Any Ukrainian riders?

[level9]

Unfortunately any agreement with the Russians isn't worth the paper it's written on. I'm less than convinced these ceasefire/peace talks mean anything at all outside of a distraction/delay tactic. The latest satellite imagery indicates Russia building up an even larger invasion force in certain areas and they are digging in where they are claiming to be pulling out. They've done nothing but lie incessantly and simply cannot be trusted in any manner whatsoever.

Also keep in mind Turkey is freaking out because they may have to enforce the Montreaux Convention and fire on Russian warships trying to pass through their straits and they've no interest in a war with Russia. They have their own motivations for pushing the two sides together and they've been feeding out quite a lot of misleading statements themselves.

Edited March 29, 2022 by level9

[Paul A]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/29/ukraine-russia-turkey-negotiations/

By Kareem Fahim, David L. Sterna and Dan Lamothe

Today at 12:24 p.m. EDT

 

No breakthrough, but Ukraine-Russia talks in Turkey stir optimism.

 

ISTANBUL — Ukrainian negotiators in Istanbul said Tuesday they had offered a detailed peace proposal to their Russian counterparts, exchanging military neutrality for security guarantees, as Moscow said it would “drastically reduce” military activity near the Ukrainian cities of Kyiv and Chernihiv “to increase mutual trust and create the necessary conditions for further negotiations.”

 

The centerpiece of the Ukrainian proposal was a pledge that it would maintain the kind of military neutrality sought by Moscow, in exchange for a security system for Ukraine guaranteed by international partners including the United States, Turkey and others. Ukrainian negotiators likened the offer to Article 5 of NATO’s charter, which ensures the alliance’s collective defense.

 

The guarantor parties — including European countries, Canada and Israel — would provide Ukraine with military assistance and weapons if it were attacked, the negotiators said. Ukraine, in turn, would ensure it remained “nonaligned and nonnuclear,” although it would retain the right to join the European Union.

 

The Ukrainian proposal also offered a 15-year timeline for negotiations with Russia over the status of Crimea, the Ukrainian peninsula annexed by Moscow in 2014.

 

Vladimir Medinsky, Russia’s lead negotiator, characterized the talks to reporters afterward as a “substantive conversation.”

Mevlut Cavusoglu, Turkey’s foreign minister, said that “the most meaningful progress since the start of negotiations was made today.”

 

Reactions by the United States to the day’s events were mixed. Secretary of State Antony Blinken expressed skepticism about the talks in Turkey, saying Moscow’s continued military offensive leaves little room for optimism.

“There is what Russia says and what Russia does: We’re focused on the latter, and what Russia has been doing is the brutalization of Ukraine and its people,” Blinken said during a joint news conference with his Moroccan counterpart in Rabat, the Moroccan capital.

 

But the Pentagon’s top general overseeing U.S. troops in Europe said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday that there was evidence of “shifting dynamics” on the ground near the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, appearing to confirm that some Russian forces in the region are pulling back.

 

The change in Russian posture comes after Ukrainian forces have gone on the offensive in several parts of the country. Ukrainian officials said Monday that they have recaptured Irpin, a Kyiv suburb.

 

In Istanbul, the delegations from Ukraine and Russia arrived in convoys at the Dolmabahce Palace about 9 a.m. local time. Erdogan, addressing the delegates, expressed hope that the negotiations would lead to a cease-fire and said “the whole world is waiting for benevolent and good news from you.” Turkey, which for a multitude of reasons including economic, depends on close relations with both Moscow and Kyiv, has thrust itself into the middle of negotiations to halt the war.

[redsnapper]

6 hours ago, level9 said:

Unfortunately any agreement with the Russians isn't worth the paper it's written on. I'm less than convinced these ceasefire/peace talks mean anything at all outside of a distraction/delay tactic. The latest satellite imagery indicates Russia building up an even larger invasion force in certain areas and they are digging in where they are claiming to be pulling out. They've done nothing but lie incessantly and simply cannot be trusted in any manner whatsoever.

I'm guessing you have to look through a longer lens in order to assess the value of any agreement over this - one that includes the continual encroachment of NATO towards Russian borders (or into historically Russian spheres of influence) despite the assurances they were given at the breakup of the USSR. The only thing that Russia can use as a stick is its nuclear deterrent - its military hardware is substandard compared to western norms and it does not have the economic capacity to modernize when it spends only 10% of what the US spends on defense. This in part (imo) is what has lead to the current crisis - a real fear inside the Russian upper ranks that NATO will possess the power of pre-emptive strike. This would neuter the nuclear deterrent and hence make Russia impotent - of course they possess nuclear subs with nukes and those cannot be deterred. But if you can take out their land based missiles, that is by far the greatest part of their deterrent. Agreements have to be slightly unpalatable to all in order to be viable. Russia likely wants an offramp - what it will accept is yet to be seen. I'm not sure that they are historically more guilty of disregard for agreements than we are. US pulled out of the INF and ABM nuclear treaties. Historically there were pretty solid processes in place - trust but verify - on both sides for compliance. I think if you listen to retired intelligence people conversant with US/Russia, they say that there has been a pretty concerted effort in US foreign policy to isolate and ignore Russian security concerns (and undo the work that was done in the cold war to maintain critical pathways for dialogue). Russia was so weak after the breakup of USSR that maybe no one thought it worthwhile to maintain a working relationship ( Obama once said publicly that Russia made nothing anyone wanted!). One thing Trump seemed to really question is the oversized US role in NATO. Why does an economic block (EU) made up of more people than the US and with decent economic clout (albeit heavily weighted by small # of nations) need the US to ensure its security? The US is Godzilla - it needs no military alliance for its own security. Should the EU not manage its own security? If so why is it not doing so?

