OMNI
US-NATO-UKRAINE-RUSSIA WAR #25
AUGUST 7, 2022
Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace, Justice, and Ecology
Omnicenter.org/donate/
CONTENTS
Causes of the War
Gerald Sussman. The Long CIA Propaganda War
Bryce Greene. “What’s Missing from Corporate Media’s [MSM] Ukraine Coverage?” 2022.
Patrick Lawrence. “The Great Acquiescence—Glory to Ukraine.” 2022.
Michael Welton. “”…How John Mearsheimer and Stephen Cohen Challenged the Dominant Narrative.” 2022.
Kit Klarenburg. “How CIA Front Laid Foundations for Ukraine War.”
More on Nazis in Ukraine (see Anthology #24)
Sonja Van den Ende. “Ruins of Azov Steel Factory Display Nazi Insignia. “
Gregory Shupak. “Pushing for War Over Ukraine While Ignoring Its Nazi Ties.”
Sustaining the War
George Paulson. “The Politics of Biden’s Escalation.”
Amy Goodman. “Western Mass Media.”
Ben Norton. NATO Sacrificing Ukrainians.
Jeff Abramson. The US, Lethal Weapons, and Russia.
Jeremy Kuzmarov. Brzezinski, Poland, US Baltic Sea Base.
Ben Norton. “CIA and Western Special Ops Are in Ukraine.”
Dave DeCamp. Biden: US Increasing Military Presence in Europe.
Peace
Richard Falk. “A European Call for an End to the Ukrainian War.”
Rick Sterling. “Handling International Crises from JFK to Biden.”
Kathy Kelly and Matt Gannon. “To Heal. We Must Cultivate Hope.”
Jim Chambers. “Resisting the ‘Collective West.’”
TEXTS
Causes
Sustaining the War
Peace
CAUSES OF THE WAR
WE’RE GETTING ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE CONFLICT
“Gerald Sussman. Russia-Ukraine conflict: the propaganda war.”Mronline.org (7-31-22).
What the mainstream media fail to see in the coverage of the current Ukraine crisis is that there is no text (narrative) without context. Long before the mainstream U.S. (and UK) media launched a worldwide propaganda war against the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February, the CIA had laid the foundations of the conflict in the early years following the Second World War–the Cold War.
BRYCE GREENE. “What's Missing From Corporate Media's Ukraine Coverage.” Common Dreams. [This is necessarily long, for it offers a coherent, supported etiology alternative to the US/NATO/Ukraine Gov./Western MSM “dominant narrative” of the Ukraine War. –Dick]
Most reporting in the current conflict leaves out the crucial role the U.S. has played in escalating tensions in the region.
January 30, 2022 by Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/01/30/whats-missing-corporate-medias-ukraine-coverage
As tensions began to rise over Ukraine, US media produced a stream of articles attempting to explain the situation with headlines like “Ukraine Explained” (New York Times, 12/8/21) and “What You Need to Know About Tensions Between Ukraine and Russia” (Washington Post, 11/26/21). Sidebars would have notes that tried to provide context for the current headlines. But to truly understand this crisis, you would need to know much more than what these articles offered.
These “explainer” pieces are emblematic of Ukraine coverage in the rest of corporate media, which almost universally gave a pro-Western view of US/Russia relations and the history behind them. Media echoed the point of view of those who believe the US should have an active role in Ukrainian politics and enforce its perspective through military threats.
The official line goes something like this: Russia is challenging NATO and the “international rules-based order” by threatening to invade Ukraine, and the Biden administration needed to deter Russia by providing more security guarantees to the Zelensky government. The official account seizes on Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula as a starting point for US/Russian relations, and as evidence of Putin’s goals of rebuilding Russia’s long-lost empire.
Russia’s demand that NATO cease its expansion to Russia’s borders is viewed as such an obviously impossible demand that it can only be understood as a pretext to invade Ukraine. Therefore, the US should send weapons and troops to Ukraine, and guarantee its security with military threats to Russia (FAIR.org, 1/15/22).
The Washington Post asked: “Why is there tension between Russia and Ukraine?” Its answer:
In March 2014, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine. A month later, war erupted between Russian-allied separatists and Ukraine’s military in the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbas. The United Nations human rights office estimates that more than 13,000 people have been killed.
But that account is highly misleading, because it leaves out the crucial role the US has played in escalating tensions in the region. In nearly every case we looked at, the reports omitted the US’s extensive role in the 2014 coup that preceded Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Focusing on the latter part only serves to manufacture consent for US intervention abroad.
The West Wants Investor-Friendly Policies in Ukraine
The backdrop to the 2014 coup and annexation cannot be understood without looking at the US strategy to open Ukrainian markets to foreign investors and give control of its economy to giant multinational corporations.
A key tool for this has been the International Monetary Fund, which leverages aid loans to push governments to adopt policies friendly to foreign investors. The IMF is funded by and represents Western financial capital and governments and has been at the forefront of efforts to reshape economies around the world for decades, often with disastrous results. The civil war in Yemen and the coup in Bolivia both followed a rejection of IMF terms.
In Ukraine, the IMF had long planned to implement a series of economic reforms to make the country more attractive to investors. These included cutting wage controls (i.e., lowering wages), “reform[ing] and reduc[ing]” health and education sectors (which made up the bulk of employment in Ukraine), and cutting natural gas subsidies to Ukrainian citizens that made energy affordable to the general public. Coup plotters like US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland repeatedly stressed the need for the Ukrainian government to enact the “necessary” reforms.
In 2013, after early steps to integrate with the West, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych turned against these changes and ended trade integration talks with the European Union. Months before his overthrow, he restarted economic negotiations with Russia, in a major snub to the Western economic sphere. By then, the nationalist protests were heating up that would go on to topple his government.
After the 2014 coup, the new government quickly restarted the EU deal. After cutting heating subsidies in half, it secured a $27 billion commitment from the IMF. The IMF’s goals still include “reducing the role of the state and vested interests in the economy” in order to attract more foreign capital.
The IMF is one of the many global institutions whose role in maintaining global inequities often goes unreported and unnoticed by the general public. The US economic quest to open global markets to capital is a key driver of international affairs, but if the press chooses to ignore it, the public debate is incomplete and shallow.
The US Helped Overthrow Ukraine’s Elected President
During the tug of war between the US and Russia, the Americans were engaged in a destabilization campaign against the Yanukovych government. The campaign culminated with the overthrow of the elected president in the Maidan Revolution—also known as the Maidan Coup—named for the Kiev square that hosted the bulk of the protests.
As political turmoil engulfed the country in the leadup to 2014, the US was fueling anti-government sentiment through mechanisms like USAID and National Endowment for Democracy (NED), just as they had done in 2004. In December 2013, Nuland, assistant secretary of state for European affairs and a long-time regime change advocate, said that the US government had spent $5 billion promoting “democracy” in Ukraine since 1991. The money went toward supporting “senior officials in the Ukraine government…[members of] the business community as well as opposition civil society” who agree with US goals.
