OMNI
RUSSIA
NEWSLETTER #11,
February 24, 2022
https://jamesrichardbennett.blogspot.com/2022/02/omni-russia-newsletter-11-february-24.html
Compiled by
Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace, Justice, and Ecology
Omnicenter.org/donate/
US
leaders and maybe the majority of the populace have suffered so severely and so
long in foreign policy from deafness and political cataracts (or pathology of
Soviet/Russia phobia, or malice against a different economic ideology, or
obsession to control the world) that I doubt if they will ever recover. However, here is another anthology providing views of Russia alternative to those of our
ruling Warriors. It was compiled up to
the invasion of Ukraine by Russia beginning February 24, 2022. The anthology shows, as critics observe,
that the invasion was both provoked and preventable. The articles are published as a deterrent to
future war fevers by lovers of war.
CONTENTS
RUSSIA (AND UKRAINE) NEWSLETTER
#11, 2-21-22
Perspectives Leading
to Diplomacy
Putin’s/Russia’s
Thinking
Joe Lauria, Putin’s 3,350-word Speech: NATO Is the Issue
Chris Hedges on the Economic Motives for NATO
Expansion
Minsk Agreements
Rahman, Ukraine at Fault
Ray McGovern, Russia and China
German-Russian Pipeline Agreement
Whitney, Germany and Russia, Nordstream 2
Pipeline
George Paulson
Hobson
John Foster (author of Oil and World Politics), Nordstream,
NATO, and Equal Security
M. K.
Bhadrakumar, From Recognition of Donbass Provinces to Invasion
Donbass Refugees
US’/Biden’s
Thinking
Tomlinson, War on Russia
Hess and Davis, Sanctions as War
“Hidden Costs of
Sanctions”
Kuzmarov, Yalta: US and Soviet Russia
Bromwich, Mainstream Media for War
Peace
Thinking
Jack Matlock, Analysis of US and Russian
Arguments
What Could Ukraine—and US and Russia--Think?
Art Hobson, Neutrality
Scott Ritter, Neutrality
Shea and Pavlova, Austria’s Neutrality
J. William Fulbright, Empathy, Democratic
Humanism, Diplomacy
Anthology
#10, 1-8-22
TEXTS #11
AVOIDING WAR, ENDING WAR, GETTING TO DIPLOMACY
Putin/Russia’s Thinking
What Putin says are the causes & aims of Russia’s military
action. Editor. Mronline.org (2-26-22)
Russia says it has no intentions of controlling Ukraine and
its military operation is only to “demilitarize” and “de-Nazify” Ukraine in an
action taken after 30 years of the U.S. pushing Russia too far, writes Joe
Lauria.
“What Putin says are
the causes & aims of Russia’s military action” (and Biden’s and other
Western leaders’ replies).
Consortium News by Joe Lauria (February 24, 2022 ) | - Posted Feb 25, 2022
Empire, Strategy,
WarRussia,
Ukraine, United StatesNewswireNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),
President
Joe Biden, President Vladimir Putin
Russian President Vladimir
Putin said in a TV address Thursday morning that the goal of
Russia’s military operation was not to take control of Ukraine, but to
“demilitarize” and “de-Nazify” the country. Moments after he spoke, explosions
were heard in several Ukrainian cities.
The Russian
Defense Ministry said these were “precision” attacks against Ukrainian military
installations and that civilians were not being targeted. It said Ukraine’s air
force on the ground and its air defenses had been destroyed.
The Ukrainian government,
which declared a state of emergency and broke off diplomatic relations with
Russia, said an invasion was underway and that Russia had landed forces at the
port city of Odessa, on Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, as well as entering from
Belarus in the north. It said it had killed 50 Russian troops and shot down six Russian
fighter jets, which Russia denied.
Putin said one of the operation’s aims was to arrest certain
people in Ukraine, likely the neo-Nazis who burned dozens of unarmed people
alive in a building in Odessa in 2014. In his speech Monday, Putin said Moscow
knows who they are. Russia said it aims to destroy neo-Nazi brigades, such as
Right Sector and the Azov Battalion.
Putin said
the aim was not to occupy Ukraine, but he gave no indication when Russia might
leave. It could be over quickly if Russia’s objectives are met. But war has its
own logic and often lays waste to military plans.
The BBC
reported that according to Ukrainian authorities 50 civilians have been killed
so far. President Joe Biden is certain how this will turn out.
“President
Putin has chosen a premeditated war that will bring a catastrophic loss of life
and human suffering,” Biden said Wednesday night.
Russia alone is
responsible for the death and destruction this attack will bring, and the
United States and its allies and partners will respond in a united and decisive
way. The world will hold Russia accountable.
Diminishing
Russia
Biden speaks on Ukraine at White House last Friday. (Photo:
Ruptly screenshot)
Biden is to make a
televised address on Thursday after he coordinates a response to Russia’s
military action in Ukraine with the G7 and NATO. Biden said he will announce a
new package of economic sanctions against Russia, in addition to those imposed
on Monday, but reiterated that U.S. and NATO forces would not become involved.
According to TASS, Russia’s news agency, the EU said it intends to weaken “Russia’s economic base and the
country’s capacity to modernize.”
British
Prime Minister Boris Johnson even hinted at British military involvement. “Our
mission is clear,” he said.
Diplomatically,
politically, economically and eventually militarily this hideous and barbaric
venture of Vladimir Putin must end in failure.
In a White
House readout after the last phone call between Biden and Putin this month,
Biden said Russia would be “diminished” if it invades, a longstanding U.S. goal.
In addition
to the sanctions, Russia has faced widespread condemnation from most of the
world, expressed at United Nations meetings this week, including an emergency
session of the Security Council on Wednesday night. Several nations spoke in
melodramatic tones about the military operation changing global security. Many
of those nations supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
On Monday,
Putin said he would send Russian
“peacekeepers” into Lugansk and Donetsk, which he recognized as states
independent from Ukraine. The West denounced it as an invasion, triggering
the first round of sanctions against Russia. Putin said the Russian troops were
sent in to protect ethnic Russians, many of whom have now fled for safety over
the border to Russia.
Combat in Donbass
Fierce
fighting was reported Thursday along the line of separation between Ukrainian
forces and militias from Donetsk and Lugansk. It is not clear to what extent
Russian forces are taking part in the Donbass battle and if the aim is to
capture all of the two breakaway provinces.
Both had voted for independence from Ukraine in 2014 after a
coup overthrew the elected president Viktor Yanukovych. The new Ukrainian
government then launched a war against the provinces to crush their bid for
independence, a war that is still going on eight years later at the cost of
14,000 lives.