[Paul A]

What was the American policy of isolationism?

Isolationism refers to America's longstanding reluctance to become involved in European alliances and wars. Isolationists held the view that America's perspective on the world was different from that of European societies and that America could advance the cause of freedom and democracy by means other than war.

 

 

Why did the US abandon its policy of isolationism?

The ideological goals of the fascist powers in Europe during World War II and the growing aggression of Germany led many Americans to fear for the security of their nation, and thus call for an end to the US policy of isolationism.

 

How did US isolationism lead to WW2?

Although U.S. isolationism was not the only cause of WWII it was one of the main reasons for the start of the war because it allowed authoritarian rule to sweep the world with the weakened League of Nations, contributed to the worsening of the Great Depression, and made diplomatic resolve abroad impossible.

 

Why did US avoid involvement in ww2?

The U.S. avoided involvement in WWII before December 1941 because the Congress and the President wanted to believe that the war did not affect the U.S. This was called "isolationism" -- the idea that a country could isolate itself from others.

 

Why was NATO founded?

The North Atlantic Alliance was founded in the aftermath of the Second World War. Its purpose was to secure peace in Europe, to promote cooperation among its members and to guard their freedom – all of this in the context of countering the threat posed at the time by the Soviet Union.

 

The Alliance’s founding treaty was signed in Washington in 1949 by a dozen European and North American countries.

It commits the Allies to democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law, as well as to peaceful resolution of disputes.

Importantly, the treaty sets out the idea of collective defence, meaning that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization – or NATO – ensures that the security of its European member countries is inseparably linked to that of its North American member countries.

[Eucner]

16 minutes ago, Paul A said:

Why was NATO founded?

The North Atlantic Alliance was founded in the aftermath of the Second World War. Its purpose was to secure peace in Europe, to promote cooperation among its members and to guard their freedom – all of this in the context of countering the threat posed at the time by the Soviet Union.

The NATO was founded in 1949 to keep the threat of Germany down. Later in 1955 when Germany joined NATO, they shifted threat focus to the Soviet Union.

[Paul A]

Historical events.

______________

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/russia-could-have-joined-nato-but-why-didn-t-they-do-it-55561/amp1

16 MAR 2022

MURAT SOFUOGLU

Russia could have joined NATO. But why didn't they do it?

 

The victorious Western alliance saw Russia as a crumbled post-Soviet state and did not make enough efforts to let Moscow join the power bloc.

But at one point in history, Putin’s Russia wanted to join NATO. 

“Russia is part of European culture. And I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world. So it is hard for me to visualise NATO as an enemy,” said Putin, the country’s acting president in 2000, three weeks before the election, which made him president. 

The same year, according to the then-NATO chief George Robertson, Putin bluntly asked: “When are you going to invite us to join Nato?” Robertson advised the Russian president that he needs to “apply to join NATO” and not expect an invitation. 

Some experts believe it could have been real if the West had taken Russia’s membership prospects seriously back in 2000 or the 1990s when Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, and Russian Federation’s first President Boris Yeltsin also lobbied for Moscow’s entrance to the alliance. Had it happened, the current Russian onslaught on Ukraine could have been prevented. 

“Because they thought that they had won the Cold War and could dictate all the terms as Russia was 'beaten'. They were high on the euphoria of a perceived victory rather than a massive opportunity for peace and security,” says Gregory Simons, an associate professor at the Institute for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Uppsala University.  

“They did not regard Russia as an equal and probably thought to use the idea of membership as a means of compliance. Like the EU has done to Turkey for years,” Simons tells TRT World. 

But other experts believe that if Russia is not a NATO member, it is not the fault of the Western alliance. “Yes. In the 1990s, Russia and NATO discussed whether or not Russia might want to become a member of NATO. I think Russia never wanted it, and it was never serious,” says Matthew Bryza, the former US ambassador to Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic.

 

NATO-Russia axis

Many high-ranking American officials, including the former US Secretary of State, James Baker, a powerful establishment figure in Washington, openly supported Russian membership of NATO, seeing it as a win-win situation for both sides. There is also critical evidence of NATO’s seriousness about Russian membership of the alliance. 

In 1997, NATO and Russia agreed to form the NATO-Russia Founding Act, which defined the ways to work together and to cooperate with each other. They also founded the NATO-Russian Discussion Council in 2002. 

“The mood was very positive in NATO toward Russia, and there was a great hope that Russia could become, if not a member of NATO, at least a partner. But I think Russia decided on its own that it’s not interested (in the membership in the alliance),” Bryza tells TRT World. 

But things blew up in the early 2000s as NATO’s eastern expansion plan, excluding Russia, was moving in full force. 

 

What were the obstacles? 

While the Cold War ended with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, its political philosophy has persisted across both Western and Russian establishments, preventing a genuine reconciliation process between the two camps, according to experts. 

In 1994, Chechen War blew up in Caucasia, fomenting separatist tendencies against the Russian Federation, which saw its fight against the Chechens as an existential struggle, fearing that other autonomous regions inside the state might also seek an independent path from Moscow. For the Chechens, it was about their own independence. 

While Russia conducted a brutal war against the Chechens during the two long engagements in 1994 and 1999, which was also instrumental for Putin’s rise to power, some US officials expressed sympathy for the Chechnya's separatist cause, increasing Kremlin’s suspicions toward Western intentions. 

 

Moscow has long opposed NATO’s eastern expansion plan, excluding Russia, the world’s biggest country, interpreting it as a growing threat against its unity and existence across vast areas. While many Western diplomats warned their capitals about Russian concerns, in 2004, NATO accepted seven more Eastern European countries and former communist allies of Moscow to the alliance, in its largest expansion ever. 