The NED is a key organization in the network of American soft power that pours $170 million a year into organizations dedicated to defending or installing US-friendly regimes. The Washington Post‘s David Ignatius (9/22/91) once wrote that the organization functions by “doing in public what the CIA used to do in private.” The NED targets governments who oppose US military or economic policy, stirring up anti-government opposition.
The NED board of directors includes Elliott Abrams, whose sordid record runs from the Iran/Contra affair in the ’80s to the Trump administration’s effort to overthrow the Venezuelan government. In 2013, NED president Carl Gershman wrote a piece in the Washington Post (9/26/13) that described Ukraine as the “biggest prize” in the East/West rivalry. After the Obama administration, Nuland joined the NED board of directors before returning to the State Department in the Biden administration as undersecretary of state for political affairs.
One of the many recipients of NED money for projects in Ukraine was the International Republican Institute. The IRI, once chaired by Sen. John McCain, has long had a hand in US regime change operations. During the protests that eventually brought down the government, McCain and other US officials personally flew into Ukraine to encourage protesters.
US Officials Were Caught Picking the New Government
On February 6, 2014, as the anti-government protests were intensifying, an anonymous party (assumed by many to be Russia) leaked a call between Assistant Secretary of State Nuland and US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. The two officials discussed which opposition officials would staff a prospective new government, agreeing that Arseniy Yatsenyuk—Nuland referred to him by the nickname “Yats”—should be in charge. It was also agreed that someone “high profile” be brought in to push things along. That someone was Joe Biden.
Weeks later, on February 22, after a massacre by suspicious snipers brought tensions to a head, the Ukrainian parliament quickly removed Yanukovych from office in a constitutionally questionable maneuver. Yanukovych then fled the country, calling the overthrow a coup. On February 27, Yatsenyuk became prime minister.
At the time the call leaked, media were quick to pounce on Nuland’s saying “Fuck the EU.” The comment dominated the headlines (Daily Beast, 2/6/14; BuzzFeed, 2/6/14; Atlantic, 2/6/14; Guardian, 2/6/14), while the evidence of US regime change efforts was downplayed. With the headline “Russia Claims US Is Meddling Over Ukraine,” the New York Times (2/6/14) put the facts of US involvement in the mouth of an official enemy, blunting their impact on the audience. The Times (2/6/14) later described the two officials as benignly “talking about the political crisis in Kiev” and sharing “their views of how it might be resolved.”
The Washington Post (2/6/14) acknowledged that the call showed “a deep degree of US involvement in affairs that Washington officially says are Ukraine’s to resolve,” but that fact rarely factored into future coverage of the US/Ukraine/Russia relationship.
Washington Used Nazis to Help Overthrow the Government
The Washington-backed opposition that toppled the government was fueled by far-right and openly Nazi elements like the Right Sector. One far-right group that grew out of the protests was the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary militia of neo-Nazi extremists. Their leaders made up the vanguard of the anti-Yanukovych protests, and even spoke at opposition events in the Maidan alongside US regime change advocates like McCain and Nuland.
After the violent coup, these groups were later incorporated into the Ukrainian armed forces—the same armed forces that the US has now given $2.5 billion. Though Congress technically restricted money from flowing to the Azov Battalion in 2018, trainers on the ground say there’s no mechanism to actually enforce the provision. Since the coup, the Ukrainian nationalist forces have been responsible for a wide variety of atrocities in the counterinsurgency war.
Far-right influence has increased across Ukraine as a result of Washington’s actions. A recent UN Human Rights council has noted that “fundamental freedoms in Ukraine have been squeezed” since 2014, further weakening the argument that the US is involved in the country on behalf of liberal values.
Among American neo-Nazis, there’s even a movement aimed at encouraging right-wing extremists to join the Battalion in order to “gain actual combat experience” in preparation for a potential civil war in the US.
In a recent UN vote on “combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism,” the US and Ukraine were the only two countries to vote no.
As FAIR (1/15/22) has reported, between December 6, 2021, and January 6, 2022, the New York Times ran 228 articles that refer to Ukraine, but none of them reference the pro-Nazi elements in Ukraine’s politics or government. The same can be said of the Washington Post’s 201 articles on the topic.
There’s a Lot More to the Crimean Annexation
The facts above give more context to Russian actions following the coup, and ought to counter the caricature of a Russian Empire bent on expansion. From Russia’s point of view, a longtime adversary had successfully overthrown a neighboring government using violent far-right extremists.
The Crimean peninsula, which was part of Russia until it was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic in 1954, is home to one of two Russian naval bases with access to the Black and Mediterranean seas, one of history’s most important maritime theaters. A Crimea controlled by a US-backed Ukrainian government was a major threat to Russian naval access.
The peninsula—82% of whose households speak Russian, and only 2% mainly Ukrainian—held a plebiscite in March 2014 on whether or not they should join Russia, or remain under the new Ukrainian government. The Pro-Russia camp won with 95% of the vote. The UN General Assembly, led by the US, voted to ignore the referendum results on the grounds that it was contrary to Ukraine’s constitution. This same constitution had been set aside to oust President Yanukovych a month earlier.
All of this is dropped from Western coverage.
The US Wants to Expand NATO
In addition to integrating Ukraine into the US-dominated economic sphere, Western planners also want to integrate Ukraine militarily. For years, the US has sought the expansion of NATO, an explicitly anti-Russian military alliance. NATO was originally billed as a counterforce to the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War, but after the demise of the Soviet Union, the US promised the new Russia that it would not expand NATO east of Germany. Despite this agreement, the US continued building out its military alliance,growing closer and closer to Russia’s borders and ignoring Russia’s objections.
This history is sometimes admitted but usually downplayed in corporate media. In an interview with the Washington Post (12/1/21), professor Mary Sarotte, author of Not One Inch: America, Russia and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate, recounted that after the Soviet collapse, “Washington realized that it could not only win big, but win bigger. Not one inch of territory needed to be off-limits to full NATO membership.” The US “all-or-nothing approach to expansionism…maximized conflict with Moscow,” she noted. Unfortunately, one interview does little to cut through the drumbeat of pro-NATO talking points.
In 2008, NATO members pledged to extend membership to Ukraine. The removal of the pro-Russian government in 2014 was a giant leap towards the pledge becoming a reality. Recently, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg announced that the alliance stands by plans to integrate Ukraine into the alliance.
Bret Stephens in the New York Times (1/11/21) maintained that if Ukraine wasn’t allowed to join the organization, it would “break the spine of NATO” and “end the Western alliance as we have known it since the Atlantic Charter.”
The US Wouldn’t Tolerate What Russia Is Expected to Accept
Much has been written about the Russian buildup on the Ukraine border. Reports of the buildup have been intensified by US intelligence officials’ warnings of an attack. Media often echo the claim of an inevitable invasion. The Washington Post editorial board (1/24/22) wrote that “Putin can—and will—use any measures the United States and its NATO allies either take or refrain from taking as a pretext for aggression.”