Neo-Nazi groups, such as Right Sector and the Azov Battalion,
who revere the World War II Ukrainian fascist leader Stepan Bandera, took part
in the coup as well as in the ongoing war against Lugansk and Donetsk.
A Matter of ‘Life or Death’
The Russian military action follows demands made in December by
Russia to the U.S. and NATO in the form of treaty proposals that would require
Ukraine and Georgia not to join NATO; U.S. missiles in Poland and Romania to be
removed; and NATO deployments to Eastern Europe reversed. The U.S. and NATO
rejected the proposals and instead sent more NATO forces to Eastern Europe and
have been heavily arming Ukraine.
In his
address on Thursday morning, Putin said the military operation he was launching
was a “question of life or death” for
Russia, referring to NATO’s expansion east since the late 1990s. He said:
For the United
States and its allies, it is a policy of containing Russia, with obvious
geopolitical dividends. For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a
matter of our historical future as a nation. This is not an exaggeration; this
is a fact. It is not only a very real threat to our interests but to the very
existence of our state and to its sovereignty. It is the red line which we have spoken about on numerous occasions. They
have crossed it.
Detailed Explanation of Causes and Aims of Operation
Silets Sokalskyi Lvivska battlefield monument in Ukraine of
Soviets soldiers against Nazi invaders. (Photo: Viacheslav Galievskyi /
Wikimedia Commons)
In his 3,350-word speech, Putin laid out in full detail the reasons he decided to take military
action and what he hopes it will achieve. The
speech is a devastating critique of U.S. policy toward Russia over the past 30
years, which no doubt will fall on deaf ears in Washington.
Western media is so far ignoring
the speech or superficially dismissing it. But it has to be carefully studied
if anyone is interested in understanding why Russia launched this military
operation. Just calling Putin “Hitler,” as Nancy Pelosi did Wednesday night,
won’t do.
Hitler in
fact features in Putin’s address. For instance, addressing the Ukrainian
military, Putin said:
Your fathers,
grandfathers and great-grandfathers did not fight the Nazi occupiers and did
not defend our common Motherland to allow today’s neo-Nazis to seize power in
Ukraine. You swore the oath of allegiance to the Ukrainian people and not to
the junta, the people’s adversary which is plundering Ukraine and humiliating
the Ukrainian people.
He linked
the Nazis’ invasion of Russia to NATO’s threat today, saying this time there
would be no appeasement:
Of course, this
situation begs a question: what next, what are we to expect? If history is any
guide, we know that in 1940 and early 1941 the Soviet Union went to great
lengths to prevent war or at least delay its outbreak. To this end, the USSR
sought not to provoke the potential aggressor until the very end by refraining
or postponing the most urgent and obvious preparations it had to make to defend
itself from an imminent attack. When it finally acted, it was too late.
As a result,
the country was not prepared to counter the invasion by Nazi Germany, which
attacked our Motherland on June 22, 1941, without declaring war. The country
stopped the enemy and went on to defeat it, but this came at a tremendous cost.
The attempt to appease the aggressor ahead of the Great Patriotic War proved to
be a mistake which came at a high cost for our people. In the first months
after the hostilities broke out, we lost vast territories of strategic
importance, as well as millions of lives. We will not make this mistake the
second time. We have no right to do so.
Putin said
the existential threat from NATO’s expansion was the main reason for military
action:
Our biggest
concerns and worries, [are] the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western
politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from
year to year. I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving
its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border. MORE
https://mronline.org/2022/02/25/what-putin-says-are-the-causes-aims-of-russias-military-action/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=what-putin-says-are-the-causes-aims-of-russias-military-action&mc_cid=172ad6642f&mc_eid=ab2f7bf95e
[Read the full text of
the speech]
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief
of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The
Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and numerous other newspapers. He was an
investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London and
began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York
Times.
Monthly Review does not necessarily adhere to all of the views conveyed
in articles republished at MR Online. Our goal is to share a variety of left
perspectives that we think our readers will find interesting or useful. —Eds.
“Russia, Ukraine and the chronicle of a war foretold.”
Chris Hedges.
Mronline.org (2-27-22).
After the fall of the Soviet Union, there was
a near-universal understanding among political leaders that NATO expansion
would be a foolish provocation against Russia. How naive we were to think the
military-industrial complex would allow such sanity to prevail.
Posted Feb 26,
2022 by Chris Hedges
Originally
published: MintPress News (February 25, 2022 ) |
I was in
Eastern Europe in 1989, reporting on the revolutions that overthrew the
ossified communist dictatorships that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
It was a time of hope. NATO, with the breakup of the Soviet empire, became
obsolete. President Mikhail Gorbachev reached out to Washington and Europe to
build a new security pact that would include Russia. Secretary of State James
Baker in the Reagan administration, along with the West German Foreign Minister
Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured the Soviet leader that if Germany was unified
NATO would not be extended beyond the new borders. The commitment not to expand
NATO, also made by Great Britain and France, appeared to herald a new global
order. We saw the peace dividend dangled before us, the promise that the
massive expenditures on weapons that characterized the Cold War would be
converted into expenditures on social programs and infrastructures that had
long been neglected to feed the insatiable appetite of the military.
There was a
near universal understanding among diplomats and political leaders at the time
that any attempt to expand NATO was foolish, an unwarranted provocation against
Russia that would obliterate the ties and bonds that happily emerged at the end
of the Cold War.
How naive
we were. The war industry did not intend to shrink its power or its profits. It
set out almost immediately to recruit the former Communist Bloc countries into
the European Union and NATO. Countries that joined NATO, which now include
Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia
were forced to reconfigure their militaries, often through hefty loans, to
become compatible with NATO military hardware.
There would
be no peace dividend. The expansion of NATO swiftly became a
multi-billion-dollar bonanza for the corporations that had profited from the
Cold War. (Poland, for example, just agreed to spend $ 6 billion on M1 Abrams
tanks and other U.S. military equipment.) If Russia would not acquiesce to
again being the enemy, then Russia would be pressured into becoming the enemy.
And here we are. On the brink of another Cold War, one from which only the war
industry will profit while, as W. H. Auden wrote, the little children die in
the streets.
Firefighters hose down a burning building following a rocket
attack on Kiev, Ukraine, Feb. 25, 2022. Photo | AP
The consequences of pushing
NATO up to the borders with Russia — there is now a NATO missile base in Poland
100 miles from the Russian border — were well known to policy makers. Yet they
did it anyway. It made no geopolitical sense. But it made commercial sense.