 

The Rose Revolution, a pro-Western political action, happened in 2003. Five years later, Putin launched military action against Georgia, a Caucasian state, backing the country’s two rebellious regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, to establish their own separatist governance. 

A similar scenario played out in Ukraine after the Orange Revolution in 2014 when the pro-Western Ukrainian political forces ousted the pro-Russian government. Russia backed the two separatist regions in Ukraine’s eastern Donbass Oblast, but also annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Kiev in 2014. 

The ongoing Ukraine fighting has important messages related to both NATO’s and Russia’s raison d'etre. While Putin’s Russia wants to claim its old influence across former USSR territories, NATO wants to counter Moscow, seeing it as the new emblem of the old Soviets. 

[Surfling]

5 hours ago, Paul A said:

What was the American policy of isolationism?

Isolationism refers to America's longstanding reluctance to become involved in European alliances and wars. Isolationists held the view that America's perspective on the world was different from that of European societies and that America could advance the cause of freedom and democracy by means other than war.

 

 

Why did the US abandon its policy of isolationism?

The ideological goals of the fascist powers in Europe during World War II and the growing aggression of Germany led many Americans to fear for the security of their nation, and thus call for an end to the US policy of isolationism.

 

How did US isolationism lead to WW2?

Although U.S. isolationism was not the only cause of WWII it was one of the main reasons for the start of the war because it allowed authoritarian rule to sweep the world with the weakened League of Nations, contributed to the worsening of the Great Depression, and made diplomatic resolve abroad impossible.

 

Why did US avoid involvement in ww2?

The U.S. avoided involvement in WWII before December 1941 because the Congress and the President wanted to believe that the war did not affect the U.S. This was called "isolationism" -- the idea that a country could isolate itself from others.

 

 

   I remember this topic in high school history and iirc, the Japanese invasion of Pearl Harbor (to pave their intent occupation around Asia) ended the US isolationism policy.

[redsnapper]

some critical analysis on nato-

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/nato-obsolete-25167

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/592231-should-nato-close-its-doors

 

https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-outdated-us-cold-war-policy-worsens-ongoing-russia-ukraine-conflict/

Since the breakup of the ussr nato members have almost doubled from 16 nations to 30 ( mostly in close proximity to Russia ).

Yearly defence spending in US will reach 1T (yes Trillion!) - which exceeds the next 10 countries combined!

Russia economy is roughly that of Texas ( and shrinking)... Why should US tax payers be on the hook for the defence of a region that has the means and tech to defend itself?

The MICIMATT sure loves it...

Edited March 30, 2022 by redsnapper

[Tawpie]

A trillion dollars? That's 10 million kilos of 100 dollar bills. Good thing "money" is just 1s and 0s in a computer these days and not paper notes.

[Paul A]

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/here-s-why-the-united-states-needs-nato/

July 5, 2018

Here’s why the United States needs NATO

NATO undertakes numerous missions to protect member states and promote security around the globe.

NATO has five active missions around the world deploying 18,000 troops.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has completed thirteen missions including two in the United States (Hurricane Katrina relief and post-9/11 air reconnaissance patrol).

NATO allies contributed thousands of troops to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, including 38,000 in 2011, saving the United States an estimated $49 billion that year. The operation in Afghanistan was the first and only time NATO’s mutual defense commitment was invoked.

Non-US members sustained more than 1,000 combat deaths in Afghanistan, with an additional one hundred lost by NATO partners.

Non-US NATO members contributed more than 60 percent of assets for Operation Unified Protector in Libya.

Non-US Coalition members flew one-third of all coalition airstrikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) in Operation Inherent Resolve.

NATO’s Operation Ocean Shield against piracy in the Gulf of Aden has been led at different times by Denmark, Spain, Norway, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Portugal.

 

NATO supports and protects the economies of Europe, which are critical to the health of the US economy.

US trade with the European Union reached $699 billion in 2015, only made possible because of the security and stability provided by NATO.

US exports to the former Communist NATO member states (not including East Germany) grew from $0.9 billion in 1989 to $9.4 billion in 2016.

Non-US NATO members rely heavily on the US defense industry to supply their forces. Currently, European members are planning to purchase as many as 500 new F-35s from the United States.

 

NATO is a force multiplier that gives the United States access to military tools in greater numbers than it can achieve by itself.

Non-US NATO members have 1,857,000 active duty service members and 1,232,290 reservists. The seven largest non-US NATO member armies have the same number of active duty troops as the United States (1.3 million).

Non-US NATO members can deploy 6,983 battle tanks, 34,000 armored vehicles, 2,600 combat aircraft, 382 attack helicopters, 252 major naval craft (including submarines), and 1,582 patrol and surface combatants.

France and the United Kingdom alone provide 30 percent of the Alliance’s ballistic-missile-submarine fleet.

NATO’s European members are beginning to host the first stages of the Alliance’s new ballistic-missile-defense system aimed at preventing long-range attacks by rogue states on the United States and Europe.

NATO members frequently share intelligence across the Alliance, aiding US operations and intelligence-gathering. The United Kingdom, France, and Germany alone add 40,000 intelligence personnel to the Alliance’s intelligence capabilities.

Non-US NATO members host twenty-eight US main operating bases in Europe, which cut down on the time needed for the United States to respond to a crisis and are critical for US missions in the Middle East and North Africa.

In 2009, for example, Germany contributed $800 million to offset and improve its US bases.

 

NATO promotes peace within Europe and deters major US adversaries from launching large-scale conventional wars.

World War II cost the United States more than 400,000 lives and an estimated $4.1 trillion (in 2011 dollars). NATO has been key to preserving peace within the European continent and preventing other adversaries from launching a major conventional war.

According to credible sources, a major conventional war today could cost the United States upwards of $2.5 trillion per year.