But Putin has been clear about a path to de-escalation. His main demand has been for direct negotiations to end the expansion of the hostile military alliance to his borders. He announced, “We have made it clear that NATO’s move to the east is unacceptable,” and that “the United States is standing with missiles on our doorstep.” Putin asked, “How would the Americans react if missiles were placed at the border with Canada or Mexico?”
In corporate media coverage, no one bothers to ask this important question. Instead, the assumption is that Putin ought to tolerate a hostile military alliance directly across its border. The US, it seems, is the only country allowed to have a sphere of influence.
The New York Times (1/26/22) asked: “Can the West Stop Russia From Invading Ukraine?” but shrugs at the US dismissal of Putin’s terms as “nonstarters.” The Washington Post (12/10/21) reported: “Some analysts have expressed worry that the Russian leader is making demands that he knows Washington will reject, possibly as a pretext for military action once he is spurned.” The Post quoted one analyst, “I don’t see us giving them anything that would suffice relative to their demands, and what troubles me is they know that.”
Audiences have also been assured that Putin’s reaction to Western expansionism is actually a prelude to more aggressive actions. “Ukraine Is Only One Small Part of Putin’s Plans,” warned the New York Times (1/7/22). The Times (1/26/22) later described Putin’s Ukraine policy as an attempt at “restoring what he views as Russia’s rightful place among the world’s great powers,” rather than an attempt to avoid having the US military directly on its border. USA Today (1/18/22) warned readers that “Putin ‘Won’t Stop’ with Ukraine.”
But taking this view is diplomatic malpractice. Anatol Lieven (Responsible Statecraft, 1/3/22), an analyst at the Quincy Institute, wrote that US acquiescence to a neutral Ukraine would be a “golden bridge” that, in addition to reducing US/Russia tensions, could enable a political solution to Ukraine’s civil war. This restraint-oriented policy is considered fringe thinking in the Washington foreign policy establishment.
The Memory Hole
All of this missing context allows hawks to promote disastrous escalation of tensions. The Wall Street Journal (12/22/21) published an opinion piece trying to convince readers there was a “Strategic Advantage to Risking War In Ukraine.” The piece, by John Deni of the US Army War College, summarized the familiar hawkish talking points, and claimed that a neutral Ukraine is “anathema to Western values of national self-determination and sovereignty.”
In a modern rendition of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Afghan Trap, Deni asserted that war in Ukraine could actually serve US interests by weakening Russia: Such a war, however disastrous, would “forge an even stronger anti-Russian consensus across Europe,” refocusing NATO against the main enemy, result in “economic sanctions that would further weaken Russia’s economy” and “sap the strength and morale of Russia’s military while undercutting Mr. Putin’s domestic popularity.” Thus escalating tensions is a win/win for Washington.
Few of the recent wave of Ukraine pieces recount the crucial history given above. Including the truth about US foreign policy goals in the post-Cold War era makes the current picture look a lot less one-sided. Imagine for one second how the US would behave if Putin began trying to add a US neighbor to a hostile military alliance after helping to overthrow its government.
The economic imperative for opening foreign markets, the NATO drive to push up against Russia, US support for the 2014 coup and the direct hand in shaping the new government all need to be pushed down the memory hole if the official line is to have any credibility. Absent all of that, it is easy to accept the fiction that Ukraine is a battleground between a “rules-based order” and Russian autocracy.
Indeed, the Washington Post editorial board (12/8/21) recently compared negotiating with Putin to appeasing Hitler at Munich. It called on Biden to “resist Putin’s trumped-up demands on Ukraine,” “lest he destabilize all of Europe to autocratic Russia’s advantage.” This wasn’t the only time the paper has made the Munich analogy; the Post (12/10/21) ran a piece by former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen headlined “On Ukraine, Biden Is Channeling His Inner Neville Chamberlain.”
In the New York Times (12/10/21), Trump NSC aide Alexander Vindman told readers “How the United States Can Break Putin’s Hold on Ukraine,” and urged the Biden administration to send active US troops to the country. A “free and sovereign Ukraine,” he said, is vital in “advancing US interests against those of Russia and China.” Times reporter Michael Crowley (12/16/21) also framed the Ukraine standoff as another “Test of US Credibility Abroad,” after that credibility was supposedly damaged after ending the war in Afghanistan.
In a New York Times major feature (1/16/21) on Ukraine, the US role in bringing tensions to this point was completely omitted, in favor of exclusively blaming “Russian Belligerence.”
As a result of this coverage, the interventionist mentality has trickled down to the public. One poll found that, should Russia actually invade Ukraine, 50% of Americans support embroiling the US in yet another quagmire, up from just 30% in 2014. Biden, however, has said that no US troops will be sent to Ukraine. Instead, the US and EU have threatened sanctions or support for a rebel insurgency should Russia invade.
The past few weeks have seen several failed talks between the US and Russians, as the US refuses to alter its plans for Ukraine. The US Congress is rushing a “lethal aid” package to send more weapons to the troubled border. Perhaps if the public were better informed, there would be more domestic pressure on Biden to end the brinkmanship and seek a genuine solution to the problem.
© 2021 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
BRYCE GREENE is a student at Indiana University/Bloomington.
Patrick Lawrence. “The great acquiescence — Glory to Ukraine.” Editor. Mronline.org (5-14-22). Americans don’t merely acquiesce to the imperium’s wars, interventions, collective punishments and assorted other deprivations. They actively embrace them.
Originally published: Consortium News on April 16, 2022 (more by Consortium News) (Posted May 13, 2022).
Media, State Repression, StrategyAmericas, United StatesNewswire“bubble of pretend”, Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, CIA, Great Barrington, Iris Murdoch, National Committee for a Free Europe, NATO, New Deal, Patrick Lawrence, President Joe Biden, President Vladimir Putin, Radio Free Europe, Russia-Ukraine War, Steve Fraser
The other day I ventured forth from my remote village to a lively market town called Great Barrington to shop for Easter lunch–spring lamb, a decent bottle of Bourgogne. Easter is much marked in my household, one of the few feasts we allow ourselves, and it is a reminder this year of a truth that could scarcely be more pertinent to our shared circumstances: After all our small and large crucifixions, there is new life to come.
Great Barrington lies in the Berkshire Hills of western Massachusetts, a fashionable little burg dense–as you can tell simply by walking around in it —with righteous liberals. No place, you remind yourself, is perfect.
And there along the streets and avenues as I arrived were what I had anticipated: Ukrainian flags hanging off front porches, in shop windows, on flagpoles just below the Stars and Stripes. Somebody has painted the bit of board displaying their house number in the blue and yellow we all now recognize. Father, forgive them, I thought, for they know not what blood-soaked horrors and hate-filled killers they enthusiastically endorse.
Not in my lifetime have Americans, purporting to be thoughtful, intelligent people, been so wide-eyed, so stupefied as those who are pretending to lead them and to inform them by seeking to bury them in ignorance.
We now read that investigators are diligently “documenting the catalog of inhumanity perpetrated by Russia’s forces in Ukraine”–a U.S. diplomat’s remark. Nobody stops to think the investigators are all from nations that are acting against Russia.
“Where else should they come from?” they shrug in Great Barrington.