War, after all, is a business, a very lucrative one. It is why we spent two
decades in Afghanistan although there was near universal consensus after a few
years of fruitless fighting that we had waded into a quagmire we could never
win.
Minsk
Agreements
“What are the Minsk agreements and what are their role in the Russia-Ukraine
crisis?”
Editor.
Mronline.org (2-26-22).
Under pressure from ultra-nationalists and Russophobes,
successive governments in Ukraine have failed to address the grievances of the
Russian speaking majority in the Donbass region. Ukraine has also not
implemented the provisions of the Minsk agreement signed in 2015 to end the
conflict in the region.
Originally
published: Peoples Dispatch by Abdul Rahman (February 22, 2022 ) | - Posted Feb 25, 2022
Strategy, WarRussia,
UkraineNewswireMinsk
agreements, Normandy
Format, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),
President Vladimir Putin, Volodymyr Zelensky
On Monday,
February 21, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced in a press conference
that the country will recognize the independence of the Donetsk and the Luhansk
people’s republics. Refuting arguments that the move will harm possibilities
for peace and violate provisions of the Minsk agreement, the Russian leader
claimed that the decision was aimed at maintaining peace in the region.
According
to Valentina Matviyenko, chairperson of the Federation Council, the upper house
of Russian parliament, the situation in Donbass is of a “humanitarian disaster
and genocide” and Russia’s move will help in easing the situation there. She
claimed that Russia was left with no other option to prevent the bloodbath in
the region as no one was listening to its calls for diplomatic and political
solutions in the last eight years.
Russia’s move is based on
certain facts and growing speculation at a time when war hysteria is being
whipped up by the U.S. and its NATO allies in the region. According to the
Organization for Security and Cooperation (OSCE), which was assigned the role
to monitor the ceasefire under the Minsk agreement, the Ukrainian government
has violated the ceasefire agreement several times in
the last week. Several rounds of talks, revived between the parties of the
Minsk agreement in the last couple of weeks, have also failed to address
Russian concerns. The situation prompted the leaders of Luhansk and Donetsk to
appeal to Putin to take immediate action.
Minsk agreement
The
situation in Ukraine today is attributed to the rise of ultra-nationalist and
Russophobe groups that compelled the then Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich
to resign during the Euromaidan protests in February 2014. Protesters called
for Yanukovich to follow policies favorable for integration with the EU and
NATO even at the cost of harming Ukraine’s traditional ties with Russia. This
same set of ultra nationalist and Russophobe political groups have been
hampering the implementation of the Minsk agreement by successive Ukrainian
governments.
The Minsk
agreement was signed in the context of the outbreak of civil war in Ukraine
following the post-Euromaidan government’s move to crush the protests opposing
the pro-EU and pro-NATO policies that it had adopted. Ukrainian forces declared
a war on the protesters following Russia’s annexation of Crimea. The war lasted
for months before the 13-point Minsk agreement was signed, and led to the death
of over 14,000 people and displaced over 2.5 million, with nearly half of them
seeking refuge in Russia.
The Minsk
agreement was signed by countries and groups forming the Normandy format
including the OSCE, France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine in February 2015. The
agreement was later endorsed by the UN Security Council (UNSC). According to
the provisions of the agreement, apart from establishing an immediate ceasefire
in the Donbass region, the government in Ukraine agreed to make provisions for
greater autonomy to Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, the centers of rebellion, by
first recognizing the right to self-government and also creating special status
for the regions in the parliament. It was a necessary condition for them to
remain within Ukraine and for Russia to hand over border control to the
Ukrainian government, which it had taken over following the outbreak of the
war. The OSCE was assigned the role of observing the implementation of the
ceasefire agreement. The agreement also talked about broader constitutional
reforms in Ukraine.
Non-implementation
of Minsk agreement
Minsk Accords and China
2-23-22 Putin recognized
the independence of the pro-Russian Ukrainian provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk.
“What accounts for Putin’s assertiveness on Ukraine?”
Editor. Mronline.org
(2-24-22).
What about this China factor? Why do Western
pundits/savants pay so little heed to this game-changer? It should not require
my half-century of studying/reporting on Russia-China relations to notice that
China and Russia have never been so strategically close as now. 
Originally published: Antiwar.com by Ray
McGovern (February 22, 2022 ) - Posted Feb 23, 2022
Strategy, War, China, Russia,
United StatesNewswire
Russian
President Vladimir Putin’s well choreographed decision yesterday to recognize
the independence of the pro-Russian Ukrainian provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk
points to two key realities: (1) Putin despairs of persuading U.S. allies,
Germany and France, to press Ukraine to honor its commitments under the Minsk
accords that provide for regional autonomy as well as a ceasefire; and (2)
Putin feels assured of very strong backing from China (as long as he is not
stupid enough to invade Ukraine).
What about
this China factor? Why do Western pundits/savants pay so little heed to this
game-changer? It should not require my half-century of studying/reporting on
Russia-China relations to notice that China and Russia have never been so
strategically close as now. Putin and Xi have done their part to demonstrate
that. Why cannot most Western pundits and savants see it and recognize the
implications?
There are, happily,
notable exceptions–for example, Edward Wong’s Bond Between
China and Russia Alarms U.S. and Europe Amid Ukraine Crisis. MORE
German and Russian PipelineThinking: 2 Articles
on Nordstream 2
Crisis in Ukraine is about Germany and
Russian Energy
|
|
|
Mike Whitney. “The
Crisis in Ukraine Is Not About Ukraine. It's About Germany.” Information
Clearing House (February 17, 2022).
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/57002.html
“The
primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have
fought wars– the First, the Second and Cold Wars– has been the relationship
between Germany and Russia, because united there, they’re the only force that
could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn’t happen.” George Friedman,
STRATFOR CEO at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs
The
Ukrainian crisis has nothing to do with Ukraine. It’s about Germany and, in
particular, a pipeline that connects Germany to Russia called Nord Stream 2.
Washington sees the pipeline as a threat to its primacy in Europe and has tried
to sabotage the project at every turn. Even so, Nord Stream has pushed ahead
and is now fully-operational and ready-to-go. Once German regulators provide
the final certification, the gas deliveries will begin. German homeowners and
businesses will have a reliable source of clean and inexpensive energy while
Russia will see a significant boost to their gas revenues. It’s a win-win
situation for both parties.