NATO also promotes the American values of democracy and rule of law. Twenty-six of the twenty-nine NATO member states were labelled as “free” by Freedom House in 2018. By comparison, just 39 percent of the world’s population lives in “free” countries.

___________________

US President Donald J. Trump sent ripples through the transatlantic community after sending letters to NATO allies demanding that they spend more on their own defense. Trump’s stance appears to stem from the belief—shared by many in the United States—that European allies have long taken advantage of American military protection without making a fair contribution to common security. This view rests on the assumption that the United States is paying for European defense and receiving nothing in return.

As the Atlantic Council’s Magnus Nordenman and the Center for Transatlantic Relations’ Hans Binnendijk write in their issue brief, NATO’s Value to the United States: By the Numbers, however, this is far from the case. 

[Paul A]

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-military-budget-components-challenges-growth-3306320

Estimated U.S. military spending for the fiscal year 2022 is $754 billion.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-balance/

Overall, we rate The Balance Least Biased based on minimal use of loaded language and balanced reporting of financial news.

We also rate them High for factual reporting due to excellent sourcing and a clean fact check record.

[redsnapper]

@Paul AIndeed I overshot on US defense spending by 200B - my bad... Always worth double checking sources! A summary of spending by country - 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

List by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute 2022 Fact Sheet (for 2021)[1] SIPRI Military Expenditure Database[5]

Rank Country Spending (US$ bn) % of GDP % of global spending   World total 1,981 2.4 100% 1  United States 778.0 3.7 39% 2  China[a] 252.0 1.7 13% 3  India 72.9 2.9 3.7% 4  Russia 61.7 4.3 3.1% 5  United Kingdom 59.2 2.7 3.0% 6  Saudi Arabia[a][b] 57.5 8.4 2.9% 7  Germany 52.8 1.4 2.7% 8  France 52.7 2.1 2.7% 9  Japan 49.1 1.0 2.5% 10  South Korea 45.7 2.8 2.3% 11  Italy 28.9 1.6 1.5% 12  Australia 27.5 2.1 1.4% 13  Israel 21.7 5.6 1.1% 14  Canada 20.8 1.3 1.1% 15  Brazil 19.7 1.4 1.0% 16  Turkey 17.7 2 0.9% 17  Spain 17.4 1.3 0.9% 18  Iran 15.8 2.4 0.8% 19  Poland 13 2.2 0.7% 20  Netherlands 12.6 1.3 0.6%

 

regarding Atlantic Council and views on NATO - follow their funding sources if you want to understand their hawkish policy leanings...

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/trillions/20180701/281951723597028

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/atlantic-council/

Funding

In 2019, the Atlantic Council received $21,772,164 in grants and donations. ^[47] Its largest donors included Adrienne Arsht, Facebook, Goldman Sachs, the Rockefeller Foundation, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates. ^[48]

Other notable donors in 2019 included Chevron Corporation, Crescent Petroleum, Google, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Raytheon Technologies, and the U.S. Department of State. ^[49]

Facebook partners with Hawkish Atlantic Council, a NATO lobby group, to “protect democracy”

https://mronline.org/2018/05/24/facebook-partners-with-hawkish-atlantic-council-a-nato-lobby-group-to-protect-democracy/

The Atlantic Council: independent think tank, or lobbyists for oligarchs? 

https://eutoday.net/news/politics/2020/atlantic-council

H.R. McMaster Resigns From Atlantic Council Board of Directors in Protest Over Koch Funding

Sources: The retired general and former national security adviser argues that money is tainting scholarship at premier Washington, D.C., think tank

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/h-r-mcmaster-resigns-from-atlantic-council-board-of-directors-in-protest-over-koch-funding/

Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/us/politics/foreign-powers-buy-influence-at-think-tanks.html

 

Atlantic Council Praised Ukraine’s Nazi Azov Battalion

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/02/28/atlantic-council-praised-ukraines-nazi-azov-battalion/

 

It is indeed hard to escape the reach of the MICIMATT :-(

[RockyTop]

US spends 3X more on military power than second place making the US extremely powerful. … Any questions on why there is a war on US hearts and minds? Can you see why communist socialistic propaganda is being taught in our schools?
“ The pen is mightier than the sword” ?? 
 

I remember back in the 1990’s. Japan was coming out of poverty. The sword had been put away. Japan’s new goal was to take over the world financially. At the same time I watched videos of Japan’s youth walking around in American shoes listening to American/European music. The youth couldn’t get enough western culture. Japan did not realize that their youth had already been won over. (Westernized) I can’t say if this was a good thing for Japan or a bad thing. I will simply remember the lesson. …. 
 

[Funky]

1 hour ago, RockyTop said:

US spends 3X more on military power than second place making the US extremely powerful. … Any questions on why there is a war on US hearts and minds? Can you see why communist socialistic propaganda is being taught in our schools?
“ The pen is mightier than the sword” ?? 

Then again they love guns.. AMERICA Fuck Yeah!!!! 

Yup pen is mightier, till you have to fight..

[Paul A]

Redsnapper, yes.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/atlantic-council/

Overall, we rate the Atlantic Council Right-Center Biased based on pro-corporate and hawkish military perspectives. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to mostly proper sourcing and a clean fact check record.

 

[RockyTop]

1 hour ago, Funky said:

Then again they love guns.. AMERICA Fuck Yeah!!!! 

Yup pen is mightier, till you have to fight..

A pen is no good without a sword to back it up.  A sword is no good without a heart to back it up, (heart = want, desire, reason) Example: Russian soldiers in Ukraine. No heart. 
 

Be careful not to be a sword for wrong. 

[Paul A]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/30/russia-ukraine-war-news-putin-live-updates/

By John Hudson and Paul Sonne 4:31 p.m.

