WE DIDN'T START THE FIRE?

You can't understand what is happening in Ukraine without understanding what came before. Regardless of whether you think the invasion of Ukraine by Russia was an appropriate response to the situation at the time, to understand the way to peace requires that you understand how the war started long before February 24, 2022.

No one tells the story better than Oliver Stone.

HOW DO WE STAND BY UKRAINE?

 

                                                                     

The unfolding tragedy of the war in Ukraine has unleashed a torrent of anger among Americans. That's hardly surprising, given the images of dead and injured civilians, especially children, that are streaming into our homes 24 hours a day. The intense emotions aroused have led to a strong urge to act to stop the violence. Demonstrations of solidarity are inspiring, but they aren't going to affect Putin's plans for Ukraine. The question thus is, how do we most effectively stand with Ukraine?

Examples of what not to do abound. Consider:

Most people support the sanctions, despite abundant evidence showing that they typically don't work and at best achieve only limited success. The logic is to punish the citizens of the sanctioned country, in the hope they will rise up and topple their governments or at least submit to Western demands. It should come as no surprise that this is not a realistic objective in authoritarian societies. The main effect of sanctions is to increase the suffering of the citizens of the targeted country. Madelaine Albright famously admitted that US sanctions on Iraq after the first Gulf War cost the lives of 500,000 children, commenting that "We think it was worth it." This begs the question of who is this "we?" I certainly hope that it is not the opinion of the majority of Americans. In the present case, why would we want to punish the citizens of Russia for Putin's actions, especially when they are protesting by the tens of thousands on the streets of Russia, putting to shame the pitiful response of Americans to US-led wars.

Most people seem to support the arming of Ukraine, even though many analysts point out that there is ultimately little hope that they can hold up against a determined Russian military whose goal does not appear to be occupation. We're told daily about Putin's willingness to use brutal tactics to achieve his objectives, but we are being assured that the vastly inferior forces of Ukraine are really winning. As a result, people who want to support Ukraine are applauding the brave citizens who are taking up arms and putting their bodies on the line confronting trained soldiers, without apparently realizing that this will not likely change the outcome but will certainly lead to more Ukrainian deaths. There has even been serious consideration of the US providing incentives to NATO countries to send war planes to Ukraine, an act of war against Russia that could lead to the US being forced to directly confront the only other nuclear superpower. More and more, we are hearing arguments for why we can't rule out direct US involvement despite the fact that it could quickly lead to nuclear war.

Anyone who still thinks a no-fly zone is a reasonable option simply isn't listening to reason. As Biden and many others have pointed out, this requires being willing to shoot Russian planes down, which would likely lead to WWIII. Anyone who wants to disregard that risk does not deserve to be taken seriously.

There's a reason that "experts" continue to push policies that are at best futile and at worst, catastrophic. The only realistic alternatives would involve allowing Russia to achieve some of its stated goals. That would lead to the career-killing charge of "appeasement." Career politicians and professional pundits in the West cower at this thought, so much so that the idea would never occur to them. Fortunately, diplomats in both Ukraine and Russia are willing to consider what would be unthinkable for these cheerleaders of imperialism.

According to this article, progress is being made on a 15-point plan that would recognize legitimate Russian security interests the West ignored in the runup to the war, despite clear warnings from Russia. Among other provisions, Ukraine would alter its constitution to guarantee that it would never join NATO. Had the US simply declared that it would never allow Ukraine to join, the invasion might have been avoided. That the US refused speaks volumes about the intent of the US in its dealings with Russia with regard to Ukraine. Unfortunately, few are listening.

Russia is also insisting on an agreement that Ukraine will not host foreign military bases. Negotiations continue on what kind of security guarantees that Ukraine might get from NATO countries would be acceptable to Russia, while the article does not mention what kind of security guarantees Ukraine would offer the Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, which have been subjected to continuous assault since the 2014 coup that put the current government in power. The article also does not mention the status of the Russian demand that Ukraine recognize Russia's sovereignty over Crimea, which it has asserted since the region voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia in 2014.

Meanwhile, the battles rage, with increasing loss of life on both sides. If you want to stand for Ukraine, stand for the interests of Ukrainians and common Russians alike and demand that your government stop inflaming the situation with weapons and sanctions and allow real diplomacy to end the killing.

UNDERSTANDING UKRAINE

                                                                             
                                                                 
On Wednesday, Ukrainian forces intensified ongoing shelling of Donbass, lending apparent credibility to Biden's repeated claims over recent weeks that an invasion is "imminent." However, the news raises a number of questions about what we have been told by politicians and the mainstream western media since the beginning of the crisis. We need to take these claims into account in order to understand the significance of current events.