The US Foreign Policy establishment
is not happy about these developments. They don’t want Germany to become more
dependent on Russian gas because commerce builds trust and trust leads to the
expansion of trade. As relations grow warmer, more trade barriers are lifted,
regulations are eased, travel and tourism increase, and a new security
architecture evolves. In a world where Germany and Russia are friends
and trading partners, there is no need for US military bases, no need for
expensive US-made weapons and missile systems, and no need for NATO. There’s
also no need to transact energy deals in US Dollars or to stockpile US
Treasuries to balance accounts. Transactions between business partners can be
conducted in their own currencies which is bound to precipitate a sharp decline
in the value of the dollar and a dramatic shift in economic power. This is why
the Biden administration opposes Nord Stream. It’s not just a pipeline, it’s a
window into the future; a future in which Europe and Asia are drawn closer
together into a massive free trade zone that increases their mutual power and
prosperity while leaving the US on the outside looking in. Warmer
relations between Germany and Russia signal an end to the “unipolar” world
order the US has overseen for the last 75 years. A German-Russo alliance
threatens to hasten the decline of the Superpower that is presently inching
closer to the abyss. This is why Washington is determined to do everything it
can to sabotage Nord Stream and keep Germany within its orbit. It’s a matter of
survival.
That’s where Ukraine comes into the
picture. Ukraine is Washington’s ‘weapon of choice’ for torpedoing Nord
Stream and putting a wedge between Germany and Russia. The strategy is
taken from page one of the US Foreign Policy Handbook under the rubric: Divide
and Rule. Washington needs to create the perception that Russia poses a
security threat to Europe. That’s the goal. They need to show that Putin is a
bloodthirsty aggressor with a hair-trigger temper who cannot be trusted. To
that end, the media has been given the assignment of reiterating over and over
again, “Russia is planning to invade Ukraine.” What’s left unsaid is that
Russia has not invaded any country since the dissolution of the Soviet Union,
and that the US has invaded or toppled regimes in more than 50 countries in the
same period of time, and that the US maintains over 800 military bases in
countries around the world. None of this is reported by the media, instead the
focus is on “evil Putin” who has amassed an estimated 100,000 troops along the
Ukrainian border threatening to plunge all of Europe into another bloody
war.
All of the hysterical war propaganda is created with the intention
of manufacturing a crisis that can be used to isolate, demonize and,
ultimately, splinter Russia into smaller units. The real target,
however, is not Russia, but Germany. MORE http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/57002.html
Responses by George Paulson and Art
Hobson
|
10:35
AM (4 minutes ago) |
|
Great article, Dick. Thanks for sharing.
I agree with the author's main point, that the goal of this
manufactured crisis is to kill Nord Stream 2 (Trump tried, but failed, and
now his successor is trying as well). However, there are other contextual
factors that enter into this. The at times hysterical fear mongering
about Russia and the almost cartoonish demonization of Putin serve a number of
other interests. Russia provides a handy excuse to continue to ramp up
"defense" spending--we need an enemy, a credible, easily identifiable
enemy. It also serves the interests of a largely disgusting, mendacious,
discredited legacy media (trust in the media is at an all time low) which
relies on both sensationalism and sucking up to DC elites ("access
journalism"). It also serves the interests of the Democratic party,
by feeding an influential constituency--I'm referring to
relatively affluent socially liberal voters who were traumatized and even
unhinged by the 2016 election and chose to blame Russia for Hillary Cliinton's
loss to a vulgar, buffoonish, openly corrupt, politically inexperienced
game show host--exactly the narrative they crave. It also serves the
Democrats' interests because it serves to distract the public from the
numerous crises that the Biden administration has so miserably failed to
address.
The fact that the people responsible for crafting US policy
regarding Ukraine are willing to risk a war with nuclear-armed Russia
underscores that they are sociopaths.
Thanks again for sharing.
Peace,
George
|
10:59
AM (17 minutes ago) |
|
Dick - There is a lot of truth in this article. America is
being deeply misled in this crisis. Yes, the Nordstream pipeline is a key
element in all this, and I certainly hope that Germany goes through with it.
I was appalled when Biden announced “We will bring an end to it” (i.e. to
the pipeline). Who the hell are we to dictate Germany’s foreign and
economic policy? I think that the economic cooperation created by this
pipeline will be good for Europe, good for the world, and bad for militarism in
both Russia and in America. I’m copying this to good friends in Germany.
Peace - Art
PIPELINE POLITICS AND THE UKRAINE CRISIS
By
John Foster, Canadian . February 15, 2022
“Why Nord Stream
2 is a key part of the impasse.”
Click on this link for the
first part of the essay: https://popularresistance.org/pipeline-politics-and-the-ukraine-crisis/
The current crisis between
Russia and the US/NATO has been brewing for many years. With the dissolution of
the Soviet Union, NATO expanded membership to Eastern Europe. NATO facilitates
US leadership, keeping European countries on its side against Russia. From a
Russian viewpoint, NATO is provocative and threatening.
Part of the agreement underpinning the USSR’s dissolution was Western
assurance that it would not expand into Russia’s sphere of influence, a pledge
NATO most recently violated by stationing troops, ships and planes along
Russia’s borders. The West accuses Russia of interference in Ukraine. Russia
points to a 2014 Western-inspired coup in Ukraine and legitimate grievances of
Russian-speakers in the breakaway Donbas republics. I document the two
narratives in my book Oil and World Politics.
In December 2021, Russia presented draft treaties to the US and NATO, demanding a complete
overhaul of Europe’s security architecture. Russia stressed the principle of
indivisible and equal security for all countries, as agreed by all 56 members
of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) at Istanbul (1999) and reaffirmed at Astana (2010). Countries expressly agreed not to strengthen their
security at the expense of others. In January, Russia wrote to all signatory countries, including Canada, demanding clear
answers on how they each intended to fulfil these obligations in the current
circumstances.
Map of
transit pipelines through Poland and Ukraine. Image courtesy Lorimer Books.
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that if the West continued its aggressive policies (NATO’s
expansion and missile deployment in eastern Europe), Russia would take
‘military-technical’ reciprocal measures. In his words, “They have pushed us to a
line that we can’t cross.”
Russia’s initiative put the
cat among the pigeons. A succession of high-level meetings occurred between
Russia and the US, NATO and OSCE. On January 26, Washington presented written
responses, seeking to narrow the debate to Ukraine and alleging the Russians
were poised to invade it. Russia insisted repeatedly it would not initiate an
invasion but would support Donbas if the latter were attacked.