U.S. official: Putin feels misled by Russian military on Ukraine

 

ALGIERS — U.S. intelligence thinks that Russian President Vladimir Putin feels misled by the Russian military, a U.S. official said in a statement Wednesday, describing “persistent tension” between Putin and the Russian Defense Ministry’s leadership.

 

“Putin didn’t even know his military was using and losing conscripts in Ukraine, showing a clear breakdown in the flow of accurate information to the Russian President,” the U.S. official said in the statement, speaking on the condition of anonymity under rules set by the Biden administration.

“We believe that Putin is being misinformed by his advisers about how badly the Russian military is performing and how the Russian economy is being crippled by sanctions, because his senior advisers are too afraid to tell him the truth,” the U.S. official added.

 

Asked about those comments during a briefing in Algeria, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, “One of the Achilles’ heels of autocracies is that we don’t have people in those systems who speak truth to power or have the ability to speak truth to power. And I think that is something that we’re seeing in Russia.”

Blinken was speaking at the U.S. Embassy in Algiers on his four-country swing through Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa.

 

At the Pentagon on Wednesday, spokesman John Kirby called it “discomforting” that Putin “may not fully understand the degree to which his forces are failing” thus far in Ukraine.

“It’s his military,” Kirby said. “It’s his war. He chose it. … And certainly, one outcome of that could be a less-than-faithful effort at negotiating some sort of settlement here. If he’s not fully informed of how poorly he’s doing, then how are his negotiators going to come up with an agreement that is enduring?

“The other thing,” Kirby added, “is, you don’t know how a leader like that is going to react to getting bad news.”

 

In the lead-up to Russia’s Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine, U.S. intelligence emphasized that Putin was being misled by his close advisers about the feasibility of a multi-front invasion of Ukraine.

That information is part of what led U.S. officials to be so concerned about the possibility of an invasion, because the Biden administration came to believe that Putin was not receiving a full picture of how difficult such a broad military operation would be.

[Richardo]

I haven't been following this topic as closely, but just saw one of the Ukranian peace negotiators was executed! 

He's called a both a traitor and a hero depending on who is writing: https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukraine-reports-claim-negotiator-shot-for-treason-officials-say-he-died-in-intel-op/

vs

https://kyivindependent.com/uncategorized/media-sbu-kills-member-of-ukrainian-negotiations-team-suspected-of-treason/

Edited March 30, 2022 by Richardo

[Paul A]

The Kyiv Independent report was sourced from Ukrainska Pravda.

https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2022/03/5/7328458/

ROMAN KRAVETS - SATURDAY, MARCH 5, 2022

The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) shot dead a Ukrainian negotiator in Homel during his detention, sources said.

 

During the detention, the Security Service of Ukraine shot dead a member of the Ukrainian negotiating delegation in Gomel, Denis Kireev. He was suspected of treason.

Source : High-ranking interlocutors in the power bloc and in political circles

Direct speech : "He is already dead." 

Details : According to interlocutors in political circles, the Security Service had clear evidence of Kireev's treason, including telephone conversations. 

Direct speech from another source: "He was an agent. You know why agents are killed."

Details : Krieev took part in talks between the Ukrainian and Russian delegations in Gomel on February 28. It is unknown at this time what he will do after leaving the Ukrainian delegation. 

It is known from open sources that Kireev was a banker. In 2010-2014 he worked as the First Deputy Chairman of the Board of Oschadbank, and before that he was a member of the Supervisory Board of Ukreximbank.

________________

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ukrayinska-pravda-the-ukrainian-truth/

Overall, we rate Ukrayinska Pravda Left-Center Biased based on story selection and moderate left-leaning editorial positions. We also rate them Mostly Factual due to a lack of transparency with ownership, despite a clean fact check record.

___________________

 

The counter claim that Denis Kireev was killed in an Intel op and died a hero, was made by the Defence Ministry in a Facebook post.

[Paul A]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/30/russia-ukraine-war-news-putin-live-updates/#link-MXE5WQ2IIFEWZBEIP2ZQEZ476I

By Meryl Cornfields 8:01 p.m

U.K. spy chief says Russian soldiers are sabotaging their own equipment.

Russian soldiers short on morale and weapons have refused orders, sabotaged their own equipment and shot down one of their own aircraft, Britain’s spy chief said.

 

The efforts are evidence of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s miscalculation when he decided to invade Ukraine, Jeremy Fleming, head of Britain’s electronic intelligence agency, said in a speech Thursday at Australian National University.

 

U.S. and British officials have said Putin, even more isolated than ever, was misinformed by his own aides, further stoking tensions.

[Paul A]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/29/ukrainian-soldier-russian-warship-medal-snake-island

Wed 30 Mar 2022

Ukraine gives medal to soldier who told Russian officer to ‘go fuck yourself’

Roman Hrybov, released in a prisoner swap, made remark over radio as warship approached on first day of invasion.

 

A Ukrainian soldier who told an officer on a Russian warship to “go fuck yourself” at the start of the invasion has been released as part of a prisoner exchange and awarded a medal for his services, the Ukrainian ministry of defence said on Tuesday.

Roman Hrybov, a Ukrainian border guard, was serving on Snake Island – a rocky outcrop south of the port of Odesa – when it came under Russian air and sea bombardment on the first day of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

When the detachment was asked to lay down their weapons, Hrybov responded by radio with a defiant: “Russian warship, go fuck yourself.”

 

Ukraine’s defence ministry said on Tuesday that Hrybov was now home in the city of Cherkasy, and tweeted a video in which Hrybov is seen receiving a medal for his actions from the local authorities.

