Any Ukrainian riders?

[Paul A]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/03/russia-ukraine-war-news-putin-live-updates/#link-WJ7C5IHWMNDD3HPHZVNLR7KZOY

By Rick Noack 12:27 p.m.

 

Macron raises evacuations, food exports in 1st call with Putin in a month

PARIS — In their first call in over a month, French President Emmanuel Macron on Tuesday told Russian President Vladimir Putin that he is ready to help counter a Russian blockade on Ukrainian food exports, the Élysée presidential palace said in a statement.

Ukraine is a major exporter of grain, and the war has raised concerns about ripple effects on global food supplies. Macron said he is ready “to work with the relevant international organizations to help lift the Russian blockade of Ukrainian food exports via the Black Sea,” the statement said.

The French leader also urged Putin to allow the continuation of evacuations from Mariupol’s embattled Azovstal steel plant.

 

The conversation, which lasted more than two hours, was the first call between the two leaders since signs of massacre emerged from the Ukrainian city of Bucha and since Macron was reelected president on April 24.

Macron has been one of the few Western leaders to have stayed in contact with Putin, in what the Élysée Palace has described as an effort to monitor signs of Russian readiness to engage in more-substantial negotiations.

[redsnapper]

2 hours ago, Paul A said:

NATO is collective defense, not collective aggression.

It would seem difficult to believe that the thirty member states of NATO could ever agree to attack/invade Russia.

It would seem difficult to believe the US would want to attack/invade Russia.

What would be the motivation to attack Russia, the country with the most number of nuclear warheads in the world?

 

Countries decide to apply for membership of their own free will, they are not coerced.

Ukraine has been intentionally refused membership.

 

 

How one views NATO depends greatly on your perspective (where you live). It is generally agreed in FP scholarship that NATO is an extension of US power (via a variety of carrots and sticks, NATO members are subject to various forms of US political, economic & military influence [and those of NATOs top members UK,FR,GDR]). So NATO goes beyond a simple military alliance and becomes a source of influence that shapes the regions where it operates. 

If your values are unaligned with the US/NATO (ie you don't get along with the US like Russia, China, Iran,etc.) then NATO becomes an adversary that threatens your political, economic and military aspirations (and the closer it gets the more it threatens). NATO's original purpose was mutual defense - but after the fall of the USSR, that  changed radically ( because NATO became effectively unnecessary when the cold war ended, it had to be repurposed). Instead of scaling back (as the threat diminished) it was redefined as an ever-expanding global police force (slowly swallowing the nations of the Warsaw Pact). If you think NATO is for collective defense, take a look at the list of NATO operations in the last 40 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations

Of note Bosnia, Afghanistan, Libya, etc... NATO is not just for collective defense. It is an extension of the US sphere of influence and thus used to further US/western strategic objectives. Of course the MICCIMAT loves NATO and you will find a plethora of think tanks and policy wonks who will extol its virtues and explain how NATO expansion is crucial for western security. That is why I read what the old timer intelligence and FP people who were around during the cold war have to say. And let us not forget the obscene money made via NATO expansion. For some thoughts on NATOs changing role:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/03/the-outdated-alliance/

https://foreignpolicynews.org/2020/05/21/why-nato-is-obsolete/

https://www.salon.com/2019/12/06/nato-should-be-obsolete_partner/

and a open letter to Clinton (back in 1997) against NATO expansion signed by various intelligence & FP experts who predicted that it would cause war rather than deter it:

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/opposition-nato-expansion

All that aside, what we think about NATO is irrelevant - what Russia thinks about NATO expansion is most relevant. You can get a sense of this via:

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-nato-putin-idUSKBN1K92KA

https://apnews.com/article/moscow-ap-top-news-international-news-russia-business-deaa45c70d3c4da98410d5a3ec309510

Putin is a war criminal and so are western leaders whose wars of aggression have caused unimaginable human suffering. They should all pay for their crimes against humanity. But there have been repeated and clear warnings from Russia that the continued expansion of NATO was viewed as an existential threat and that they would respond in kind. Turn the tables and you can be sure that no major western power would suffer a Chinese or Russian military alliance expansion on the their borders... My take is that this Russian reaction was predicted (how could it not have been) and hoped for by US strategic planners because it bolsters the desire for NATO expansion  (to counter the Russian aggression that NATO expansion caused!) and it draws Russia into a prolonged and costly war (with only Russians & Ukrainians to lose)... And if the war escalates, western leaders have already demonstrated their capacity to sacrifice their own soldiers if need be (Iraq,Afghanistan,etc.). 

[UniVehje]

4 hours ago, redsnapper said:

How one views NATO depends greatly on your perspective (where you live).

Over here in Finland people have been strongly against joining NATO until Putin wanted to have a veto right over our sovereign right to choose our security solutions independently. We are effectively joining now just because he told us not to. In our perspective NATO is not expanding here. We are making a choice to join. We've seen what the Russian "sphere of influence" means and nobody wants their imperialism. There is no neutral buffer zone between NATO and Russia. The non-aligned nations are under constant influence operations by Russia. Finland and Sweden, for example, are subjected to frequent air space violations whereas NATO countries are not. Russian game is playing a victim and claiming NATO is threatening them. But for the countries that Russia is threatening NATO is about their sovereign right to make their own decisions as independent countries. They don't want to be pawns in the sphere of influence game. One side is actively trying to influence the decision and the other just has open doors policy without aggressive influence operations. 