The US escalated tensions by
repeating claims of an “imminent” Russian invasion, even as Ukraine’s leaders
expressed doubts. Washington threatened new sanctions of unprecedented
severity, including major Russian banks, high-tech goods, the SWIFT financial
messaging system, and Nord Stream 2. Britain and Canada followed suit. On
January 11, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asserted any Russian incursion into
Ukraine would have “serious consequences,” including sanctions.
France, Germany and Italy
balked because the sanctions would backfire on their economies. They appeared
unconvinced Russia intended to attack unless provoked. A flurry of high-level
bilateral discussions with Russia followed.
Significantly, on January
26, representatives of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine confirmed support
for the 2015 Minsk II agreement and an unconditional ceasefire. Minsk-II
requires Ukraine to negotiate with the two Donbas republics on autonomy within
a federalized Ukraine but, thus far, no negotiations have been held.
The EU imports 40 percent of its gas from Russia. For Russia, the
routes through Ukraine and Poland
are unreliable, because of hostility in both countries. Ukraine has a long-term
deal with Gazprom for gas transit until 2024. Ukraine earns big transit fees,
roughly US$2 billion per year, and desperately wants to keep them. For its
internal market, Ukraine buys Russian gas indirectly from Poland, Romania and
Slovakia.
Whatever happens with
Western sanctions, Russia has a strategic new market in China. Russia’s Power of
Siberia pipeline began exporting gas from east Siberia to northeast China
two years ago. The two countries have agreed to build a second line, Power of Siberia 2. It will bring gas
from the Yamal Peninsula in the Russian Arctic to China’s northeast. That means
Yamal gas will be able to flow to China as easily as to Europe.
The current situation is
dangerous and could easily escalate. Nord Stream 2 is critically important but
national security trumps all. Security
can only be achieved if it is universal. US
efforts to contain Russia and maintain leadership over Europe are not working.
It’s wake-up time for Canada, too.
The world has become multi-polar and Nord Stream 2 is a fulcrum at the centre
of the current crisis.
FROM
RECOGNITION OF INDEPENDENCE OF DONBASS PROVINCES TO INVASION
“Putin crosses the Rubicon. What next?”
M. K.
Bhadrakumar. Mronline.org (2-26-22).
Russia’s recognition of the ‘people’s
republics’ of Luhansk and Donetsk in the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbass on
Monday is a watershed event.
THE DONBASS REFUGEES’ THINKING
“Russian region declares emergency amid
influx of refugees.”
The two self-proclaimed
Donbass republics in eastern Ukraine have announced they are evacuating
civilians across the border
Buses with refugees leave for Russia, in Donetsk, Ukraine,
February 18, 2022. © Sergey Baturin/Sputnik
A Russian
region bordering Eastern Ukraine has declared a state of emergency on
Saturday, with reports of refugees from the separatist-held Donbass
crossing over the border amid a military escalation with Kiev.
The
self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Lugansk People’s Republic
(LPR) announced that they had begun evacuating civilians to Russia on
Friday, with rebels and Ukrainian army forces accusing each other of shelling
across the contact line. It is unclear how many residents may be following the
guidance from local leaders, and those living near the front line on both sides
have faced regular firefights since 2014.
MORE https://www.rt.com/russia/549954-russia-ukraine-refugess-influx/
US THINKING
US
Already Waging War on Russia
|
|
|||
|
|
||||
The
US strategy to start war with Russia, (along with rampant pro-war media
propaganda) is to arm their client-state Govt in Kiev as they bomb ethnic
Russian minorities in East Ukraine, to try to goad Russia into the
conflict. This allows the US to try to pretend they are not the
aggressor. Meanwhile US weapons are destroying villages as we speak,
causing a mass refugee state of emergency. The US is already waging warfare
(not to mention the U.S. backed coup previously)
US/WESTERN THINKING WAR:
SANCTIONS
Immanuel Ness and Stuart Davis, eds. Sanctions
as War: Anti-Imperialist Perspectives on American Geo-economic Strategy. Leiden: Brill, 202l. [I have not read this book, but intend to
report on it in my next anthology. –D]
SANCTIONS: WHAT ARE THEY ALL
THINKING?
“Hidden costs of sanctions...as
the sky falls”
|
|
Economist: If US cuts Russia
off from SWIFT, China will turn to
CIPS, & US will lose its
financial dominance.
This means the End of
Seigneurage, no more free lunch for the USA, i.e,
no more Current Account
Deficit, because the rest of the world would no
longer accept its checks
(cheques). MORE https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Ffinance-and-economics%2F2021%2F12%2F18%2Fthe-hidden-costs-of-cutting-russia-off-from-Swift&
=PQA%2Fo8VE4oZRbK9Fz80OBPmzE4YQw8TVeLZqeP15KVg%3D&reserved=0
Dec 18th 2021 edition,
The Economist SWIFT thinking………The hidden costs of cutting Russia off from SWIFT. America's foes would rush to alternatives,
hastening its financial decline.
US/FDR’s/Biden’s Thinking
From Yalta to Ukraine Today
Seventy-Seven Years Ago, U.S. and
Russia Signed Historic Agreement at Yalta
By Jeremy Kuzmarov and Jacques Pauwels on Feb 12, 2022 12:22
am
With tensions between the U.S. and Russia at
historic levels and threat of a hot war breaking out in Ukraine, we would do
well to remember FDR’s visionary leadership and pursuit of diplomacy
Reuters reported last week that the Ukrainian military was carrying
out war games with newly delivered American military hardware in preparation for a
conflict that could break out at any time.
For years now, the U.S. media has been
demonizing Russia, accusing its leader Vladimir Putin of being an iron-fisted
dictator who has interfered in U.S. elections, poisoned opponents, and carried
out aggression by illegally annexing Crimea.
With Russia having amassed over 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s border, the U.S.
Congress is prepared to pass a “sanctions bill from hell” whose purpose would
be to cripple Russia’s economy.
Mississippi Senator, Roger Wicker, the second
highest Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, went so far as to
suggest in an interview with Fox News that the U.S. should not
rule out a preemptive nuclear strike on Russia
if it invaded Ukraine. […]
The post Seventy-Seven Years Ago, U.S. and
Russia Signed Historic Agreement at Yalta appeared first
on CovertAction Magazine.