Recordings of the Snake Island radio exchange involving Hrybov became widely shared on the internet and quickly went viral on various social media channels. The phrase became a rallying cry for Ukraine’s defenders and was commemorated in a postage stamp by the Ukrainian postal service.

 

 

[Paul A]

 

[Wolverine]

 

[redsnapper]

 

This article has a definite anti-US perspective. I post it not because I agree but because it explores ideas that are not part of the dominant narrative and that may have some merit. In today's information battleground, I cannot tell you this has not been authored by the FSB! But maybe these are the legit thoughts of a Ukrainian ex-pat. I am for sure suspicious of the dominant narrative because I believe there are very powerful forces (MICIMATT) that profit immensely from perpetual war (2000-2020 saw massive $$$ poured into war during a unipolar world) - and they would like nothing more than for a prolonged conflict in the region (and increased in defense spending in NATO and everywhere else).  I would also say to my American cousins that the criticism leveled at US foreign policy is aimed at the politicians, policy wonks, and war mongers not the regular folks who are the backbone of the country and who want nothing more than to be able to enjoy a good life and care for their families.

https://multipolarista.com/2022/03/14/ukrainian-leftist-war-russia-us/

Ukrainian leftist criticizes Western war drive with Russia: US is using Ukraine as ‘cannon fodder’

A left-wing peace activist raised in Ukraine explains how the US government created the crisis, backing two coups in a decade, fueling a devastating civil war, and exploiting his nation as a proxy against Russia.

By

Yuliy Dubovyk

Published

2022-03-14

---

I am a Ukrainian-American. I grew up and spent over half of my life in Ukraine, although now I live in the United States. I wanted to explain my thoughts on the ongoing crisis with Russia, because mainstream corporate media outlets don’t ever share perspectives like mine.

It is definitely a stressful time, for obvious reasons. Fortunately, my family and friends in the country are alive and are doing well enough under the circumstances. Unfortunately, in the past decade this isn’t the first time I have had to check in on my loved ones there, and for basically the same reasons. This is what I wanted to talk about.

You see, the US government has meddled in Ukraine for decades. And the Ukrainian people have suffered because of this.

The overwhelming support that Western governments and media outlets have poured out for Ukraine since Russia invaded on February 24 is not actually motivated by concern for the Ukrainian people. They are using us to advance their political and economic interests.

We know this because Washington overthrew our government twice in a decade, imposed neoliberal economic policies that made our country the poorest in Europe, and has fueled a devastating civil war that in the past eight years took the lives of 14,000 Ukrainians and wounded and displaced many more.

The following facts don’t get mentioned by the media, as they contradict the foreign-policy goals of the US government. So unless you are actively engaged in the anti-war movement, the info below is probably new to you. That is why I wanted to write this article.

US government backed two coups in Ukraine in one decade, and fueled a civil war that killed 14,000 Ukrainians

The first US-backed soft coup in Ukraine occurred in 2004, when Western-backed presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko lost the election.

The winner of the November 2004 vote, Viktor Yanukovych, was portrayed as being pro-Russian, so Western governments refused to recognize his victory and declared electoral fraud.

Western-backed forces in Ukraine then mobilized and carried out a textbook color revolution, called the “Orange Revolution.” They forced another run-off vote that December, in which their candidate Yushchenko was declared president.

In a shockingly honest 2004 report titled “US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev,” Britain’s establishment newspaper The Guardian admitted that the “Orange Revolution” was “an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing,” bankrolled with at least $14 million.

“Funded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations, the campaign” attempted to topple governments “in four countries in four years,” The Guardian boasted, targeting Serbia, Georgia, Belarus, and Ukraine.

Much like in the United States, Ukrainian presidents are appointed and govern in the interest of wealthy oligarchs, so no Ukrainian president ends his tenure with a particularly high rating. The US-backed Yushchenko, however, set a new record for the lowest popular support in history.

In the next presidential election, in 2010, Yushchenko got just 5% of the vote, which should give you an insight into how popular he actually was.

During his first term Yushchenko implemented a program of austerity, reduced social spending, bailed out large banks, deregulated agriculture, advocated for NATO membership, and repressed the rights of language minorities like Russian speakers.

The second US-backed coup d’etat in Ukraine was launched in late 2013 and consolidated power in 2014, just a decade after the first one.

Viktor Yanukovych, who was frequently called pro-Russian by Western media but in reality was just neutral, won the 2010 presidential election fair and square.

But in 2013, Yanukovych refused to sign a European Union Association Agreement that would have been a step toward integrating Ukraine with the EU. In order to be part of this program, Brussels had demanded that Kiev impose neoliberal structural adjustment, selling off government assets and giving the Washington-led International Monetary Fund (IMF) even more control over Ukrainian state spending.

Yanukovych rejected this for a more favorable offer from Russia. So, once again, Western-backed organizations brought out their supporters into the Maidan Square in Kiev to overthrow the government.

As was the case during the “Orange Revolution” in 2004, the United States sent politicians to meet with the leaders of the demonstrations, and later coup leaders, in late 2013 and early 2014. US Senators John McCain, Chris Murphy, and others spoke in front of large crowds in Maidan.

At some point the control of the stage and leadership of the protests was overtaken by far-right forces. Leaders of such organizations as Svoboda (a neo-Nazi party) and Right Sector (a coalition of fascist organizations) spoke to the protesters, sometimes standing side-by-side with their American backers like McCain.

Later their organizations acted as the spear of attack against the Ukrainian police in the violent February 2014 coup d’etat, and they were the first to storm government buildings.

With the success of the US-backed forces and fascists, President Yanukovich fled the country to Russia.

US government officials met with coup leaders and appointed a right-wing neoliberal, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, to lead the new regime, because they recognized they couldn’t appoint the fascists and maintain legitimacy.

