Cold War with Russia?
AGAIN A TIME FOR
REFLECTION FOR PEACE
Walter Hixson. “Imperialism and War: The
History Americans Need to Own.”
Consortium News.
Benjamin
and Davies. War in Ukraine. (Dick’s rev. with Baud’s Operation Z).
Benjamin Abelow. How the West
Brought War to Ukraine.
Melvin
Goodman. “A Personal Discussion
of Russian National Security.”
THE WAR
Eva Bartlett. “Maligned in Western Media, Donbass Forces are Defending
their Future from Ukrainian Shelling and Fascism.”
Big Serge. “Total
Kievan Debellation:The
Russo-Ukrainian War: Year 3.”
John Helmer.“The War Came to Pokrovsk.”
Lord Robert Skidelsky: “Speech in
the House of Lords on Ukraine.”
Scott Ritter. “Life, preempted.”
Chris Bambery. “NATO’s spiralling commitments to Ukraine risk catastrophe.”
RELATED
ARTICLES AND INTERVIEWS
Lederer and Peltz. “Russian foreign
minister invokes nuclear capacity in UN speech…”
Lee
Fang.“New York Times’ . . .War Escalation Journalism.”
World Socialist Web
Site. “. . .long range NATO missiles against
Russia….”
Ted Snider. “The Damage Victoria Nuland Has Done.”
Anatol Lieven. “Biden
team blows off deadline for Ukraine war strategy.”
Unintended Consequences Interviews Benjamin Abelow.
Donald A. Smith. “The US Provoked Russia
over Ukraine.”
Jonathan McCormick. “An Interview with Professor Nicolai N. Petro: On Ukraine’s
prospects.”
James W. Carden.
“Why Does American Folly March on in Ukraine?”
Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation: “Ukraine War, The Third Year, featuring Grigory Yavlinsky.”
Saheli Chowdhury. “Ukraine … a private
mercenary company of NATO. . . . ” (Interv.).
Larry Johnson. “Star
CIA Analysts Are Out of Touch With. . . Russia”.
Sonja Van den Ende.
“Media
[and] Russian Retreat From Kherson….”
Aidan Jonah. “Canadian Professor attacked by mainstream media for
opposing NATO narrative on Ukraine.”
Ukraine War Anthologyy #33
TEXTS
PEACE BEGINS?
May 24, 2025?
[VFP-all] Is peace at hand in the long Cold War with
Russia?https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/05/23/trumps-phone-diplomacy-with-putin-shatters-euro-atlantic-cold-war-mental-bloc/ 'Eric & Hoa Herter'
via VFP-all vfp-all@googlegroups.com via uark.onmicrosoft.com
“Trump’s phone diplomacy with Putin
shatters the Euro-Atlantic Cold War mental bloc.” Sat, May 24, 2025.
![]()
Trump’s
phone call with Putin this week has had a major impact, and one that has
significant potential for peace.
A TIME FOR REFLECTION
FOR PEACE, THE BIG PICTURE: When Did the War Begin,
Where, by Whom, and Why, and What and Who Sustained, Sustains it? (Remember the sheer quantity of
well-prepared statements by opponents of US/NATO/Ukraine warmakers. #34 contains 127 articles and books.)
Warrior USA from Jamestown to Ukraine
Walter Hixson, Imperialism and War: The History Americans Need to Own. Institute
for Research, 2021.
Publisher's Synopsis
Transcending the
mythology of "American exceptionalism," the acclaimed historian
Walter Hixson unveils a long history of war and imperialism, one that is deeply
embedded in the American national DNA. From
Columbus to the "forever wars" of the modern Middle East, Americans
have sought imperial domination over other peoples, invariably deemed inferior,
and have regularly chosen to go to war with them.
The consequences of the nation's violent aggression have been severe yet
not fully analyzed owing to the powerful boundaries erected by patriotic
nationalism. Americans have viewed themselves as a "chosen
people" and the United States as a "beacon and liberty," the
champion of the "free world," but this self-serving discourse has
served to enable continental and overseas imperialism and war.
Americans typically professed to go to war because they "had
to" or to make the world "safe for democracy," but only rarely
were these scenarios in play. Rather, Americans usually chose to
go to war, and US foreign policy rarely produced or even sought to produce
democratic outcomes. Instead, the United States often engaged in violent
repression of other peoples and bolstered dictatorial regimes, including those
engaged in mass murder.
US war and imperialism frequently proved ineffectual, as they were often
grounded in dramatic misperceptions. Foreign aggression also often sowed the
seeds for "blowback" attacks and the continuation or renewal of
conflict and warfare. Moreover--and rarely analyzed--continental and overseas
aggression also undermined democracy, civil liberties, and progressive reform
on the home front.
Rooted in decades of study and delivered in crystal clear and direct
language, this book is must-reading for anyone wishing to go beyond the clichés
that typically structure discussions of the history and contemporary prospects
of American foreign relations. In a bold conclusion Hixson outlines the
desperate need for adoption of a new paradigm of "cooperative
internationalism" to transcend the nation's penchant for war and imperialism fueled by national
self-worship.
“History Is
Indispensable to Journalism.” Consortium
News (5-6-24).
It’s missing from corporate journalism for a reason and for
the same reason is a big part of Consortium News. Read here...
You
cannot understand a conflict without understanding its history. That’s why
historical context is routinely suppressed by corporate media, such as in the
Palestinian-Israel conflict and the war between Russia and Ukraine. They don’t
want you to understand.
For establishment
journalists, the violence in Gaza began on Oct. 7, 2023 and in Ukraine on Feb.
24, 2022. Understanding the
Palestinian conflict from 1948 forward, and the Ukraine war from the 2014
overthrow of the Ukrainian government and the start of the civil war completely
changes one’s perception. So
establishment media suppress this history because it’s a perception they don’t
want you to have. It goes against its agenda to promote Western foreign
policies, rather than reporting on them. . . . [In contrast, Consortium
News] has published numerous articles on the history of the Palestinian
conflict and last year we ran a timeline that
explained the war in Ukraine in a completely different way from what Western
governments and media are telling us.
History is an invaluable
part of Consortium News‘ reporting. Please contribute today
to CN‘s Spring Fund Drive to help us to continue providing
rare but essential historical context.
Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies. War in Ukraine: Making Sense of
a Senseless Conflict. OR Books, 2022.
The last book I
reported on in WWW about the Ukraine War was Jacques Baud’s Operation
Z, a distinguished scholarly book published the same year as Benjamin’s and
Davies’. Baud uses Ukrainian and
Western sources to discover the truth about the so-called “Russian invasion” by
examining the validity of those sources.