MAINSTREAM MEDIA PRO-WAR THINKING
MAINSTREAM MEDIA TAKE SIDES
David Bromwich. “Russia,
Ukraine, and The New York Times.” The Nation https://www.thenation.com ›
Article. “The paper of record’s coverage
of the crisis has been a series of shameless provocative conjectures posing as
facts.” The NYT heats up the root
cause of the crisis: fortifying Ukraine as a Western bulwark on Russia’s
border. I. NATO Expansion. II. NYT. Feb
5, 2022.
Closely
Related Russia/Europe/NATO/Energy: What Can They Be Thinking?
NEW
COLD WAR ON CHINA Special
No. of Monthly Review (July-August
2021).
Nine articles plus “Notes from the Editors.”
Peace Thinking:
Neutrality, Empathy
Hobson, Ritter, Shea/Pavlova
WHAT COULD UKRAINE BE
THINKING? NEUTRALITY: Articles by Hobson
and Shea/Pavlova
OPINION | ART HOBSON: The United States
should support neutrality for Ukraine
U.S.
militarism, moral advice aren’t working by Art Hobson | February 1, 2022 at 1:00
a.m.
Americans
seem to have no idea of the degree to which fear of attack by the West
motivates Russian behavior toward Ukraine.
Some
relevant history: Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941. World War II
had been under way for nearly two years, during which Germany and Mussolini's
Italy occupied most of Europe. Hitler started the war by invading Poland and
then signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union to avoid fighting on
two fronts. But by 1940 Hitler, who had always dreamed of acquiring
"Lebensraum" (living room) by expanding into Russia, began planning
his conquest of the Soviet Union.
This
Nazi offensive was probably the bloodiest military operation of all time. The
heroism and self-sacrifice of the Soviet people were crucial in eventually
turning the tide. By war's end, 24 million Soviet citizens, mostly civilians,
lay dead. For comparison, U.S. military and civilian deaths totaled about
400,000. U.S. soil was hardly touched. Russians did most of the fighting and
dying, inflicting 80 percent of Germany's casualties, and the Russian homeland
was devastated. Without them, Hitler would have won.
There
is much more. France's Napoleon invaded Russia and was defeated in the
"Patriotic War of 1812." In the 1853-1856 Crimean War, France,
Britain and Turkey invaded Russia.
During
World War I, Germany invaded and occupied much of European Russia.
In
1918, Poland launched a three-year invasion of the new Soviet Union that
reached as far as Kiev.
There's
more: Hoping to strangle the Bolshevik revolution before it could spread to the
rest of Europe, America and an alliance of 14 other Western powers intervened
during the 1917-1922 Russian Civil War. Contributing to this endeavor were
250,000 troops, including 11,000 Americans, of whom 424 died.
Thus it
was fully predictable that Vladimir Putin would react vehemently to the
possibility of Ukraine's membership in an opposing military alliance that had
been expanding toward his doorstep since 1990.
Walk a
mile in Russia's shoes. Imagine that an anti-American military alliance led by
Russia and China has incorporated Central America, Mexico and Cuba, and that
Canada now wants to join this alliance. In fact something like this occurred
during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, and America was, to say the least,
outraged.
We seem
to feel free to intimidate the other two superpowers at will, stationing
warships and military bases just outside their borders. Yet neither Russia nor
China makes corresponding military moves against the U.S. homeland.
What's
the goal of U.S. policy? Is it for America to elbow the world into following
our economic and political norms? If so, I suggest that our own example is not
that great given last year's insurrection and other disasters. Nevertheless, we
plow ahead with annual military investments ($778 billion plus
"off-budget" items such as nuclear weapons) that outstrip the next
nine nations combined. As a thought experiment, consider what could be
accomplished if 50 percent of this were instead invested in global human needs.
Humankind's
leading international problem is war itself. It's outrageous that humans
organize, and spend trillions, in order to kill their own species. Surely we
can do better. War seems to attract us as a kind of macho zero-sum game, a game
that is highly profitable for the rich and powerful, especially those who own
military industries. But war is not a zero-sum game: Everybody loses.
Our
goal should surely be human happiness, rather than "winning." Instead
of expanding military alliances, all nations should work toward demilitarization,
i.e., neutrality in military affairs. Finland, for example, declared neutrality
throughout the 1950-1990 Cold War, signing a Treaty of Friendship with the
Soviet Union. This is basically what Putin is asking Ukraine to do.
What's
wrong with neutrality for Ukraine? I visited Finland for a week in 1985 in
connection with a sabbatical at Sweden's Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute. Finland was and is a free, democratic, rich, happy nation.
Neutrality has also worked for nations such as Sweden, Switzerland and Austria.
What
has been the point of NATO expansion since 1990? After all, NATO's presumed
enemy, the Warsaw Pact, disbanded. Why should NATO have continued? In 1951 we
were warned by NATO Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower that NATO will have
failed if in 10 years all American troops stationed in Europe have not been
returned to the United States.
U.S.
militarism, and U.S. moral advice to the entire world, foster resentment and
feed humankind's worst instincts. We need to back off, reduce our military
budgets and support neutrality instead of "victory."
Print
Headline: What's wrong with neutrality?
|
|
|
||
|
||||
Hi
Abel,
I
agree with you Abel. For the past 3 months I have been saying in my op-ed
columns in the NWADG that Ukraine should be neutral, and that NATO should not
have expanded into Eastern Europe. The goal for all nations should be
neutrality. The UN should take global leadership, not the US. Here
are my op-eds:
My
next op-ed will probably be about the effect of nuclear weapons, because if
NATO gets into this war there is a real chance that at some point Putin will
use nuclear weapons because he knows he cannot defeat NATO with conventional
weapons. Americans need to know that this is serious.
America
needs a renewed peace movement. The focus should be pro-peace not
anti-America. Russian citizens are protesting Putin’s invasion of
Ukraine. We should support their efforts while also opposing NATO.
Both sides are too militarized. The goal should be neutrality
rather than military alliances.
Peace
- Art
3 Attachments
SCOTT RITTER FOR
NEUTRALITY
ANALYSIS, COMMENTARY, GEORGIA, INTERNATIONAL, MOLDOVA, RUSSIA, UKRAINE
The Case for Neutrality to Defuse Crisis With Russia. January 14, 2022
Save
Faced with the
certainty of the destruction of their country, most Ukrainians would settle for
peace through neutrality, writes Scott Ritter.
Rebel armored convoy near
Donetsk, Eastern Ukraine, May 30, 2015. (Mstyslav Chernov/Wikimedia
Commons)
By Scott
Ritter
Special
to Consortium News According to Axios, Jake Sullivan, national
security advisor for President Joe Biden, convened a Zoom conference of
erstwhile Russian experts to sound out possible policy options going into this
week’s triple round of talks with Russia on European security. “By soliciting advice
from the hawkish pockets in the foreign policy establishment,” Axios noted,
“including those who served under former President Trump, the Biden
administration is considering all options while weighing how to discourage
Russian President Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine—and punish him if he
does.”