Nobody notes that the essential question has been crudely removed from public discourse as these sham investigations get under way. The atrocities in Bucha, Mariupol and elsewhere are beyond all dispute, but we must never ask who is responsible for them.
I hear the good citizens of Great Barrington quaking with rage as The New York Times convicts the Russian leadership, as our president describes the Bucha tragedy as a Russian war crime not two hours after it came to light.
We now read, in Friday’s editions of the Times, all about the joint American–Ukrainian campaign to inundate Russian discourse with propaganda intended to demoralize the public. The government-supervised Times explains,
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a U.S.–funded but independent news organization founded decades ago, is trying to push its broadcasts deeper into Russia.
U.S.–funded but independent. Priceless, and don’t miss the slide into passive voice to avoid the truth, a recurrent Times trick I have grown very fond of–“founded decades ago.”
Radio Free Europe was founded by a C.I.A. front Allen Dulles cooked up in 1949, the National Committee for a Free Europe. It received agency funding until at least the 1970s, when the funding function was transferred elsewhere in the Washington bureaucracy for the sake of appearances.
What RFE/RL is doing in Russia today is exactly what American liberals, in paroxysms of horror, accused Russians of doing during the 2016 election campaigns. But it is O.K. because we’re doing it, they say in the charming bistros along Railroad Street. We must fight for democracy.
Brute Censorship
We are not reading in the corporate press, by contrast, that a new wave of brute censorship is now upon us, as social media such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube “suspend,” “cancel,” “de-platform”–whatever this radically antidemocratic business is called–dissenting writers and analysts who have taken the trouble to examine the facts on the ground in Ukraine such as we have them with professional disinterest.
We must defend democracy at home, the good of Great Barrington insist, just as we must in Ukraine.
Since the Russiagate farrago overcame liberal America in 2016, there has been much debate as to whether our McCarthyesque circumstances are as bad as, similar to, or not as bad as things got during the Cold War decades.
This no longer seems to me the useful question. In various important ways we have passed beyond even the worst of the Cold War’s many dreadful features.
Our better reference is Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, wherein the English novelist pictured a society of incubated beings–programmed from birth, hooked on a happiness-inducing drug called soma, devoid of everything we now consider human, wholly incapable of connection, of responsibility, and, indeed, desiring neither. Infantile gratification is all that matters to those populating the World State Huxley imagined–such as anything matters.
We are not there yet, let’s not exaggerate. But we ought to honor Huxley for his prescience, for we are heading in the direction of his unlivable world of mind-deprived children watched over by a small, chosen, diabolic elite.
I am not surprised that it is Ukraine that brings us to what I consider a collective psychological crisis. After 30 years of post–Cold War triumphalism, Washington has decided to use Ukraine and its people in a go-for-broke attempt finally to subvert Russia. Stepping back for a better look, this is the decisive event in the imperium’s confrontation with the 21st century–its grand roll of the dice, its now-or-never moment.
Broke it will be when all this is over, however far in the future that will prove. A little like Cú Chulainn, the Irish hero who drowned swinging his sword in a rage against the incoming tide, we cannot win this one. And we are falling apart as the realization of our loss arrives subliminally among us.
Whoever wins the war in Ukraine, the non–West will win. Whoever wins, the 21st century will win, burying the mostly awful 20th at last. As for Americans, we have already lost.
Our Condition
What of our condition, then? What has become of us, why, and what shall we do about it? If I am correct about America’s psychological crisis, its connection to the on-the-ground, in-our-faces crisis in Ukraine is not immediately apparent.
Huxley wrote Brave New World in 1931 and published it a year later. Let us take the cue. Let’s look back to consider the thoughts of a few people who, unlike most of us, took life seriously and so applied themselves to an understanding of their time.
Steve Fraser brought out The Age of Acquiescence in 2015. Fraser is among the best labor economists now active, an honorable man of the 1960s, and his subtitle tells us his line of inquiry: The Life and Death of American Resistance to Organized Wealth and Power. Why and when, Fraser wanted to discover, had American workers rolled over in surrender? What happened to all those fine New Dealers who, with good minds, fought hard for the kind of society they knew was possible?
Labor isn’t our topic, but his book has implications far beyond his specific interests.
The Age of Acquiescence
Fraser situates himself “peering back into the past at a largely forgotten terrain of struggle.” The New Deal years, the battles waged against the anti–Communist paranoia of the postwar decades, the antiwar movement of the 1960s and early 1970s: The people animating these movements had memories and experience.
They remembered what American society could be in its potential because they had lived for and acted on that potential. They knew another kind of America was possible.
Most of us have forgotten all that. Younger people never shared that consciousness in the first place. Very few of us have any memory or experience of living under anything other than pervasive corporate domination and a government, in its profound corruption, that serves corporate capital and does as little as it can otherwise.
There is nothing to wage struggle for, in other words. Our relations with those who hold power over us are not very different from the relations Huxley’s children had with the sequestered elites who controlled their lives. This is the root of our prevalent assumptions.
The work of any social or political campaign worth mounting is now rendered too imposing even to attempt. It is best to acquiesce to power, contenting ourselves–as if we all live in Great Barrington–with finding the best olive oil.
Mass acquiescence largely leads us to an explanation of the preposterous support most Americans have for the criminal regime in Kiev. But we’re beyond Steve Fraser’s Age of Acquiescence now. Americans don’t merely acquiesce to all that the imperium imposes on the world–wars, interventions, collective punishments, assorted other deprivations. Americans actively embrace the conduct of empire. MORE https://mronline.org/2022/05/13/the-great-acquiescence/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-great-acquiescence&mc_cid=b8acdfc159&mc_eid=ab2f7bf95e
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century.
Critique of US-NATO narrative that led to the war and fuels it.
Date: Thu, May 5, 2022 at 9:32 AM
“Taking Aim at Ukraine: How John Mearsheimer and Stephen Cohen Challenged the Dominant Narrative.” From Sonny San Juan, Jr
MAY 5, 2022
MICHAEL WELTON. “Taking Aim at Ukraine: How John Mearsheimer and Stephen Cohen Challenged the Dominant Narrative.” Interfering in another state is tricky business
Interfering in another state is tricky business – so says the gutsy University of Chicago international relations scholar John Mearsheimer (The great delusion: liberal dreams and international realities [2018]. It is tricky – and dangerous – and the exceptional nation, the US, may think pushing NATO (with its missile sites and troop placement) to Russia’s borders is benign. But another state – Russia – thinks it is threatening. Mearsheimer admits that great powers may follow “balance of power” logic, but they can also embrace “liberal hegemony.” When they do, “they may cause a lot of trouble for themselves and other states. The ongoing crisis over Ukraine is a case in point” (p. 171).
It sure is—and very few citizens in Canada and the US have a clue about what this crisis is about: they just assume, saturated in decades of various forms of anti-Russian propaganda, that the military operation launched by Russia on February 24th was, pure and simple, the logical extension of an evil leader, Vladimer Putin. In other words, Ukraine is mere “worthy victim” – and the propaganda machine in the West don’t miss a chance to display images (often false) of the destruction of buildings and people by evil Putin and his military. Evidence is not necessary to substantiate any claims fed to us by the mass media. Images will do because they arouse emotions. Putin is to blame; Zelensky is the noble defender of Ukrainian nationality.