It is both a history of the war from its inception and a criticism of
Western mainstream media reporting of that history. Baud doesn’t refer to George Orwell’s 1984,
but the book provides a doublespeak analysis of the contradictions permeating
US-Western-Ukraine pronouncements. It
is also organized with diagrammatic order, and every claim is supported, an
example of which I cited in my review.
I was inspired
to read again Benjamin’s and Davies’ book, which I admired , to compare their
history with Baud’s.
They have a
similar aim: to stop the war by telling the truth. They are responding to the “widespread
condemnation across the West” that “Russia’s brutal February 2022 invasion of
Ukraine” was “a simple dichotomy between an evil empire and an innocent
victim.” They tell a different
story. In B & D’s words: “But the
West’s reneging on promises to halt eastward expansion of NATO in the wake of
the collapse of the Soviet Union played a major part in prompting Putin to
act. So did the U.S. involvement in the
2014 Ukraine coup and Ukraine’s failure to implement the Minsk peace
agreements.” (From authors’ summary preceding title page.)
Although
neither book offers an Index, making detailed comparisons difficult, my
conclusion is that the only major difference between the two books is the fact
that Baud takes 410 pages to tell the story for peace (it’s a major scholarly
work), while B&D take 185. Both
books are cogently argued; together they offer a formidable refutation of the
Ukraine/NATO-USA justification of the war by demonizing Putin and Russia, which
constitutes another achievement by the movement to end wars.
One important
part of War in Ukraine not found in Operation Z is chapter 7,
“Flirting with Nuclear War,” where
B&D castigate especially the West for bringing the world “to the
brink of a direct conflict that could escalate into nuclear war. . . .the most
catastrophic existential threat the world faces.”
From the publisher
praise from Counterpunch and Mairead McGuire: War in Ukraine: MAKING SENSE OF A SENSELESS CONFLICT BY MEDEA BENJAMIN and NICOLAS J.S. DAVIES. Preface by KATRINA
VANDEN HEUVEL.
2022.
“The
timing of the publication of War in
Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless War couldn’t
be better. This text, written by antiwar activist Medea Benjamin and journalist
Nicolas J.S. Davies, provides the reader with a clear and well-argued
understanding of the Ukraine-Russian war that rejects the pro-war narratives of
Kyiv, Moscow and Washington. The text tackles the conflict from a viewpoint
that acknowledges Moscow’s February 22, 2022 aggression as illegal and wrong
while also arguing that the conflict itself represents a greater geopolitical
conflict where Washington is the instigator and the more aggressive actor.” —Counterpunch
“An important antidote to the war propaganda about Ukraine that so
many in the West are caught up in.” —Mairead
McGuire, activist and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize
Benjamin Abelow. How the West
Brought War to Ukraine.
May 8,
2022.
Misguided American and NATO policies created the Ukraine
crisis. Now they risk nuclear war.
https://medium.com/@benjamin.abelow/western-policies-caused-the-ukraine-crisis-and-now-risk-nuclear-war-1e402a67f44e
This essay is now available, slightly modified and revised,
in book form — Paperback, eBook, and Audible. You can purchase these at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and your local independent bookstore. You can also read
more about me and my work at my website. A German-language edition is available in all markets,
including in Germany, for example, here, and a free
German edition — beautifully illustrated with landscape paintings by the artist
Archip Kuindschi (1841–1910), for whom a museum is named in Mariupol, Ukraine —
is available here.
A Slovene translation, which is being published by the Slovenian Academy of
Sciences and Arts, is in progress, and a Polish edition is being negotiated.
Translations into other languages are being explored.
Overview
For almost 200 years, starting with
the framing of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, the United States has asserted
security claims over virtually the whole Western hemisphere. Any foreign power
that places military forces near U.S. territory knows it is crossing a red
line. U.S. policy thus embodies a conviction that where a
potential opponent places its forces is crucially important. In fact, this
conviction is the cornerstone of American foreign and military policy, and its
violation is considered reason for war.
Yet
when it comes to Russia, the United States and its NATO allies have acted for
decades in disregard of this same principle. They have progressively advanced
the placement of their military forces toward Russia, even to its borders. They
have done this with inadequate attention to, and sometimes blithe disregard
for, how Russian leaders might perceive this advance. Had Russia taken
equivalent actions with respect to U.S. territory — say, placing its military
forces in Canada or Mexico — Washington would have gone to war and explained
that war as a defensive response to the military encroachment of a foreign
power.
When
viewed through this lens, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is seen not as the
unbridled expansionism of a malevolent Russian leader but as a violent and
destructive reaction to misguided Western policies: an attempt to reestablish a
zone around Russia’s western border that is free of offensive threats from the
United States and its allies. Having misunderstood why Russia invaded Ukraine,
the West is now basing existential decisions on false premises. In doing so, it
is deepening the crisis and may be sleepwalking toward nuclear war.
This
argument, which I now present in detail, is based on the analyses of a number
of scholars, government officials, and military observers, all of whom I
introduce and quote from in the course of the presentation. These include John
Mearsheimer, Stephen F. Cohen, Richard Sakwa, Gilbert Doctorow, George F.
Kennan, Chas Freeman, Douglas Macgregor, and Brennan Deveraux. . . . MORE https://medium.com/@benjamin.abelow/western-policies-caused-the-ukraine-crisis-and-now-risk-nuclear-war-1e402a67f44e
I
correctly anticipated significant criticism of my last piece for CounterPunch,
which argued that President Vladimir Putin’s was not “unproved,” that NATO
expansion was a significant factor in the Russian use of force, and that our
policymakers and so-called experts failed to understand the central national
security aspects of Soviet/Russian policy. Among the critics of my CounterPunch
article were Walter Slocomb who served in Clinton’s national security council
and lobbied for NATO expansion, and a former colleague of mine at the National
War College, Marvin Ott, who supported expansion and is anticipating a Russian
victory in Ukraine to be followed by Putin’s aggression elsewhere.
I am
not trying to minimize the Russian challenge to U.S. national interests
throughout the Cold War, but there needs to be recognition of U.S. efforts to
exaggerate the Soviet threat as well as the acknowledgment of systemic Russian
domestic weakness. A further problem is that there are too few U.S.
experts on either Russia or East Europe, and too few institutes devoted to such
study. I benefitted from my graduate work at Indiana University’s Russian
and East European Institute. And I benefitted financially as well thanks
to the Woodrow Wilson Dissertation Program and the generosity of Indiana
University.