Let's break down the propaganda to figure out how this increase in violence fits into the NATO narrative:

First, the US has given several reasons for why they expect Russia to invade over the last few weeks. That alone should give us pause, given the certainty with which the US has been making these claims. Since they have cited no evidence for most of them, you have to wonder why the secret "evidence" keeps changing. If you've been keeping track, they are, in order:

- "Putin wants to restore the Empire." This has been repeated ad nauseum since the outbreak of the crisis, most recently by Blinken on Wednesday.

- Unsourced "evidence" indicated Russia will stage a false flag attack on Donbass as a pretext for invasion

- Unsourced evidence indicated Russia will fake a false flag in Donbass, using staged video.

- Officials stated that Russia will use its promise to protect Russian citizens and ethnic Russians in Donbass as a "pretext" for crossing the border.

Of these, only the last is a plausible reason that Russia would trigger massive sanctions by invading. If there is any validity to the US doctrine of Responsibility to Protect. That's the pseudo-legal argument that was cited as the reason for violent US interventions in Libya and Syria in contravention of international law. If there is a time when it was justified, this would be it. More properly, it would be an example of using force to prevent genocide (see below for more on this).

As the situation evolves, the propaganda gets more convoluted:

- Thursday, it was reported that Russia was going to invade in respond to a Ukrainian attack on Donbass. By Friday, media were reporting it was unclear who attacked first, even though it makes no sense to imagine that the residents of Donbass were trying to goad the Ukrainian military into attacking, as it was clearly prepared to do (again, more on this below).
- In responding to reports of the increased shelling, Biden stated that the attack on Donbass was a "false flag" operation by Russia, claiming that Russia had fired the first shots in order to provoke a Ukrainian response that would create a "pretext" for an invasion. Interestingly, a reporter on the scene in the same televised report categorically stated that Russia had not fired the first shots.
- A day later, explosions rocked downtown Donetsk and Luhansk, the two principal cities of the breakaway Donbass region. At the time of this writing, I am awaiting the announcement that this was the long-awaited Russian false flag.

It's worth noting that over time, more responsible news sources have begun explaining the Russian security concerns detailed in their response to US demands to withdraw from their own border. At the same time, western media continued to describe these red lines only as "demands," as if Russia explaining its red lines in the face of US threats is unreasonable. Not surprisingly, US officials simply dismissed the most important of these arguments without acknowledging that they had any validity, while claiming to want to negotiate peace (on US terms, of course).

If one accepts that the only plausible reason for a Russian incursion was to protect Russian citizens and ethnic Russians in Ukraine, and that the US must have known, why did Biden suddenly predict before the shelling that it was going to happen within 24-48 hours, again with no evidence? It's reasonable to suspect that the US knew Ukraine was going to attack because it was behind it.

The US government had been trying to talk Ukraine's President Zelensky into escalating the conflict since last spring. Zelensky responded to Washington's lead with threats to residents of the breakaway Republics, but by January he lost his nerve and began to openly dispute US claims of "imminent" war that would serve no one's interest but that of the US weapons industry.

The increase in shelling thus raises a very important point: Since Zelesnky had repeatedly denied that he believed Russia had any intent to invade, why would he suddenly provide a pretext? It's reasonable to suspect that he didn't. The more likely culprits are embedded pro-US fascists in the army acting on their own. If that's the case, Zelensky can't deny ordering the attack if he values his life. We all saw how violent the US-backed Right Sector fascists were willing to get in over to overthrow the elected government and seize power in 2014. There is no reason to think that they would not do the same to Zelensky if he stood in the way of the plan.

The brownshirts of Right Sector are now dispersed throughout the military, including their Azov battalion. Tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops have been massed on the borders of Donbass since before the Russian buildup (which might reasonably be assumed to be the original reason for Russia's massing its own troops on the border last spring). Since some of these neo-Nazis have openly called for genocide of ethnic Russians, it seems likely that they would be perfectly willing to provoke a conflict that will result in horrendous bloodshed, regardless of who "wins" the war in Donbass. Of course, if Russia doesn't take the bait, the US can still score propaganda points by saying that it prevented the invasion that would have otherwise occurred.

In view of Friday's bombing, it appears that the US may have gotten tired of waiting for Russia to respond to the escalation in violence by the Ukrainian neo-Nazis and taken matters into their own hands, using CIA-trained Ukrainian special forces in place in Donbass.

It will be interesting to see how Putin takes advantage of a situation which he surely anticipated, given the lack of imagination of the neocons who have clearly engineered the crisis.