How the solicitation of advice from
“hawkish pockets in the foreign policy establishment” translates into
“considering all options” is a matter for another time. The point here is that
the Biden administration, rather than searching for a potential compromise
position which could avert conflict in Europe while attaining legitimate
national security goals and objectives for the United States, sought out a
literal echo chamber of nonsensical advice from like-minded individuals who
have spent the past two decades wallowing in their hate and disdain for Russia
and its leader, Vladimir Putin.
Michael McFaul, the former Obama
administration Russian expert who served as the U.S. Ambassador to Russia from
2012-2014, and who has famously clashed with Putin’s Russia over time, noted
the wisdom of Sullivan seeking “to engage with outsiders…including those who
may disagree with him,” while declining to say whether he himself participated
in the call.
A Hawk’s Demands
While McFaul has opted to remain
silent on any advice he may have imparted if he had, in fact, been a part of
that call, one doesn’t have to delve too far into the realm of speculation to
get a feel for both the tenor and content of what such advice might have looked
like. In a recent tweet responding to a statement made last year by Russian
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov that Russia was demanding a “ironclad”
guarantee that “Ukraine and Georgia will never ever become a member of NATO,”
McFaul responded with a tweet of his own, declaring:
“And I want a ‘waterproof’ ‘ironclad’
‘bulletproof’ guarantee Russia will end its occupation of Ukrainian and
Georgian territories, will never invade Ukraine or Georgia again and will stop
its efforts to undermine democracy in Ukraine & Georgia.”
McFaul’s tweet was reflective of an
overall policy position which sought the reversal of what he viewed as Russian
usurpation of the territory of three European states—Moldova, Ukraine, and
Georgia. After the Russian government published the text of a draft treaty
calling for a guarantee that the United States would not seek to establish
military bases “in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization” or “use their infrastructure for any military activities or
develop bilateral military cooperation with them”, McFaul proposed
additional articles to the draft treaty in which:
- Russia agrees to withdraw its forces from Moldova and restore
full sovereignty to this European country;
- Russia agrees to withdraw its forces from Georgia, renounce
recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent countries and
restore the full sovereignty of Georgia; and
- Russia agrees to withdraw its forces from Ukraine, return
Crimea to Ukraine, stop supporting separatist forces in Ukraine, and
restore the full sovereignty of this European country.
McFaul in 2016. (Rod
Searcey/Wikimedia Commons)
While there is little doubt that
McFaul, who has been loath to find any common ground with Putin’s Russia, was
seeking to counter what he viewed as a non-sensical Russian proposal with a
non-sensical response, the fact is that if one departs for a moment from a
world where the concept of genuine cooperation based upon a willingness to
compromise (i.e., real diplomacy) governed as a matter of course, the former
U.S. ambassador to Russia may have actually hit upon a formula that could allow
the U.S. and NATO to sustain their no-compromise stance on NATO’s “open door”
policy while respecting Russia’s insistence on a NATO-free presence in non-NATO
former Soviet Republics.
The notion that Russia would agree to
withdraw assets from Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova on its own volition is, of
course, a non-starter. This is especially true if NATO was considering allowing
any of these three states membership. However, if one is to accept the premise
that it is the sovereign right of any nation to freely associate with whom it
chooses (the cornerstone of NATO’s “open door” policy”), then the opposite is
true as well—it is the sovereign right of any nation to choose neutrality.
A Proposed Deal
This is the missing ingredient in
McFaul’s tongue-in-cheek formulation—that in exchange for a binding commitment
by Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia to permanently opt out of joining any military
alliance, while retaining the sovereign right to interact with the community of
nations politically and economically as they best see fit, Russia would
undertake measures designed to further the sovereignty of those states, to
include the following:
- The withdrawal of all troops from the territory of the
Republic of Georgia, inclusive of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, a
rescindment of Russia’s recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as
independent states, and Russian diplomatic assistance in facilitating both
South Ossetia and Abkhazia to Georgian sovereign control;
- The withdrawal of all troops from Transnistria (Moldova), and
the rescindment of any recognition of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian
Republic, and Russian diplomatic assistance in facilitating the return of
Transnistria to Moldovan sovereign control; and
- Full Russian support for the cessation of hostilities in
Donbas and Lugansk, and an agreement on the recognition of Ukrainian
interest in Crimea that does not infringe on Russian security or
sovereignty.
McFaul and his ilk would never agree
to such a trade-off, for the obvious reasons. But the people of Moldova,
Georgia, and Ukraine might. First and foremost, so long as there are
outstanding disputes involving the territorial integrity of a nation, NATO
rules preclude any notion of full membership, if for no other reason that NATO
does not want Article 5 to be invoked on day one of a nation joining NATO.
Russian peacekeepers at
border crossing between Transnistria and Moldova, 2014. (Clay
Gilliland/Wikimedia Commons)
As such, until which time Russia
changes its posture on Transnistria, Georgia, and Ukraine, NATO membership is
an impossibility. In short, those Moldavans, Georgians, and Ukrainians who
believe that the future well-being of their respective nation hinges on NATO
membership are cutting their own throats.
For Georgians especially, the hundreds
of thousands of internally displaced refugees from Abkhazia and South Ossetia
is a rowing domestic political problem. If given a choice between being able to
return to their homes and live in peace as a neutral nation, or to die far away
from home because your government pursued the false hope of salvation through
NATO membership, I’m certain most Georgians would choose home and neutrality.
A Resolution in Ukraine
For Ukraine, the choice is even
starker—their government’s pursuit of NATO membership will almost certainly
result in the destruction of their nation. NATO has already said it will not
intervene to prevent this destruction, and Russia is almost certain to make an
example out of Ukraine to intimidate the rest of Europe. Faced with the
certainty of the destruction of their country, most Ukrainians would settle for
peace and some sort of face-saving measure on Crimea.
The idea of a neutral Moldova,
Georgia, and Ukraine does not in any way compel NATO to rescind its “open door”
policy toward membership—the thing about an “open door” is that nations are
free not to walk through it. By offering real solutions to real problems,
Russia and the U.S./NATO could resolve the current impasse regarding European
security.