At the
same time, the decline in expertise on arms control and disarmament also
contributes to the decline in substantive exchanges with both Moscow and
Beijing as well as Tehran and Pyongyang. I was fortunate to have served
as the intelligence adviser to the U.S. delegation in Vienna, where the SALT
and ABM treaties were hammered out. We could be facing a nuclear
confrontation because of the lack of political discussions with these four key
states. The fact that we don’t even recognize Iran and North Korea
shows how our diplomats have failed us and our policymakers have been so
short-sighted. (Arms control not only led to Soviet-American detente, it
fostered European detente, which allowed 380,000 Soviet troops to withdraw from
East Germany without incident.)
We are
at a serious juncture with two mindless wars in East Europe and the Middle
East. Instead of developing a policy toward these two disasters, we
are fixed on building so-called alliance relationships in Europe and the
Indo-Pacific. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times even
wants to form an alliance with Israel and Saudi Arabia to combat Iran. We
should be dealing with Iran directly in an effort to avoid such alliance
building, which will have no satisfactory outcome. The expansion of
NATO has weakened NATO politically, and contributed to a major war.
Our efforts to contain China with a series of alliance arrangements has
only made it more difficult to deal with China regarding political
security. As a result of our efforts, we have pushed Moscow and Beijing
into their closest relationship in their histories, and we are looking for ways
to match and exceed their defense spending and nuclear modernization. . . .
In the
1990s, in the wake of the Soviet collapse, the United States sought to change
the European theatre balance for no real reason. The continued effort to
expand NATO and to deploy power in East and Central Europe preordained a
Russian reaction no matter who was in charge in the Kremlin. U.S.
planners thought the expansion of power in Europe would deter Russia from
seeking advantages in the Third World, but this was another miasma in our
thinking. Russia has never developed a sophisticated power
projection force that would be needed for a significant expansion of Russian
power. Nor does China appear to be interested in power
project. Only the United States believes that it needs 700
military facilities around the entire world. . . .MORE
Melvin
A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a
professor of government at Johns Hopkins University. A former CIA analyst,
Goodman is the author of Failure
of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National
Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. and A
Whistleblower at the CIA. His most recent books
are “American Carnage: The Wars of Donald Trump” (Opus Publishing,
2019) and “Containing the National Security State” (Opus Publishing,
2021). Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org.
THE WAR (understanding how it is ending]
Maligned in Western Media, Donbass Forces are Defending
their Future from Ukrainian Shelling and Fascism
By Eva Bartlett. CovertAction Magazine (Nov 19, 2022).
America is widely understood to
be a key instigator behind conflict in Ukraine that has pitted brother against
brother. Smeared, stigmatized,
and lied about in Western media propaganda, the mostly Russian-speaking people
of the Donbass region were being slaughtered by the thousands in a brutal war
of “ethnic cleansing” launched against them by the neo-Nazi regime in Kyiv,
which the U.S. installed after the CIA overthrew Ukraine’s legally elected
president in a 2014 coup.
Although the Donbass
people had been pleading for Russian military aid to defend them against the
increasingly murderous military assaults by the Ukraine government forces,
which killed more than 14,000 of their people, Russian President Vladimir Putin
declined to intervene. Instead, he tried to broker a peace agreement between
the warring parties.
But the U.S. and Britain
secretly colluded to sabotage peace negotiations, persuading president Zelenksy
to ignore the Minsk III peace agreement that the Ukraine government had
previously signed, and which had been countersigned by Russia, France and Germany.
Realizing that the U.S.
and its NATO allies would never permit peace negotiations to succeed, Putin
finally invaded Ukraine on February 24. Russian troops went in to support and
reinforce the outnumbered and outgunned Donbass Special Forces who had been defending
their land against attacks by the Kyiv government for nearly eight years. […] Read in browser »
What
Happened during 2024
“Total
Kievan Debellation:The Russo-Ukrainian War: Year 3” by Big Serge. big Serge Thought. Jan 9, 2024. [Like
the other articles I have read by Big Serge, this one provides an impressive
analysis of the condition of each side’s military and economic strengths and
weaknesses, with Ukraine weakening and Russia growing stronger. –D].
|
“My
intention here is [to] consider the aggregate of 2024 -- arguing that this year
was, in fact, very consequential. Taken as a whole, three very important things
happened in 2024 which create a very dismal outlook for Ukraine and the AFU in
the new year. More specifically, 2024 brought three important strategic
developments. . . .”
My
intention here is a radical zoom-out from… demoralizing and fatiguing small
scale updates (as valuable as the work of the war mappers is), and consider the
aggregate of 2024 -- arguing that this year was, in fact, very consequential.
Taken as a whole, three very important things happened in 2024 which create a
very dismal outlook for Ukraine and the AFU in the new year. More specifically,
2024 brought three important strategic developments:
1.
Russian victory in southern Donetsk which destroyed the AFU’s
position on one of the war’s key strategic axes.
2.
The expenditure of carefully husbanded Ukrainian resources on a
failed offensive towards Kursk, which accelerated the attrition of critical
Ukrainian maneuver assets and substantially dampened their prospects in the
Donbas.
3.
The exhaustion of Ukraine’s ability to escalate vis a vis new
strike systems from NATO - more broadly, the west has largely run out of
options to upgrade Ukrainian capabilities, and the much vaunted delivery of
longer range strike systems failed to alter the trajectory of the war on the
ground.
Taken
together, 2024 revealed a Ukrainian military that is increasingly stretched to
the limits, to the point where the Russians were able to largely scratch off an
entire sector of front. People continue to wonder where and when the Ukrainian
front might begin to break down - I would argue that it *did* break down in the
south over the last few months, and 2025 begins with strong Russian momentum
that the AFU will be hard pressed to arrest. . . .MORE click on title [Serge
seems to know every weapon, military unit, and movement. If you like military history, you’ll read
through his three-year detailed summary without pause. -Dick]
Conclusion:
Debellation
Trapped
in an endless news cycle, with daily footage of FPV strikes and exploding
vehicles, and a dutiful cottage industry of war mappers alerting us to every
100 meter advance, it can easily feel like the Russo-Ukrainian War is trapped
in an interminable doom loop which will never end - Mad Max meets Groundhog
Day.
What I
have endeavored to do here, however, is argue that 2024 actually saw several
very important developments which make the coming shape of the war relatively
clear. To briefly recapitulate:
1.
Russian forces caved in Ukrainian defenses at depth across
an entire critical axis of front. After remaining static for years, Ukraine’s
position in Southern Donetsk has been obliterated, with Russian forces
advancing through an entire belt of fortified positions, pushing the front into
Pokrovsk and Kostayantinivka.
2.
The main Ukrainian gambit on the ground (the incursion into
Kursk) failed spectacularly, with the salient being progressively caved in. An
entire grouping of critical mechanized formations wasted much of the year
fighting on this unproductive and secondary front, leaving Ukrainian positions
in the Donbas increasingly threadbare and bereft of reserves.