A leaked recording of a phone call between Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, and the US ambassador in Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, showed that Washington chose who the leaders of the new coup regime would be.

Nuland referred to Yatsenyuk affectionately as “Yats,” saying, “Yats is the guy.”

The first actions of the post-2014 coup government were to ban left-wing parties in the country and reduce language-minority rights even further. Then Ukrainian fascists attacked anti-coup demonstrations in the streets all over the country.

As the anti-coup protests were being violently broken up by the far-right, two areas in the east of the country, Donetsk and Luhansk, rose up and declared independence from Ukraine.

The people of Crimea also voted to leave Ukraine and join Russia. Crimea has a Russian military base, and under their protection they were able to vote safely.

The people in Donetsk and Luhansk were less lucky. The coup government dispatched the military to suppress their insurrections.

At first many Ukrainian soldiers refused to shoot at their own countrymen, in this civil war that their US-backed government started.

Seeing the hesitation of the Ukrainian military, far-right groups (and the oligarchs that were backing them) formed so-called “territorial defense battalions,” with names like Azov, Aidar, Dnipro, Tornado, etc.

Much like in Latin America, where US-backed death-squads kill left-wing politicians, socialists, and labor organizers, these Ukrainian fascist battalions were deployed to lead the offensive against the militias of Donetsk and Luhansk, killing Russian-speaking Ukrainians.

In May 2014, neo-Nazis and other far-right forces assaulted an anti-coup demonstration in the major city of Odessa. 48 people were burned alive in a labor union building.

This massacre added more fuel to the civil war. The Ukrainian government promised to investigate what happened, but never really did.

 

After the 2014 coup, Ukraine held an election without any serious opposition candidates, and Western-backed billionaire Petro Poroshenko won.

Poroshenko was seen as the most “moderate” of the right-wing coup coalition. But that didn’t mean much, considering many opposition parties were banned or assaulted by the far-right when they tried to organize.

Additionally, the areas that would have heavier support for the voices who wanted peace with Russia, such as Crimea and the Donbas, had seceded from Ukraine.

The new president had the impossible task of trying to appear sufficiently patriotic for the far-right while at the same time sufficiently “respectable” for the West to continue backing him publicly.

To appease the far-right, Poroshenko gave out awards to World War Two veterans “on both sides,” including the ones that fought in Nazi Germany-aligned militias like the fascist Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and Ukrainian Insurgent Army.

The Ukrainian government officially honored the leaders of these organizations, Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukevych, who organized massacres of many thousands of Poles, Jews, Russians, and other minorities during World War Two, and who willingly participated in the Holocaust.

The holiday Defenders of Ukraine Day, or Day of Ukrainian Armed Forces, was changed to October 14, to match the date of founding of the Nazi-backed Ukrainian Insurgent Army.

This is why you sometimes see red-and-black badges on Ukrainian soldiers. This symbol shows support for the fascist Ukrainian forces during World War Two.

 

(Also I have to make a separate but important point here: Ukraine was previously part of the Soviet Union, and the majority of the Ukrainian population during World War Two supported the Red Army and actively resisted Nazi occupation of their country. The Ukrainian fascist collaborationists and parties did not have as broad support as the anti-fascist resistance did, and were mostly active during the period of Nazi occupation.)

A large portion of the civil war that broke out in Ukraine after the 2014 coup was waged under Poroshenko.

From 2014 to 2019, in five years of civil war in Donbas, the geographic region that encompasses the Luhansk and Donetsk republics, more than 13,000 people were killed, and at least 28,000 were wounded, according to official Ukrainian government statistics. This was years before Russia invaded.

The Ukrainian army and its far-right paramilitary allies were responsible for the vast majority of civilian casualties, with the United Nations reporting in January 2022 that, between 2018 and 2021, 81.4% of all civilian casualties caused by active hostilities were in Donetsk and Luhansk.

These are Russian-speaking Ukrainians being killed their own government. They are not secret Russian forces.

Researchers at the US government-sponsored RAND Corporation acknowledged in a January 2022 report in Foreign Policy magazine that, “even by Kyiv’s own estimates, the vast majority of rebel forces consist of locals—not soldiers of the regular Russian military.”

Meanwhile, millions of Ukrainians fled the country due to the conflict, especially from the eastern regions that saw most of the fighting.

The United States strongly supported Poroshenko and the Ukrainian government as it was waging this brutal war that killed thousands, injured tens of thousands, and displaced millions.

This is why I say the US government doesn’t actually care about Ukraine.

In 2019, the Ukrainian people clearly showed that they opposed this war by overwhelmingly voting against Poroshenko at the ballot box. Current Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky got 73% of the vote, compared to just 24% for Poroshenko.

Zelensky ran on a platform of peace. He even addressed the Russian-speaking eastern parts of the country in Russian.

Very quickly after entering office, however, Zelensky changed his tone. Much like the supposedly “moderate” Poroshenko, Zelensky was told that he was risking losing Western backing, and the loyalty of the far-right, which could threaten to kill him.

So Zelensky did a 180 on his peaceful rhetoric, and he continued to support the civil war.

Neo-Nazis have a significant influence in Ukraine’s state security services

Here it is important to address another important point: The Ukrainian government is not directly run by fascists, but in Ukraine fascist forces do have significant influence in the state.

After the 2014 US-backed coup, neo-Nazis were absorbed by Ukraine’s military, police, and security apparatus.

So while the parliamentary representation of fascist parties is not large (they often get just a few percentage points of the vote in elections), these extremists continue to be supported by taxpayers’ money through unelected state institutions.

Additionally, these neo-Nazis have the street muscle to terrorize political opponents. They can quickly mobilize dozens or hundreds of people on a moment’s notice to attack opponents.