Mearsheimer informs us that: “According to the prevailing wisdom in the West, this problem [i.e. the crisis] is largely the result of Russian aggression. President Vladimer Putin, the argument goes, is bent on creating a greater Russia akin to the former Soviet Union, which means controlling the governments in its ‘near abroad’—its neighbouring states—including Ukraine, the Baltic states, and possibly other Eastern European countries. The coup against Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych on February 22, 2014, provided Putin with a pretext for annexing Crimea and starting a war in eastern Ukraine” (ibid.). Putin as instigator. Blame him, and him alone!
Flatly, Mearsheimer states: “This account is false. The United States and its European allies are mainly responsible for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO expansion, the central element in a larger strategy to move all of Eastern Europe, including Ukraine, out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West” (p. 172). Mearsheimer claims that the West’s strategy was based on liberal principles – the “aim was to integrate Ukraine into the ‘security community’ that had developed in western Europe during the Cold War and had been moving eastward since its conclusion. But the Russians were using a realist playbook. The major crisis that resulted left many Western leaders feeling blindsided” (ibid.). One wonders – really, could they have been that clueless or deluded?
The US and allies strategy for making Ukraine part of the West
Mearsheimer provides us with a helpful framework to see how the US and allies could rip Ukraine out of the Russian orbit: “NATO enlargement, EU expansion, and the Orange Revolution, which aimed at fostering democracy and Western values in Ukraine and thus presumably produce pro-Western leaders in Kiev” (p. 172). But Moscow was “deeply opposed to NATO enlargement.” In fact, Russian leaders believed that, when the Soviet Union disintegrated, NATO would not move an inch toward Russia’s borders. They believed that “no enlargement” had been promised, but were deceived by the Clinton administration.
Ordinary citizens probably have no understanding that, in eminent Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen’s analysis (in War with Russia: from Putin and Ukraine to Trump and Russiagate [2022], since the “end of the Soviet Union in 1991, Washington had treated post-Communist Russia as a defeated nation with inferior legitimate rights at home and abroad. The triumphalist, winner-take-all approach has been spearheaded by the expansion of NATO—accompanied by non-reciprocal zones of national security while excluding Moscow from Europe’s security systems. Early on, Ukraine and, to a lesser extent, Georgia were Washington’s ‘great prize’” (p. 16).
With the Russian bear in miserable condition (it lost its cubs) through the 1990s—Solzhenitsyn thought his country at this time was living “literally amid ruins”–NATO expansion, in 1999, brought Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into the alliance. The second component of the expansion occurred in 2004, which included Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the three Baltic countries. “Russian leaders complained bitterly from the start.” The inept Boris Yeltsin saw fire on the horizon when NATO bombed Serbia in 1995. “When NATO comes right up to the Russian Federation’s borders … The flame of war could burst out across the whole of Europe” (p. 172) Too weak to derail these developments, Russia could take small comfort that only the tiny Baltic countries shared their border.
But all hell broke loose at the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008, when Ukraine’s and Georgia’s membership came up for discussion. Both Germany and France had qualms, but the Bush administration wanted these countries inside their security zone. The final announcement proclaimed that Geogia and Ukraine were welcomed for membership. Putin, Mearsheimer maintained, “that admitting those two countries would represent a ‘direct threat’ to Russia. If anybody had any doubts about Russia’s seriousness regarding accepting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, the Russia-Georgia war in August 2008 should have dispelled those deluded thoughts.
Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia’s president, who was deeply committed to drawing his own country into the NATO circle, had first to resolve the disputes with two separatist regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Putin prevented this from occurring – and invaded Georgia, gaining control over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Saakashvili was left in the lurch by the West. “Russia had made its point,” Mearsheimer observes, “yet NATO refused to give up on bringing Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance” (p. 173). We need to be reminded that the Georgian war was “financed, trained and minded by American funds and personnel” (Cohen, 2022, p. 187).
The EU expanded eastward. “Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU in 1995, and eight Central and Eastern European countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia) joined in May 2004 along with Cyprus and Malta. Bulgaria and Romania joined in 2007” (p. 174). These developments were a stick poke to the Russian bear’s eyes. This Eastern Partnership was perceived as hostile to their country’s interests. “Sergei Lavrov, complained bitterly that the EU was trying to create a “sphere of influence” in Eastern Europe and hinted that it was engaging in ‘blackmail’” (ibid.). Who can deny that Moscow correctly sees EU membership as a “stalking horse for NATO enlargement” (ibid.)?
The final, and third, tool for “peeling Ukraine away from Russia was the effort to promote the Orange Revolution” (ibid.). The US and European allies endeavoured to foster social and political change in countries formerly under Soviet control. Essentially, the aim was to spread Western “values” and promote “liberal democracy” – efforts funded by NGOs and official governments. That sounds innocent enough: but it isn’t. The underlying geopolitical agenda was clear: to foment hostility to Russia and to execute the “final break with Moscow” and to “accelerate” Kiev’s membership in NATO (Cohen, 2022, p. 24).
The crisis of the Ukrainian coup
Now we enter the great quagmire of conflicting interpretations of the events of 2014. The fateful crisis began in late November 2013, when President Yanukovych “rejected a major economic deal he had been negotiating with the EU and decided instead to accept a Russian counteroffer” (p. 174). Over the next three months there were protests against the government, and on January 22, 2014, two protestors were killed. By mid-February one hundred more died. Hurriedly flown in, Western emissaries tried to resolve the crisis, so claims Mearsheimer, by striking a deal on February 21 that permitted Yanukovych to “stay in power until new elections were held sometime before year’s end” (p. 175).
But protesters didn’t permit him to stay in office—on February 22 Yanukovych fled to Russia. The new government in Kiev “was thoroughly pro-Western and anti-Russian. Moreover, the US government backed the coup, although the full extent of its involvement is unknown” (ibid.). Perhaps – but we do know that the Maidan protests were “strong influenced by extreme nationalist and even semi-fascist street forces, turned violent” (Cohen [2022], p. 17). Snipers killed scores of protestors and policeman on Maidan Square in February 2014. The neo-fascist organization Right Sector (and its co-conspirators) played a key role in bringing to power a virulent anti-Russian, pro-American regime.
Cohen counters the prevalent narrative that Putin bribed and bullied Yanukovych to reject the “reckless provocation” of the EU proposal – forcing a “deeply divided country to choose between Russia and the West” (p. 17). Further, Cohen argues that the EU proposal would have imposed harsh measures on Ukraine and, significantly, “curtail longstanding and essential economic relations with Russia” (ibid.). There was nothing approaching benign in the EU’s proposal. Mearsheimer states that the US backed the coup , and the egregious “Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ), for example, participated in anti-government demonstrations, while the US ambassador in Kiev proclaimed after the coup that it was a ’day for the history books’” (p, 175). A day of infamy for lovers of a peaceable world order. Don’t ask me to “please, have a cookie or two.”