3.
An attempt by the Ukrainian government to reinvigorate its
mobilization program failed, with enlistments quickly trailing off. Decisions
to expand the force structure exacerbated the shortage of manpower, and as a
result the decay of Ukraine’s frontline brigades has accelerated.
4.
Long awaited western upgrades to Ukraine’s strike
capabilities failed to defeat Russian momentum, and stocks of ATACMs and Storm
Shadows are nearly exhausted. There are now few options remaining to prop up
Ukrainian strike capacity, and no prospect of Ukraine gaining dominance in this
dimension of the war.
In
short, Ukraine is on the path to debellation - defeat through
the total exhaustion of its capacity to resist. They are not exactly out of men
and vehicles and missiles, but these lines are all pointing downward. A
strategic Ukrainian defeat - once unthinkable to the western foreign policy apparatus
and commentariat - is now on the table. Quite interestingly, now that Donald
Trump is about to return to the White House, it is suddenly
acceptable to speak of Ukrainian defeat.
Robert Kagan - a stalwart champion of Ukraine if there ever was one - now says
the quiet part out loud:
Ukraine
will likely lose the war within the next 12 to 18 months. Ukraine will not lose
in a nice, negotiated way, with vital territories sacrificed but an independent
Ukraine kept alive, sovereign, and protected by Western security guarantees. It
faces instead a complete defeat, a loss of sovereignty, and full Russian
control.
Indeed. None of this should be particularly
surprising. If anything, it is shocking that my position - that Russia is
essentially a very powerful country that was very unlikely to lose a war (which
it perceives as existential) right in its own belly - somehow became
controversial or fringe. But here we are.
“The
War Came to Pokrovsk” By John Helmer (Posted Oct
07, 2024). Originally published: Dances with Bears on October 4, 2024 (more by Dances with Bears). WarEurope, Russia, UkraineNewswire.
[This is Helmer’s interview of a citizen of Pokrovsk who is pro-Russian. Her comments reveal the extreme past and
present complications. I have copied the
conclusion. –D]
Pokrovsk, in the northwestern corner of Donetsk region, is
almost a Russian city again.
. . . Born in Pokrovsk and a resident of the city for 30
years, a professional psychologist and newspaper editor left the city ahead of
the final battle between advancing Russian forces and the Ukrainian retreat.
Her name is not published to protect family members who have remained. In the
form of a question-and-answer interview, this is her story. . . .
[This is the interviewee’s final comment. –D]
Many stay in the city because they are afraid of losing their homes,
shops and other real estate. Also, there is simply no way to leave. But the
only thing that scares the residents of Pokrovsk is not the arrival of the
Russian armed forces, but the fact that after the retreat, the Armed Forces of
Ukraine will start shelling the city and turn it into the same ruins as Bakhmut
and Avdeyevka.
[But Helmer adds a contradictory conclusion by the NYT reporter
in Kiev, to which he adds several qualifying comments! –D] In the
New York Times version of the evacuation of Pokrovsk, written by Andrew
Kramer, artillery bombardment of the city will come, not from the retreating
Ukrainian army but from the advancing Russian forces. For many years Kramer
failed to be promoted at the Times bureau in Moscow but became chief of the
organ’s Kiev bureau in 2022. From Pokrovsk Kramer reported: “Now, it is too late
to ensure that Pokrovsk will be protected from artillery bombardment, the
town’s military administrator said….Russian forces since April have ground
through five defensive lines east of Pokrovsk, said Serhiy Dobryak, the town’s
military administrator. With only two more lines remaining, the incursion into
Russia, and the potential diversion it might cause, was essentially a last
hope…The town for now is not at risk of imminent capture, he said, but
officials expect a sustained artillery bombardment that is likely to leave it
in ruins. That has been the fate of other Ukrainian towns like Bakhmut and
Avdiivka that Russia pummeled into rubble before forcing Ukraine to pull back.
‘They will bring the artillery nearby and they will destroy the town,’ Mr. Dobryak
said. “That will happen.’ ”
John Helmer is the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in
Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of
single national or commercial ties. He first set up his bureau in 1989, making
him today the doyen of the foreign press corps in Russia. [I assume this info.
appeared in Dances with Bears.
-D]
STOP THE WAR: BEGIN NEGOTIATING
Lord Robert Skidelsky: “Speech in
the House of Lords on Ukraine, 25 October 2024.” ACURA (10-29-24).
[Skidelsky explains the flaws in the Ukrainian/NATO strategy and urges a
rapid end to the war.]
House of Lords October
28, 2024 [Scroll to end for negotiation proposal.]
. . .What Ukraine thinks it takes is shown by President
Zelensky’s latest victory plan: the Russian army must be driven out of Crimea
and Donbass. However, who now believes that Ukraine can achieve this kind
of victory at the present level of western support? Rather, there is growing
agreement that without expanded western support, Ukraine, despite its courage
and determination, faces defeat. This was always likely once Russia started to
mobilise on a larger scale.
The demographics alone indicate this: you have a country of 36 million fighting
one of 147 million. In the last four years, Ukraine’s population has shrunk by
20% while Russia’s has grown. A population the size of London has simply
disappeared through war and migration; that is the reality on the ground. Of
course, North Korean involvement has added a new front in this debate, but we
must not delude ourselves that Russia needs North Korean troops to go on
fighting. So the question arises: what more must we do to do what it
takes?
There are two basic answers. Tighten economic sanctions and use long-range
missiles, but the first has already failed and the second is extremely
dangerous to the whole world.
As I have argued elsewhere, true ‘victory’ for Ukraine
lies not in regaining lost territory but in becoming a prosperous, democratic
European nation free of Russian political meddling and strong enough to defend
itself against future military threats. Going on fighting a war that
systematically destroys a new generation of young Ukrainians and annihilates
the country’s infrastructure and economy would be the real victory for Vladimir
Putin.
[NEGOTIATE]
Is there a way to bring the fighting to an end? The most hopeful recent
development in this deadly game of chicken has been a statement by President
Zelensky reported in the Financial Times two days ago: “Russia putting an end to aerial attacks on
Ukrainian energy targets and cargo ships could pave the way for negotiations to
end the war”. At last, there is a
breakthrough to realism. Will the Government seize this opportunity to start
some serious diplomacy? I mourn those who have died. What now moves me
above all else is the thought of the thousands more young men, women and
children yet to die if this war is not quickly brought to an end. I beg the
Government to play their part in bringing the killing and destruction to a
close.”
The Purpose of
the War: Weaken Russia; Possible Consequence: Nuclear War . STOP THE WAR
Scott
Ritter. “Life, preempted.” Mronline.org (10-3-24).