Moreover, these fascists are highly motivated combatants that ensure the loyalty of the Ukrainian military. They represent a powerful faction of the Ukrainian political spectrum, and one of the forces in Ukrainian society that pushes for escalating war with the separatist regions and Russia.

I sometimes see people try to reject this fact by saying, “How can Ukraine have all these Nazis if their president is Jewish?” Here is the answer: the Nazis are not appointed by Zelensky.

These fascists have a major influence in the unelected state security apparatus. The have systematically infiltrated the military and police. And they even enjoy support and training from Western governments and NATO.

 

The position of fascists grew substantially stronger in Ukraine in the eight years of the civil war, from 2014 to 2022.

For those reasons Ukrainian presidents (Jewish or not) have to take the position of the far-right into consideration. (Not to mention the possibility that far-right gangs could threaten to kill the president or other politicians if they defy them.)

Furthermore, all forces that normally oppose fascism or would oppose the civil war have not existed en masse for eight years in Ukraine: following the 2014 coup, many left-wing parties and socialists got banned by the Ukrainian government, and were assaulted in the streets by the fascists.

Any Ukrainian president, especially since the coup, is highly dependent on the support of the US government as well. So Zelensky is very much a hostage of the situation.

When Washington tells Zelensky he must continue the civil war in Ukraine against his own electoral promises, support NATO membership, ignore the Minsk II agreement of 2015, or even ask for nuclear weapons, he does everything he is told.

Like any other US puppet regime, Ukraine doesn’t have any real independence. Kiev has been actively pushed to confront Russia by every US administration, against the will of the majority of Ukrainian people.

The fact that most Ukrainians wanted peace with Russia was reflected by the fact that they voted for the peace candidate Zelensky in such overwhelming numbers, 73%. And the fact that Zelensky did a total 180 on that promise shows how little political power he actually has.

Western sanctions will only hurt working-class Russians (and average people in the US too)

Now to circle back to the present moment and what to do now. I don’t support the invasion Russia is carrying out. But the only government I can influence by the virtue of living in the United States is the US government.

Luckily, that is extremely relevant, because Washington is one of the root causes of what is happening in Ukraine now.

For the past eight years, I spoke out against the coup and the civil war in Ukraine that the United States supported, promoted, and funded.

While I never thought a war with Russia was possible, I and many other Ukrainians are against Ukraine joining NATO and escalating tensions with the separatist republics and Moscow.

Any further escalation by the US right now can only lead to a larger war.

I even hear some US politicians playing around with the idea of a “no-fly zone,” which means they are calling for NATO to shoot down Russian planes. This is the quickest way to World War Three.

The support for Ukraine that fills the Western media now is not out of real solidarity with the people of Ukraine. If that were the case, the US wouldn’t have overthrown our government twice in a decade; it wouldn’t have supported the policies that made us the poorest country in Europe; it wouldn’t have fueled a brutal civil war for the past eight years.

The reason US media outlets and politicians are all backing Ukraine now is because they want to use the Ukrainian military and civilian population as cannon fodder in a proxy war with a political adversary.

Washington is willing to fight until the last Ukrainian to weaken Russia.

For that reason, I am absolutely against US sanctions in general, and this round of US sanctions against Russia in particular.

The harsh Western sanctions imposed on Russia target the civilian population.

Sanctions don’t affect ruling elites, and all US sanctions ever do is collectively punish working-class people of a country where Washington doesn’t like their government.

Devaluing the Russian currency, the ruble, is effectively a form of shrinking workers’ wages, cutting the pensions of retirees, and preventing regular people from being able to access food or medicine.

This isn’t to mention the cost that these sanctions are now also having on the people in the United States itself, with gas prices as high as $6 a gallon and even $7 in parts of California.

The skyrocketing oil prices caused by this crisis will lead to more inflation. And while the official US inflation figure is 7.5%, the real number is probably in the double digits.

All of this makes life harder for average working people, in Ukraine, Russia, the US, and around the world.

Russiagate and anti-Russian xenophobia has made the crisis even worse

Another factor in the Ukraine crisis is the rampant surge of russophobia.

Since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election, Democrats have blamed Donald Trump’s victory on Russian hacking without any solid proof. All of the supposed evidence they presented fell apart when investigated.

Many US politicians demonized Russia as much as they could, just to push the blame for their candidate losing on someone else.

Now Russia’s February invasion of Ukraine has made it okay to be openly xenophobic. I have even seen some people call for killing all Russians, boycotting all Russian businesses, revoking student visas for Russians, etc.

Even in the more “respectable” media, you see talking heads speaking about Russian people as if they’re not human.

Under Donald Trump, many of these same people demonized China, and then acted surprised when there was a wave of hate crimes in the US against East Asians.

During the US invasion of Iraq, the press demonized Arabs and Muslims, leading to hate crimes against their communities.

My point is that demonizing nationalities is never acceptable, and people can see through the flimsy excuses of hiding one’s own xenophobia behind the declarations of “solidarity” with my country.

In conclusion, I wanted to say that, if you live in the United States, the only government you can actually influence through demonstrations and other forms of protest is our own.

I absolutely think it is a crime right now to support the US government’s drive for war, sanctions, or further escalation of tensions in Ukraine.

The US government has been stoking this conflict for decades. Washington has funded coups and fueled a civil war in Ukraine.

Now, US corporations stand to greatly benefit from what is happening.

The government doesn’t care about the people here in the US, and the only reason it says it cares about people abroad is so it can justify further military spending and advance its foreign-policy goals – which aren’t good for anyone except for a handful of rich American oligarchs.

Edited March 31, 2022 by redsnapper

[level9]

Irony - when someone exercises their right to complain about their own government while advocating for a form of government wherein they would actually have no such right . At least that's how that reads to me.