“A leaked transcript of phone conversation,” Mearsheimer tells us, “revealed that Nuland advocated regime change and wanted Arseniy (“Yats”) Yatsenyuk, who was pro-Western, to become prime minister in the new government, which he did. It is hardly surprising that Russians of all persuasions think Western provocateurs, especially the CIA, helped overthrow Yanukovych” (ibid.). “Fuck the EU”—Nuland’s vulgar rallying cry stills rings in our ears to this day. Cohen comments: “Europe’s leaders and Washington did not defend their own diplomatic accord. Yanukovych fled to Russia. Minority parliamentary parties representing Maidan and, predominantly, western Ukraine—among them Svoboda, an ultranationalist movement previously anathematized by the European Parliament as incompatible with European rulers—formed a new government” (p. 17). Ominously, Washington and Brussels “endorsed the coup and have supported the outcome ever since. Everything that followed, from Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the spread of rebellion in southeastern Ukraine to the civil war and Kiev’s ‘anti-terrorist operation,’ was triggered by the February coup” (p. 18).
What ordinary citizens do not understand, to say the least, is that the coup was cultivated by the US and allies, thus triggering Russian responses. And they do not understand that, from February 2014 until the present military conflict in Ukraine in 2022, that the West (including the Russophobic Canadian Liberal Party) have been training military in Ukraine and turning a knowing blind-eye to the neo-Nazi militia, who have played a key role in attacking Russians and everything “Russian” in the country: The “anti-terrorist” military campaign against its own citizens in Luhansk and Donetsk is the “essential factor escalating the crisis” (p. 18). Well-over 10,000 citizens have died; and millions of refugees created. The crisis cannot be laid at Putin’s feet.
The western press has blanked out accounts of events such as the “pogrom-like burning to death of ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians in Odessa shortly later in 2014.” This action “reawakened memories of Nazi extermination squads in Ukraine during World War II.” The Azov Battalion of 3,000 soldiers—a neo-fascist militia (as evidence by regalia, slogans, and programmatic statements)—has played a “major combat role in the Ukrainian civil war.” Most Canadian citizens would be astonished to hear this – that must be propaganda from the evil tyrant Putin. Sorry: it isn’t. Nor are the “storm troop-like assaults on gays, Roma, women feminists, elderly ethnic Russians, and other ‘impure’ citizens are wide-spread throughout Kiev-ruled Ukraine.”
The neo-fascist militia have also desecrated a sacred Holocaust gravesite in Ukraine – with legal authorities doing nothing in response. Most disturbingly, Kiev has systematically begun “rehabilitating and even memorializing leading Ukrainian collaborators with Nazi German extermination pogroms during World War II” (p. 180).
Putin’s response to the coup MORE https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/05/05/taking-aim-at-ukraine-how-john-mearsheimer-and-stephen-cohen-challenged-the-dominant-narrative/
Michael Welton retired from Athabasca University. His recent books include Unearthing Canada’s Hidden Past: a Short History of Adult Education and Adult Education a Precarious Age: The Hamburg Declaration revisited.
“How CIA Front Laid Foundations For Ukraine War”
CAUSES: MORE ON NAZIS IN UKRAINE (see Anthology #24). [A motive of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is Russian fear and loathing of Nazis. –D]
Ruins of Azov Steel Factory Display Nazi Insignia and Signs of NATO SupportBy Sonja Van den Ende on Jul 08, 2022 08:16 am
Owner of plant, Rinat Akhmetov, is allegedly connected to organized crime.
[This article is written by a reporter embedded in Ukraine with the Russian army. We believe that if people want to understand the war in Ukraine, they need to read widely about it, from different perspectives, including the Russian one, to try and discern the truth about what is going on for themselves.—Editors = A good statement of purpose for these anthologies. –Dick.]
The Azov Steel factory was an important propaganda tool of the Western media since the Azov Battalion occupied the factory in March this year. In the official narrative, there were “good fellows” inside the factory, defending Mariupol and its citizens. The “good fellows” surrendered last May 2022.
When I visited Mariupol, I got a totally different story from the remaining citizens inside the city, and from the sight of the Azov Steel factory, where much paraphernalia was laying around.
What I saw, especially in the catacombs that are said to go about five to ten stories below the ground, says a lot about what must have happened there.
The Russian army cleared the first floor so that we could take a look there. It was furnished and appeared like a military headquarters, with (bunk) beds. There were also many books, such as Mein Kampf, and the flags of Azov with the “Wolfsangel” emblem, which were used by the “Schutz Staffel” SS battalions of Nazi Germany.
The Azov Battalion, which was founded in Mariupol in May 2014, is a Ukrainian far-right militia formed from so-called Patriots of Ukraine and the Social-National Assembly, both led by Andriy Biletsky (a far-right extremist).
Funded by the oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky who has close ties to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the militia was established at the beginning of the war in the Donbas and has since terrorized the people in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR).
In the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR), there is a similar battalion with a different name, called Aidar, which also terrorizes the inhabitants of the LPR. […]
The post Ruins of Azov Steel Factory Display Nazi Insignia and Signs of NATO Support appeared first on CovertAction Magazine.
Gregory Shupak. “Pushing for War Over Ukraine While Ignoring Its Nazi Ties.” Extra! The Newsletter of FAIR. March 2022. The Nazi current in the Ukrainian gov. and armed forces is not well-reported by US MSM. (FAIR also sponsors a weekly radio show: CounterSpin.)
Putin’s Perspective
Roger Annis. “Denunciation of Vladimir Putin’s Essay on History of Russia and Ukraine is Unwarranted.” CovertAction Magazine. Jun 20, 2022.
Far from condemning the national aspirations of Ukrainians, Putin defends them
In July 2021, Vladimir Putin published a historical essay on Russia and Ukraine on the website of the President of Russia.
The essay is a very informative read, written by someone with a deep knowledge of the subject. It is titled “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” and was published in Russian, English and Ukrainian.
The essay’s appearance occasioned a round of gratuitous condemnations by Western media and pro-Western academics. The pro-NATO think tank Atlantic Council, for example, published a series of short comments on the essay that carefully avoided any substantive reporting of the essay content.
A member of the Ukrainian Rada (legislature) is quoted:
"Ukraine holds the key to Putin’s dreams of restoring Russia’s great power status. He is painfully aware that without Ukraine, this will be impossible." He continues, "[The current conflict] is a war for the whole of Ukraine. Putin makes it perfectly clear that his goal is to keep Ukraine firmly within the Russian sphere of influence and to prevent Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration."
There is nothing new or informative here. The Russian government warned NATO and the world back in December 2021 that a “Euro-Atlantic integration” of Ukraine and the accompanying political and military measures constitute a further escalation of threats against the Russian people and their sovereignty that would not go unanswered. That month, the government published the text of a proposed treaty with the U.S. aimed at resolving the conflict over Ukraine’s future. So, again, the MP is telling us nothing new.