Policymakers in both the U.S. and Europe are undertaking
increasingly brazen acts of escalation in Ukraine designed to bring Russia
to the breaking point.
Originally published: Scott Ritter Extra on September 25, 2024 (more by Scott Ritter Extra). Strategy, WarAmericas, Europe, Russia, Ukraine, United StatesNewswireNuclear Bomb / Missile, Nuclear War, Nuclear Weapons
What would you do to
save Democracy? To save America? To save the world? How will you vote in
November?
If you’re not thinking about the end of the world by now,
you’re either braindead or stuck in some remote corner of the world, totally
removed from access to news.
Last week we came closer to a nuclear conflict between the
U.S. and Russia than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
Today we are even closer.
Most scenarios being bandied about in the western
mainstream media that involve a nuclear conflict between Russia and the United
States have Russia initiating the exchange by using nuclear weapons against
Ukraine in response to deteriorating military, economic, and/or political
conditions brought on by the U.S. and NATO successfully leveraging Ukraine as a
proxy to achieve the strategic defeat of Russia.
Understand, this is what both Ukraine and the Biden
administration mean when they speak of Ukraine “winning the war.”
This is a continuation of the policy objective set forth by
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in April 2022, “to see Russia weakened to the
degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading
Ukraine,” meaning that Russia should “not have the capability to very quickly
reproduce” the forces and equipment that it loses in Ukraine.
This policy has failed; Russia has absorbed four new
territories—Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk and Lugansk—into the Russian
Federation, and the Russian defense industry has not only replaced losses
sustained in the Ukrainian conflict, but is currently arming and equipping an
additional 600,000 troops that have been added to the Russian military since
February 2022.
It is the United States and its NATO allies that find
themselves on their back feet, with Europe facing economic hardship as a result
of the extreme blowback that has transpired because of its sanctioning of
Russian energy, and the United States watching helplessly as Russia, together
with China, turns the once passive BRICS economic forum into a geopolitical
juggernaut capable of challenging and surpassing the U.S.-led G7 as the world’s
most influential non-governmental organization.
As a result of this abysmal failure, policymakers in both
the U.S. and Europe are undertaking increasingly brazen acts of escalation
designed to bring Russia to the breaking point, all premised on the assumption
that all so-called “red lines” established by Russia regarding escalation are
illusionary—Russia, they believe, is bluffing.
And if Russia is not bluffing?
Then, the western-generated scenario paints an apocalyptic
picture which has a weak, defeated Russia using nuclear weapons against Ukraine
in a last, desperate act of vengeance.
According to this scenario, which the U.S. and NATO not
only war-gamed out but made ready to implement when these entities imagined
that Russia was preparing to employ nuclear weapons back in late 2022-early
2023, the U.S. and NATO would launch a devastating response against Russian
targets deep inside Russia designed to punitively degrade Russian command and
control, logistics, and warfighting capacity. . . .MORE
When the United States launches the Trident missile
carrying the low yield warhead, how are the Russians supposed to interpret this
act?
The fact is, if the U.S. ever fires a W-76-2 warhead using
a Trident missile, the Russians will assess this action as the initiation of a
nuclear first strike and order the launching of its own nuclear arsenal in
response.
All because the United States has embraced a policy of
“first strike ambiguity” designed to keep the Russians and Chinese guessing
about American nuclear intentions.
And, to put icing on this nuclear cake, Russia’s response
appears to have been to change its nuclear posture to embrace a similar posture
of nuclear pre-emption, meaning that rather than wait for the U.S. to actually
launch a nuclear-armed missile or missiles against a Russian target, Russia
will now seek to pre-empt such an attack by launching its own pre-emptive
nuclear strike designed to eliminate the U.S. land-based nuclear deterrent
force.
In a sane world, both sides would recognize the inherent
dangers of such a forward-leaning posture, and take corrective action.
But we no longer live in a sane world.
Moreover, given the fact that the underlying principle
guiding U.S. policies toward Russia is the misplaced notion that Russia is
bluffing, any aggressive posturing we might engage in designed to promote and
exploit the ambiguity derived from the first-strike potential inherent in
existing U.S. nuclear posture will, more likely than not, only fuel Russian
paranoia about a potential U.S. nuclear pre-emption, prompting Russia to
pre-empt.
Russia isn’t bluffing.
And our refusal to acknowledge this has embarked us on a path where we
appear more than willing to pre-empt life itself.
We need to pre-empt nuclear preemption
by embracing a policy of strict no first use principles.
[CHOOSING PEACE AND EARTH AS HOME]
By choosing deterrence over
warfighting.
By deemphasizing nuclear war.
By controlling nuclear weapons through
verifiable arms control treaties.
And by eliminating nuclear weapons.
It truly is an existential choice—nuclear
weapons or life.
Because they are incompatible with one
another.
Western Missiles to Strike Russia
Chris Bambery. “NATO’s spiralling commitments to
Ukraine risk catastrophe.” Editor. mronline.org
We
are on the possible verge of a major escalation in the war in the Ukraine, one
which risks war between NATO and Russia, and one involving nuclear weapons,
argues Chris Bambery.
Originally published: Counterfire on May 29, 2024 by Chris Bambery
(more by Counterfire (Posted May 31, 2024).
Economic Crisis, State Repression, Strategy, WarAmericas, Europe, France, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, United StatesNewswireATACMS
Long-Range Missiles, British-French
Storm Shadow/Scalp Long-Range Missiles, F-16 Fighter Jets, Military Weapons, North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), President Joe Biden, President
Vladimir Putin, Russia-Ukraine
War, Secretary
of State Anthony Blinken, U.S
HIMARS Short-Range Missiles, Ukraine
President Volodymyr Zelensky
France
and Germany have agreed that Ukraine should be allowed to use its
allies’ missiles to ‘neutralise’ Russian military bases used to fire missiles
into Ukraine, France’s president, Emmanuel Macron said on Tuesday on a state
visit to Berlin. He added: ‘We should not allow them to touch other targets in
Russia, and obviously civilian capacities.’ The German chancellor, Olaf Scholz,
said he agreed with the French president, as long as the Ukrainians respected
the conditions of the weapons’ suppliers. . . .
MORE
RELATED ARTICLES AND INTERVIEWS
NUCLEAR DANGER
Edith Lederer and Jennifer Peltz. WATCH:
“Russian foreign minister invokes nuclear capacity in UN speech condemning the West.” World SepT. 28, 2024 .
Russia’s top diplomat warned Saturday against “trying to
fight to victory with a nuclear power,” delivering a U.N. General Assembly
speech packed with condemnations of what Russia sees as Western machinations in
Ukraine and elsewhere — including inside the United Nations itself.