And the establishment of a neutral
bloc could lead to further de-escalation, including the reduction of military
forces along the NATO-Russian frontier, the end of provocative military
exercises in the Black Sea and NATO-Russia periphery, and a ban on weapons
systems, such as missile defense and intermediate-range missiles, deemed to be
destabilizing.
Unfortunately, this kind of compromise
is virtually impossible to consider today. I would bet a dime to a dollar that
not a single one of the Russian experts approached by Jake Sullivan for
guidance regarding the recently completed round of negotiations with Russia
would endorse such a policy line, if for no other reason that it would end
the raison d’etre for NATO’s continued existence in the
post-Cold War era, and it would solidify Russian President Putin as a rational
actor, something the anti-Putin crowd—McFaul included—could never tolerate, as
it would diminish their own niche relevance.
The U.S. and NATO are hell-bent on
containing and rolling back Russian influence and power, at the cost of the
very security they claim to be promoting and defending. The nations that will
bear the brunt of the cost of this hubris-laced adventurism—Moldova, Georgia,
and Ukraine—are but an afterthought to NATO, little more than useful pawns in a
greater game of geopolitical dominance.
If offered the choice between peace
and war, if the cost was neutrality, I am certain where most Moldovans,
Georgians, and Ukrainians would vote. This is, of course, why the U.S. and NATO
will never give them such an option.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps
intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms
control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in
Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.
The views expressed are solely those
of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium
News.
AUSTRIA’S NEUTRALITY
"Austria
escaped crisis by declaring neutrality. Ukraine could follow that
lead." By Thomas
Shea, Kateryna Pavlova | February
7, 2022
Salzburg, Austria. Credit:
Jorge Franganillo. Accessed via Wikipedia. CC BY 2.0.
At the end of World War II, Austria was
occupied by France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet
Union. It might have remained divided like Germany. Instead, Austria and the
four powers agreed to Austrian neutrality in 1955, which has proved remarkably
successful. Today, Vienna hosts well-respected international organizations like
the United Nations and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The
city was deemed the “most livable” for 10 years running on a survey that compared world
cities on political, social and economic climate, medical care, education, and
infrastructure conditions.
As Russia bears down on Ukraine,
Austria’s experience warrants examination. Could Ukraine follow Austria’s lead
to resolve the current crisis? To be sure, the circumstances of post-World War
II Austria differ from the current moment. In 1955, Austrians were defeated,
disarmed, and desperate to recover. By then, the Soviet Union, the United
Kingdom, and the United States possessed nuclear weapons, and Cold War tensions
were palpable. Today, Ukraine is besieged by Russia but strengthened by support
from Western military powers. Ukrainian citizens are desperately preparing—for
what? No one knows, given the uncertain course of the current crisis.
Would Ukrainian
citizens accept neutrality? The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was
founded in 1922 and, following the end of World War II, became an integral part
of the Soviet Union’s nuclear force structure.
But many Ukrainians wanted a different
future. Months before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian Soviet
Socialist Republic declared “its intention of
becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military
blocs and adheres to three nuclear free principles: to accept, to produce and
to purchase no nuclear weapons.” The declaration made clear that it was “the
basis for a new constitution and laws of Ukraine and determines the positions
of the Republic for the purpose of international agreements.”
In 1994, Ukraine, Russia, the United
States, and the United Kingdom signed the Budapest Memorandum in
which they reaffirmed their commitments to respect the independence,
sovereignty, and existing borders of Ukraine. President Putin refused to be
bound by what former Russian president Yeltsin had accepted. Instead, he
supported insurrections and brazenly seized Ukrainian territory, while neither
the United States nor the United Kingdom were prepared to act on their Budapest
Memorandum commitments. MORE https://toda.org/news-and-announcements/2022/austria-escaped-crisis-by-declaring-neutrality.-ukraine-could-follow-that-lead.html
EMPATHY CAN BRING PEACE TO BORDERS (Dick)
Never has former Senator J. William Fulbright’s
affirmation of empathy in foreign
affairs been needed more than now. The
US establishment—the Pentagon-Corporate-White House-Republican/Democrat
Congressional-Mainstream Media Complex—is threatening war, blind to or suppressing the several
decades of NATO’s eastward expansion to encircle Russia’s border from Finland
to Kazakhstan. The final chapter of J.
William Fulbright’s The Arrogance of Power
(1966) is entitled “The Two Americas.”
Here Fulbright contrasts the values and practices of “intolerant
puritanism” underlying US “zealous nationalism” and empire to the “democratic
humanism” he espoused. Equally important
is his chapter 7 in The Price of Empire, “Seeing
the World as Others See It.” If we are
to understand our differences and to change our aggressions, we must “acquire
some capacity for empathy” (196).
Democratic humanism and empathy make neutrality and diplomacy possible.
CONTENTS RUSSIA NEWSLETTER #10, Jan. 28, 2022
https://jamesrichardbennett.blogspot.com/2022/01/omni-russia-newsletter-10-january-28.html
This anthology begins with
indignation by Tomlinson, WBW, and Butterfield, moves to analysis and action by
Lowendorf, Franklin, and Prashad, to an appeal for peace by WBW, and to the
extensive scholarship of Prof. Zunes
REVISED 1-30-22 TO ADD 3 ESSAYS FROM POPULAR
RESISTANCE.ORG 1-30-22.
Call To Action: No War With
Russia Over Ukraine.
Endless War Is the Empire’s Last
Dance.
A War Only America And Britain
Seem To Want.
Abel Tomlinson. “The US Wants War, Not Russia.”
World Beyond War. “No War in Ukraine!”
Greg Butterfield.
“Ukraine, U.S. drum up war threats against Donbass and Russia.” April
8, 2021.
Henry Lowendorf reports the
”terribly destructive U.S. foreign policy” that “has no moral, or legal, or
logical authority.”
Matt Taibbi via George Paulson. “Let’s Not Have a War.”
H. Bruce Franklin. “Another Game of Russian Roulette,” on the
Cuban Missile Crisis.
Vijay
Prashad. “Why Ukraine’s borders are back at the center of geopolitics.”
WBW, Appeal for Negotiation, a mini-anthology within a
mini-anthology.
Stephen Zunes. “The U.S., Russia, and
Ukraine.” (and critiques of Zunes)
Contents Russia
Newsletter #9
I hope to send #12 soon (and #13!). (I have called these “newsletters,” but they
are more accurately described as anthologies,
perhaps Resistance Anthologies.) (Will you consider taking over the
editorship?)
END RUSSIA
NEWSLETTER #11, 2-24-22
No comments:
Post a Comment