A member of the “Kyiv Security Forum” is also cited by the Atlantic Council survey. He states,
“Putin understands that Ukrainian statehood and the Ukrainian national idea pose a threat to Russian imperialism.”
Here we have an example of the gratuitous term “Russian imperialism” used as an epithet in place of political analysis.
The term is more commonly seen or heard from the Western “leftists’ suffering self-inflicted amnesia over NATO’s decades-long, expansionist aggression against Russia. They are calling for a Russian withdrawal” from Ukraine, which amounts to a call to bow to Ukrainian and NATO aggression. […]
The post Denunciation of Vladimir Putin’s Essay on History of Russia and Ukraine is Unwarranted appeared first on CovertAction Magazine.
SUSTAINING THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA
PROMOTING WAR AND ARMING NATO and UKRAINE
GEORGE PAULSON. THE POLITICS OF BIDEN’S ESCALATION OF THE WAR
Hi friends, 6-1-22
I don’t know if you’ve you seen the latest news about the Ukraine War. I’m referring to the Biden administration’s recent decision to continue escalating the war by providing Ukraine with even more advanced weaponry:
https://news.antiwar.com/2022/05/31/biden-says-he-doesnt-seek-nato-russia-war-or-regime-change-in-moscow/
This is on top of the $40 billion that Congress recently earmarked to send to Ukraine (supported by every Democrat in the House, including the DSA-aligned Squad and every Democrat in the Senate, including Bernie Sanders).
This latest escalation by the Biden administration, outlined in an op-ed in the NYTimes “written” by the gaffe-prone occupant of the Oval Office, should be seen in the context of another piece published by our nation’s “paper of record” less than a week ago:
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/05/27/the-new-york-times-shift-on-victory-in-ukraine/
The official western narrative of an imminent and humiliating Russian defeat in Ukraine is starting to crumble. Reality is starting to set in, and I suspect that the Biden Administration, having bet the farm on their failing Ukraine policy, in a desperate attempt to try to improve their prospects in November’s mode-term election, is further escalating this proxy war against nuclear-armed Russia.
Peace,
George Paulson
Criticism of Western mass media on Ukraine: Amy Goodman
| ||||
Attachments area
AS. Funnels Money to Ukraine, Independent Media Faces Pressure to Parrot Official Narrative
NATO
PURPOSE OF WAR TO NATO
“NATO admits it wants ‘Ukrainians to keep dying’ to bleed Russia, not peace.”
Editor. Mronline.org (4-13-22).
NATO sees Ukrainians as mere cannon fodder in its imperial proxy war on Russia.
By Ben Norton (Posted Apr 13, 2022)
Originally published: Al Mayadeen on April 8, 2022 (more by Al Mayadeen) |
Imperialism, Inequality, Strategy, WarEurope, Russia, Ukraine, United StatesNewswireNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
The US-led NATO military alliance has made it clear that it is willing to fight to the last Ukrainian in order to bleed Russia and advance Western geopolitical interests.
In a shockingly blunt admission, The Washington Post acknowledged that some NATO member states want “Ukrainians to keep fighting, and dying” in order to prevent Russia from making political gains.
In an April 5 report on peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, the major US newspaper disclosed that NATO is afraid that Kiev may give in to some of Moscow’s demands.
The Washington Post wrote explicitly: “For some in NATO, it’s better for the Ukrainians to keep fighting, and dying than to achieve a peace that comes too early or at too high a cost to Kyiv and the rest of Europe.”
Anonymous Western diplomats emphasized that “there are limits to how many compromises some in NATO will support to win the peace,” and that they would rather prolong the war in Ukraine if they can prevent Russia from having its security concerns met.
The newspaper said that NATO members are desperate not to give “Russian President Vladimir Putin any semblance of victory,” and are more than willing to force Ukrainians into the meat grinder to do so. MORE https://mronline.org/2022/04/13/nato-admits-it-wants-ukrainians-to-keep-dying-to-bleed-russia-not-peace/
The US Won't Ban the Same Lethal Weapons It's Criticizing Russia for Using. JEFF ABRAMSON America's UN mission was forced to amend its ambassador's comments because of its own refusal to ban such weapons. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/03/05/us-wont-ban-same-lethal-weapons-its-criticizing-russia-using
March 5, 2022 by Responsible Statecraft
In an impassioned address Wednesday at a special United Nations meeting on Ukraine, U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield drew attention to "videos of Russian forces moving exceptionally lethal weaponry into Ukraine, which has no place on the battlefield. That includes cluster munitions." These weapons, which are notorious for leaving small bomblets behind that later kill and injure civilians, are one of a small number of indiscriminate weapons that have infamous global recognition as markers of the horror of war—recently also used in Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as Syria, garnering international disgust.
As many human rights groups are now doing, the United States was right to point to cluster munitions in criticizing Russia. However, within hours of Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield's comments, the U.S. Mission to the United Nations edited the transcript, striking out that the weapons have no place on the battlefield, as indicated below.
The new formulation, which only expresses concern if these weapons are "directed against civilians," undermines U.S. opprobrium of Russian behavior. So too does the fact that the United States has refused to abandon cluster munitions—despite functionally not using the weapons itself in nearly two decades and no longer having a domestic manufacturer of them.
Today, 110 countries, including more than two-thirds of NATO member states, are parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which bans the weapons. The United States worked against the creation of the Convention, and continues to eschew its meetings. By doing so, Washington keeps itself outside the growing norm that it could use more fully to condemn Russian aggression.
Tragically, cluster munitions are not the only weapons the United States is clinging to that undermine its ability to call Russia, and others, to account. In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, President Biden referred to "the battle between democracy and autocracies," framing Ukraine as the stand-in for democracy and Russia for autocracy. He would be wise to heed that framing when it comes to landmines. MORE https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/03/05/us-wont-ban-same-lethal-weapons-its-criticizing-russia-using
© 2021 Responsible Statecraft
JEFF ABRAMSON is a senior fellow for arms control and conventional arms transfers at the Washington DC-based Arms Control Association and also directs the Forum on the Arms Trade. Prior to re-joining the Arms Control Association in September 2019, he managed the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor, the de facto monitoring regime for the Mine Ban Treaty and Convention on Cluster Munitions.
Jeremy Kuzmarov. “Russian-Hating Dream of Brzezinski Clan Nears Fulfillment as Poland Agrees to Host Permanent U.S. Base and Turn Baltic Sea into NATO Lake.”
Mark Brzezinski, the U.S. Ambassador to Poland, is the son of the late Zbigniew Brzezinski, a descendent of Polish aristocrats and mastermind of U.S. foreign policy for decades, whose dream was to use Poland as a base to try to weaken and destroy Russia. Mark is now at the center of the implementation of his dad’s plans.
In late June, President Joe Biden announced before a NATO summit that the United States would establish a permanent military base in Poland, the first time the U.S. would have one on NATO’s eastern flank. The base will provide a permanent headquarters in Poland for the U.S. Army’s V Corps. At the moment there are already approximately 10,000 U.S. soldiers in Poland, which has provided a hub for U.S. and other Western countries’ arms shipments to Ukraine.