Three days after Russian President Vladimir Putin
aired a shift in his country’s nuclear doctrine, Foreign Minister Sergey
Lavrov accused the West of using Ukraine — which Russia invaded in February
2022 — as a tool to try “to defeat” Moscow strategically, and “preparing Europe
for it to also throw itself into this suicidal escapade.”
Watch Lavrov’s remarks in the player above.
“I’m not going to talk here about the senselessness and the
danger of the very idea of trying to fight to victory with a nuclear power,
which is what Russia is,” he said. The
specter of nuclear threats and confrontation has hung over the war in Ukraine
since its start. Shortly before the invasion, Putin reminded the world that his
country was “one of the most powerful nuclear states,” and he put its nuclear
forces on high alert shortly after. His nuclear rhetoric has ramped
up and toned down at various points since.
WATCH: Harris
meets with Ukraine’s Zelenskyy as Russia makes nuclear warning . . .
. MORE
Edith Lederer and
Jennifer Peltz. “Russia Issues Nuclear
Warning. UN Remarks Aim at Ukraine
Allies.” Assoc. P, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (9-29-24).
Military-Corporate-MEDIA Complex
Lee Fang.“ New
York Times’ Previous Reporting Undermines Its War Escalation Journalism.” Sept. 13, 2024.
Warnings about major
escalation of war -- and potential nuclear war -- take a backseat to think tank
experts from the defense industry. Lee Fang
. . .The NYT series on
think tank corruption began ten years ago. Little has changed in terms of the
behavior of defense industry-funded think tanks. Instead, the NYT has gone on
to embrace them.
In its ongoing reporting on the
Ukraine-Russia war and the debate over whether to fuel the conflict, the NYT
routinely goes to CSIS [Center for Strategic and International
Studies, Seth G. Jones, a senior vice president] for quotes to justify more weapons and more war. The
latest flashpoint is the news that NATO powers are moving to likely approve Ukraine’s
use of Army Tactical Missile System missiles, known as ATACMS, to strike
deep into Russian territory, potentially targeting oil refineries, factories, and
other infrastructure that serve a mix of military and civilian purposes. The
move would amount to a major escalation that may provoke a wider war
across Europe, strikes on U.S. assets, or even nuclear war.
President Vladimir V. Putin has said that such missile strikes from
American-provided ATACMS into Russian territory would "mean that NATO
countries -- the United States and European countries -- are at war with
Russia." . . ..
– the NYT is engaging in the same type of industry
opinion laundering it once decried. CSIS
vice president Seth Jones doubles as
an official at Beacon Global Strategies, a consulting firm that lobbies
on behalf of the defense industry, with previous clients that include Raytheon.
As the NYT has previously reported, CSIS is funded and routinely
directed by the largest defense contractors in the world. Lockheed Martin,
the manufacturer behind the ATACMS missile system, is among the think
tank's largest corporate benefactors. As
we’ve reported, Lockheed Martin stands to benefit financially from the war,
citing $10
billion in opportunities.
[Highland Industrial Park in East Camden, AR, is a major center of Star Wars production in the United States.]
“Plan
to use long-range NATO missiles against Russia threatens uncontrolled
escalation of global war.”
Editor. mronline.org (9-29-24).
After
high-ranking NATO officials publicly called for Ukraine to use NATO weapons to
attack deep inside Russia, Russian President Vladimir Putin formally presented
a proposed update to Russia’s nuclear policy that would expand the conditions
under which Moscow would use nuclear weapons.
Originally published: World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) on September 26, 2024 by Statement of the WSWS Editorial Board (more by World Socialist Web Site (WSWS)) | (Posted Sep
28, 2024). Strategy,
WarAmericas,
Europe,
Russia,
Ukraine,
United Kingdom, United
StatesNewswire
Speaking before a meeting of the Russian Security Council
on Wednesday, Putin declared: aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear-weapon state, but with the
participation or support of a nuclear-weapon state, should be considered as a
joint attack on the Russian Federation. He
added, We reserve the right to
use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against Russia and Belarus.
This is the most blunt and concrete threat to date by Putin
to use Russia’s nuclear arsenal, one of the two largest in the world, to
respond to ongoing and ever expanding strikes by Ukraine, with the backing of
the NATO powers, on Russian cities and infrastructure. Earlier this month, US Secretary of State
Antony Blinken visited Kiev, where he heavily implied that the US would move
forward with the plan to allow Ukraine to use long-range NATO weapons against
Russia. . . .MORE
Ted Snider: “The Damage Victoria Nuland Has Done.”
ACURA (Sept. 22, 2024). Orig. pub. The American Conservative.
The State Department’s former top woman on Ukraine has strongly supported
initiated and sustained the war. Read in browser »
Anatol Lieven. “Biden
team blows off deadline for Ukraine war strategy.” ACURA (Aug 07, 2024). Perhaps the
administration can’t admit it doesn’t have one.
Read in browser »
PODCAST. Unintended Consequences. “Ben Abelow: NATO, Russia and the Ukraine War.” ACURA (Aug. 07, 2024).
As the Ukrainian war rumbles on is it time to examine whether NATO and the
influence of America in Europe has contributed to the escalation in Eastern
Europe? Benjamin Abelow joins Unintended
Consequences to discuss his book How the West Brought War
to Ukraine.
“Senior
U.S. Diplomats, Journalists, Academics and Secretaries of Defense Say: the U.S.
Provoked Russia in Ukraine” by Donald
A. Smith, PhD. (Forwarded
to me by Sonny San Juan, one
of my best forwarding sources.) https://progressivememes.org/senior-US-diplomats-academics-journalists-and-secretaries-of-defense-say-the-US-provoked-Russia-in-Ukraine.html
It took some years for
Americans to realize they'd been lied to about the war in Vietnam. Thanks to
the publication of the Pentagon Papers, and thanks to the antiwar movement,
Americans eventually learned about the injustices and failures of that war.
Likewise, it took several
years after the starts of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for Americans to
realize they'd been lied to about those wars as well.
Americans are just now
starting to realize that they've been lied to about the war in Ukraine. (The
propaganda effort has been quite effective, with the New York Times, in
particular, acting as a mouthpiece for the government's position.) More and
more mainstream publications are exposing the lies, and a
majority of Americans now oppose further
arming of Ukraine.
This essay is a summary of
what the U.S. government has been hiding about the war in Ukraine, with links
to sources for further information.
According to Brown University's Costs of War project,
U.S. military actions since 9/11 directly killed over 900,000 people,
with an additional 3.5 million people dying from indirect effects. The
wars cost Americans at least $8 trillion and displaced over 38 million people
from their homes. The U.S. spends over a
trillion dollars a year on its military, if you count all
expenditures.