[photo omitted]Members of the Polish 18th Mechanized Division and the U.S. 82nd Airborne Division participate in a joint military training in Nowa Deba, Poland, on April 8, 2022. [Source: reuters.com]
In April, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin III agreed to accelerate delivery of U.S.-made Patriot air defense systems, HIMARS rocket launchers, F-35 combat aircraft and Abrams tanks to Poland and to help its military become “one of the most capable in Europe.”
|
CIA And Western Special Ops Commandos Are In Ukraine
By Ben Norton, Multipolarista. Popular Resistance.org (7-6-22). The CIA and special operations forces from NATO members Britain, France, Canada, and Lithuania are physically in Ukraine, helping direct the proxy war on Russia, according to a report in The New York Times. These Western forces are on the ground training and advising Ukrainian fighters, overseeing weapons shipments, and managing intelligence. At least 20 countries are part of a US Army-led coalition, guiding Ukraine in its fight against Russian troops. Some Ukrainian combatants are even using US flag patches on their equipment. -more-
Biden Says US Will Beef Up Military Presence In Europe
LEADING TO PEACE
A European Call for an End to the Ukraine War.
Richard Falk | Global Justice in the 21st Century – TRANSCEND Media Service
5 Jul 2022 – This piece appeared in the prominent German weekly, ZEIT, last week. It is written from a European perspective, calling for a ceasefire followed by bilateral negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. Read more...
Handling International Crises: From JFK to Biden
Rick Sterling– TRANSCEND Media Service
There are significant parallels between the international crises in Cuba in 1962 and Ukraine today. Both involved: intense confrontations between the USA and the Soviet Union or Russia, and third party countries on the doorstep of a major power. The Cuban Missile Crisis threatened to lead to WW3, just as the Ukraine crisis does today.
War Scars the Earth. To Heal, We Must Cultivate Hope, not Harm. Kathy Kelly and Matt Gannon. TRANSCEND Media Service. 8 Jul 2022. The persistence of militarism is promoted by so-called “realists.” Nuclear armed opponents push the world closer and closer to annihilation. Sooner or later these weapons are bound to be used. Cooperation is the only way forward. The “realist” option leads to collective suicide. Read more...
Resisting the “collective west.”
“’Stay safe’: the whole world is in harms’ way.”
Originally published: Internationalist 360 on May 11, 2022 by Jim “Fergie” Chambers (more by Internationalist 360) (Posted May 13, 2022). [I went to this link thinking to learn more about Fergie Chambers, but instead I received maybe a dozen articles with a viewpoint similar to Chambers’. –Dick]
Human Rights, Inequality, Movements, WarAmericas, Asia, China, Europe, Israel, Latin America, Middle East, Palestine, Russia, Syria, Ukraine, United StatesNewswireNazi, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Resistance, Russia-Ukraine War
In short, those of us who have any means to contribute to the international struggle of humanity against the great vampire that is the collective west, whether in Donbas, Palestine, Latin America, or Detroit, ought to do so tirelessly, and we ought to go far beyond petitions, posts and marches. This is the most responsible choice, until sovereignty, prosperity and peace is a reality for everyone on earth.
This is not a dispatch, editorial, or an article, but a brief note.
On an almost daily basis, I hear from well-meaning comrades or acquaintances back in the West who urge me to “stay safe;” some even question whether I’ve been irresponsible in my decision to come to Donbas, given that I have children at home. Of course, anyone existing in a war zone ought to be prudent in their actions, and keep their eyes open at all times. This should go without saying. But it occurs to me that there is a real disconnect in the imperial core, when it comes to the realities that billions of people on earth face every day, those under the yoke of imperialism, whether directly due to war and occupation, or indirectly, by way of sanctions, economic or political plunder. Yes, myself and many of my comrades who are doing our best to shed a tiny ray of light on the true nature of the U.S.-sponsored civil war in Ukraine are constantly surrounded by shelling; indeed, we may be under greater threat from our own governments, which are increasingly hostile to journalists and activists who dare push back against the prevailing narratives about Russia, Syria, “Israel,” China, and so forth. MORE https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/05/11/stay-safe-the-whole-world-is-in-harms-way/
Only Four Of 55 African Leaders Attend Zelensky Call
By Ben Norton, Multipolarista. Popular Resistance.org (6-24-22). Western governments have tried to rally the nations of Africa to join their war on Russia. But the vast majority of the continent has ignored their pressure campaign. For months, Ukraine attempted to organize a video conference between the African Union and Western-backed leader Volodymyr Zelensky. France and Germany put heavy pressure on African governments to attend the Zoom call, which was held on June 20. The conference ended up being a total failure, however. The heads of state of just four of the 55 members of the African Union joined the meeting. -more-
CONTENTS US-NATO-UKRAINE-RUSSIA WAR ANTHOLOGY #24
CAUSES of the WAR #24
Mark Rolofson. A Brief History
Shapiro. President Clinton and NATO Expansion.
Carey. Western (Sovietphobia) Russophobia: United Kingdom.
Krieger. “Putin’s Offer to Negotiate on Nukes” Rejected.
Kuzmarov. MIC War Profiteering.
Lauria. Censorship: Nulan-Pyatt Tape, Smoking Gun of Kiev Coup 2014.
Kuzmarov. Propaganda: US National Endowment for Democracy Awards
to anti-Russian NGOs.
Norton. Conspiracy: “U.S. Government Plots to Break Up Russia in Name
of ‘Decolonization.’”
McCoy. Another Cold War = Nuclear Threat, US $2 Trillion.
Hornberger. “What If the U.S. Had Invaded the Ukraine?”
Chomsky and Barsamian. War and Warming, and Orwell’s Doublethink.
CONSEQUENCES
Moon of Alabama. US Escalation.
Brenner. World Has Changed Opposite to Plans.
Al Mayadeen Net. Censorship: Stone’s Film Ukraine on Fire.
Steve Sweeney. Ukrainian Crackdown on Left and other Opponents.
Ritter. “Lithuania’s Brinkmanship.”
UN WIRE. Casualties in the War.
Johnstone. CIA in Ukraine.
Moon of Alabama. Zelensky Lied re Burned Shopping Center.
Salami. Egypt’s Tightrope Neutrality.
Knight. “Joe Biden’s saber-rattling threatens World War III—with China and Russia.”
CONCORD
Hixson. Principal Needs for Peace, to prevent and stop wars.
Kuzmarov and Brown. End False Ukrainian Reports of Russian atrocities.
World Beyond War, Code Pink, and International Peace Bureau. “Peace
Wave” International Appeal for End to the War.
United for Peace and Justice: 4 International Reports.
Ukraine [Anti-] War Resources
US Conference of Mayors Adopts Peace Resolution
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons First Meeting in Vienna
Condemnation of Nuclear Threats (Abolish Nuclear Weapons)
UFPJ Peace Petition
Paul Ingram. “Russia’s Nuclear Threat.”
Lynch. Conflict Transformation.
Koehler. “Embracing the Complexity of Peace.”
Contents of #23
END UKRAINE WAR ANTHOLOGY #25
8-7-22