If we go back to the 1960s, the number killed by U.S. wars
includes the several million killed in the Vietnam war, the approximately 1 million
killed by U.S. support for Indonesian military's attacks on
left wing groups, and the hundreds of thousands, at least, killed in proxy wars
and government overthrows in Latin America.
The wars, overthrows, and associated sanctions caused mass
migrations worldwide -- particularly in Europe and at the southern U.S. border
-- and destabilized politics. Yet almost nobody (except for whistleblowers) was
held accountable for these disasters; indeed, many of the same people are in
Congress or work for the government or the weapons industry.
Moreover, the U.S. government lied about almost all
the wars -- in particular, about the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and
Afghanistan, but also about the war in Yugoslovia, as documented in
Harper's Magazine and here. (In
short, the Kosovo Liberation Army that the U.S. supported was, basically, a
terrorist organization funded by the CIA, an d U.S. propaganda greatly
overstated the nobility of the U.S. intervention.)
So, it should come as no surprise that our government is
lying now about the war in Ukraine. Specifically, claims
by President Biden and others that the Russian invasion was
"unprovoked" are greatly exaggerated.
Read
what these diplomats, secretaries of Defense, journalists, academics,
politicians, and others have to say: Sat, Jun 15,
2024. [28 scholars, politicians, et al. reject
the US line regarding the origin of the war. Following that is a summary of all the US lies
and insincerities in response to Russian overtures for peace. A major document in the history of
peacemaking. -D] ![]()
![]()
https://progressivememes.org/senior-US-diplomats-academics-journalists-and-secretaries-of-defense-say-the-US-provoked-Russia-in-Ukraine.html
(Note
on San Juan., He is the highly regarded
Filipino-US scholar. In addition, beginning
with a Ph.D. in British lit. with a book on Oscar Wilde, San Juan turned to literary criticism, in which he was a
chief critic of modernist criticism. And
all along he was a critic of US foreign policies, beginning with the atrocious
US colonial repression of Filipino resistance.
Jonathan McCormick. “An Interview with Professor Nicolai N. Petro: On Ukraine’s
prospects.” ACURA
(Jun 13, 2024).
Fluent in both Russian and German from his youth, Dr. Petro served as Special
Advisor for Policy in the Office of Soviet Union Affairs at the US State
Department in the early 1990s, as dramatic and historic events were unfolding.
Since that time he has written extensively on Russian foreign and domestic
policy, and was […]
Read in browser »
https://standard.sk/680402/nicolai-petro-on-ukraines-prospects-if-something-happens-in-kiev-it-will-be-sudden-and-dramatic
[Wide-ranging discussion of the Istanbul Accords, the
Budapest Memorandum, Ukrainian neutrality, the possibility of a coup, Germany’s
negotiations at end of WWI, negotiations
between Zelensky and Putin, and more.
-Dick]
No
country which is weaker and which borders a larger and stronger neighbour can
survive if it makes an enemy of that neighbour. This has simply never happened
in human history. The Americans and NATO obviously think only of their own
security interests in relation to Russia, and Ukraine is only interesting to
them as a tool to defeat it, says American professor Nicolai Petro.
As
the situation in Ukraine gets steadily more desperate, with military experts
now considering a possible collapse of Ukraine’s front line, some Western
voices have begun to dismiss the conventional wisdom that negotiations must
eventually take place between Moscow and Washington, calling instead for direct
talks between Ukrainian and Russian leaders. One such voice is Nicolai Petro,
Professor of Political Science at the University of Rhode Island and author
of The Tragedy of Ukraine: What Classical Greek Tragedy Can Teach Us
About Conflict Resolution. . . .
In
what sense can the Istanbul accords be a starting point for negotiations, now
that four oblasts, in addition to Crimea, have been annexed to Russia, and
Russia is not likely ever to agree to give them back?
No, but Russia is still advancing
within those four regions and looking to ‚liberate‘ them, as it sees it, to
their administrative borders. When that happens, as seems likely, will Russia
continue? And to what end? If I am right, that Russia invaded not in order to
subjugate Ukraine but in order to force it to accept neutrality – to keep it
from manoeuvring in ways that Russia considered threatening – then we’re essentially
back to where the Istanbul accords left us: with the same deal on the table of
security and neutrality for Ukraine in exchange for Russia not taking more
territory, for not pushing further. It’s still the same exchange. So let’s
assume for a moment one scenario, which is being more and more widely
discussed. There’s a breakthrough on the front lines, the lines collapse,
Ukraine has no defensive positions left. Russia can now either move forward –
for example in the direction of major cities, Kharkiv, Kiev, Odessa – or not.
Let’s assume Russia really doesn’t want to do that, because of the costs
involved – in all senses. Then the option of not doing that becomes what they
are offering – because they could obviously do it, given the collapse of Ukraine’s
lines. And they say to Ukraine: we will in fact guarantee the security of your
borders, in a multilateral guarantee with other parties agreeing to serve as
guarantors, as they did in the 1990s with the Budapest Memorandum. And this
then becomes part of the negotiations.
Right,
the Budapest Memorandum, which involved Western countries as well. And you
foresee this as a possibility as to how things might be settled, some sort of
similar agreement for Ukraine’s security, guaranteed by Russia on one side and
Western countries on the other?
Logic
would dictate that if a country’s elite wants to survive, then in the face of
military collapse it negotiates. It negotiates essentially a surrender. World
War I ended without Germany being invaded, because the high command of the
German staff said: Well, we lost the battle, we are now vulnerable, let’s cut a
deal. Which is why they suffered at the settlement in Versailles, but not to
the extent that the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires did, which were
totally dismembered. And we know that the German high command basically posed
an ultimatum to Kaiser Wilhelm II. They said we can’t fight anymore – there are
no resources – so you need to abdicate, so that we can negotiate a ceasefire
and surrender. So that would be the scenario presumably in Ukraine now. Again,
not an unusual scenario – basically involving, as it did after World War I, a
military coup replacing the political leadership at the time. . . . MORE
And is
that feasible, given the fact that – as you mentioned when we talked last
Isn’t
it more in Russia’s interest not to subsume Ukraine, but rather to keep it as a
separate state that can serve as a buffer between Russia and NATO?
Well
the interesting thing about that is that Ukraine is being offered a curious
combination of security and economic prosperity: security by Russia agreeing to
the current borders – guaranteed also by a number of other countries – and
prosperity by membership in the EU.
Which
Russia will not object to?
Will
not object to, right. That was part of the Istanbul accords as well. It’s an
interesting strategy, because what it ultimately does, oddly enough, is to
reconstitute Ukraine in what I have been arguing for, for more than a decade.
Actually sixteen years ago – in 2008, my first trip to Ukraine – I gave a talk
at Kharkiv University, which was later published. And I said: Ukraine needs to
be a bridge between Russia and the West. And by linking the essential security
and economic interests of Russia and Europe in Ukraine, it effectively
constitutes Ukraine as that bridge.
James W. Carden.
“Why Does American Folly March on in Ukraine?” ACURA (Jun 13, 2024).
As the tide of the war has turned, perhaps permanently, in Russia’s favor
(itself an entirely foreseeable development despite the wishful thinking that
has characterized too much of what passes for informed analysis here in
Washington), Ukraine’s Western sponsors find themselves scrambling to find a
way to halt Russia’s momentum. Read in browser »
What Future Might We
Have and How?
“Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation: Ukraine War, The Third Year, featuring Grigory Yavlinsky.” VIDEO. ACURA.
May 27, 2024.
The Nuclear Age
Peace Foundation held a virtual event to discuss the third year of the
Ukraine War and the nuclear dangers associated with this conflict. The
event featured Professor Grigory Yavlinsky, a Russian economist and politician
who ran for the Presidency of Russia three times. Yavlinsky was joined by ACURA
President Katrina vanden Heuvel, and
Prof. Falk […] They discuss what must
be changed in present policies if the planet nuclear war is to be
prevented. Read in browser »
“Ukrainian
communist Dmitri Kovalevich: Ukraine has become a private mercenary company of
NATO to fight against its opponents (Interview)” BY Saheli
Chowdhury. Mronline.org (5-21-24).
According to Dmitri Kovalevich, the United States controls
all decisions in Ukraine, not only military but also economic. “It is not the
Ukrainian [military] command that decides where to advance, what to undermine,
what to shell; Ukrainian soldiers are acting on the advice of Western
instructors,” he said, referring to the actions of the Ukrainian armed forces.
Originally published: Orinoco Tribune on May 19, 2024 (more
by Orinoco Tribune).
Imperialism, State
Repression, Strategy, WarAmericas, Europe, Russia, Ukraine, United
StatesInterview, NewswireDmitri
Kovalevich, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Russia-Ukraine
War
“Star CIA Analysts Are Out of Touch With Reality When it
Comes to Russia” By Larry C. Johnson. CovertAction Magazine (Nov 26,
2022).
They See Only the Bad Old Days of the Soviet Union
The CIA, thanks to Hollywood and
fanboys, enjoys an undeserved reputation for competence in carrying out
espionage and covert actions.
I am fascinated by the delusional
punditry offered by former CIA officers, such as Douglas London and Steven Hall. Full disclosure, Hall was a young 20 something in my
Career Trainee class (we entered on duty in September 1985). He is emblematic,
in my opinion, of the problems that have plagued the CIA over the last thirty
years–he was a legacy, i.e. got into the agency in part because his Daddy
preceded him.
Steve, if you recall, was one of the
liars who signed a letter declaring that Hunter
Biden’s laptop had all the earmarks of Russian disinformation. Attaching
himself to such a libelous letter (he was impugning the character of John Paul
Mac Isaac) highlights his tendency to follow the herd and eschew critical
thinking.
But I want to focus on Douglas London. He is popping up all
over media, especially CNN and the Wall Street Journal, and offering analysis
that ranges from the banal to the delusional.
Consider this snippet, published in the Wall Street Journal, in March:
“I spent 34 years in the Central
Intelligence Agency’s clandestine service, and watching Vladimir Putin’s brutal war in Ukraine
from the sidelines fills me with both sadness and a sense of opportunity.
Espionage is a predatory business, and there’s blood in the water. Mr. Putin’s
self-inflicted damage has done more to turn his own people against him than anything
the West could have done. . . .
Russian mystique is gone. Mr. Putin
has proved his country is the declining power that the best-informed Russia
watchers claimed it was. Fewer pundits will wax poetic over Mr. Putin’s cunning
and strategic brilliance. He might have been a capable operations officer
during his KGB career, but he clearly missed the classes on self-awareness and
counterintelligence. The more he tightens the security screws and covers
Russia’s window to the world, the more likely those he depends on will turn
against him.”
Got that? Russia, whose economy is
clicking along nicely in contrast to the implosion underway in Europe, is a
declining power in Mr. London’s fanciful world. Since the start of the Special
Military Operation last February, Putin has frustrated Western attempts to
paint him as Hitler reincarnated and has forged closer ties with China, India,
Saudi Arabia and Brazil. […] Read in browser »
Media Obscures Key Reason For Russian
Retreat From Kherson; Namely to Prevent the Destruction of the Nova Kakhovka
Dam
By Sonja Van den Ende.
CovertAction Magazine. Nov 21, 2022.
Predictions of imminent collapse of Russian army are
fanciful
The Western media have
widely celebrated the retreat of Russian forces from the city of Kherson, presenting the Ukrainians as liberators of the
city and the Russian retreat as an example of the weakness of the Russian army
and its impending collapse. However, the
same media have a track record of biased and misleading coverage of the Ukraine
war that leads one to question its veracity in all aspects of its reporting. With regards to Kherson, the media have
failed to acknowledge that the Russian retreat was a calculated one designed in
part to save the Nova Kakhovka dam,
which the Ukrainians had threatened to blow up in an act of state terrorism.
The Khakovka dam has an
associated lock and power station with an installed capacity of 357 megawatts.
The water from its reservoir cools the 5.7 gigawatt Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, the
largest nuclear power plant in Europe, and flows through the North Crimean
Canal to irrigate large areas of southern Ukraine and northern Crimea.
If the Ukrainians had
attacked the Khakovka dam, it would mean that Crimea would run out of water and
it could lead to a nuclear fall out, which Russia had warned about for weeks. .
. .MORE
Risks of Opposing Warmongering
Aidan
Jonah. “Canadian Professor
attacked by mainstream media for opposing NATO narrative on Ukraine.” Editor. Mronline.org
(11-10-22).
A highly regarded Russia specialist in
Canada, Professor Michael Carley at the University of Montreal, has refused to
support the NATO narrative on the Ukraine conflict and has since been subjected to a
vicious smear campaign.
Originally published: Internationalist 360° on November 6, 2022 by (more by Internationalist 360°)
(Posted Nov 09, 2022)
Human Rights, Media, Strategy, WarAmericas, Canada, Europe, Russia, UkraineNewswireNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), Russia-Ukraine War
CONTENTS UKRAINE WAR ANTHOLOGY #33 (19)
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.
END UKRAINE WAR ANTHOLOGY #34