[redsnapper]

4 hours ago, UniVehje said:

Over here in Finland people have been strongly against joining NATO until Putin wanted to have a veto right over our sovereign right to choose our security solutions independently. We are effectively joining now just because he told us not to. In our perspective NATO is not expanding here. We are making a choice to join. We've seen what the Russian "sphere of influence" means and nobody wants their imperialism. There is no neutral buffer zone between NATO and Russia. The non-aligned nations are under constant influence operations by Russia. Finland and Sweden, for example, are subjected to frequent air space violations whereas NATO countries are not. Russian game is playing a victim and claiming NATO is threatening them. But for the countries that Russia is threatening NATO is about their sovereign right to make their own decisions as independent countries. They don't want to be pawns in the sphere of influence game. One side is actively trying to influence the decision and the other just has open doors policy without aggressive influence operations. 

Valuable insight and a reminder that for most, the US/NATO sphere of influence is far preferable to the Russian sphere of influence. And a reminder of how unpredictable these situations can get since by invading UKR Russia is causing NATO to be strengthened (as previously unaligned countries seek membership). I would submit that given its history, religious, ethno-linguistic ties to Russia, and strategic location (Black Sea access) UKR is of much greater importance to Russia and hence Putin would be much more sensitive to western influence there (and willing to risk more to prevent it). Unfortunate for UKR :-(

Some would say that Finland is already a defacto NATO member because of its alignment and shared values with the west.  Regardless of whether it can invoke Article 5, any real Russian aggression towards Finland would almost certainly trigger in a strong NATO response. But to many, Finland is the case study of how to prosper under neutrality while being stuck between great power spheres of influence. Finland is prosperous, punching way above its weight economically and often listed as one of the great places in the world to live because of its standard of living & progressive policies on education, healthcare, etc. NATO membership comes with strings attached - like seeing Finish soldiers having to fight in far off conflicts; likely that all NATO members are also subject to US influence operations (since US has many more levers it can use to softly project power and an FP/intelligence apparatus beyond compare). So not sure you don't give up as much as you get. But that is for the Finish people to decide...

For a more nuanced view of Russian aspirations in a multi-polar world, see - https://www.rs21.org.uk/2022/04/03/russian-imperialism-under-putin/

Quote

Russian imperialism under Putin

By

 Tom Bramble

 -

3 April 2022

There are many competing explanations for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But the decision can be understood only with reference to the imperialist competition that dominates the world system. Russia invaded to try to boost its position in the imperialist pecking order. Far from elevating the country’s position, however, it has so far done more to reveal the limits of Russian power. Meanwhile the US, which has seen its prestige slipping in the past two decades, is making the most of Russia’s failure.

Imperialism

The media and politicians have a ready supply of theories about the Ukraine invasion. Some say Russian President Vladimir Putin, formerly a KGB agent, is trying to recreate the USSR, but given the state of the Russian economy and the balance of power in Europe, this hardly seems realistic. Others say that Putin is a power-hungry maniac, possibly driven mad by COVID-19, as if the invasion is due to the whims of an individual.

Then there are the explanations circulating in some left circles: that Russia has supposedly been driven to invade Ukraine because NATO encirclement left it no other option, and that the invasion is therefore somehow understandable. The reality is that this is an act of imperialist aggression that has to be understood in the context of the wider tensions between competing world powers.

The Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin argued 100 years ago that advanced capitalism was racked by conflict between the major powers, each eager to grab a bigger share of world markets and power, arising from the competitive, dog-eat-dog dynamic of capitalism. Imperialist countries invade weaker nations and try to impose their rule over them. Once the world is divided up by the great powers, one imperialist’s gain can come only at the expense of another. That is the nub of the matter today.

Russia is a relatively weak power among the dominant imperialist nations. Its weakness makes it more aggressive because lower-order imperialists can enhance their status only by disrupting the status quo. If Russia can convert Ukraine into its satellite, that will enhance its global power and lift it in the imperialist hierarchy. But doing so means going to war.

The US and NATO, by contrast, can give the appearance of behaving defensively, simply upholding the status quo against military aggression. But their apparent defensive posture appears so only because the US and its close allies already control large swathes of the world. The so-called ‘rules-based international order’, which the US says it upholds, is just another name for America’s economic, legal and financial hegemony, with the ‘rules’ written for its benefit. This ‘order’ allows it oftentimes to bring other nations to heel even without mobilising its military. Although of course, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, it does that as well.

China has replaced Russia as the main challenge to America’s ‘rules-based order’, but Russia’s attempt to restore its former glory is a challenge as well. Even if these disputes between the rival imperialists do not lead automatically to a war between them, the imperialist contest must frame our understanding of the current situation in Europe and rising tensions in Asia.

Putin’s agenda

Vladimir Putin, appointed prime minister in 1998 and elected president in 2000, was determined to arrest the collapse of Russian power that occurred in the 1990s following the fall of the Soviet Union. He ordered the army into Chechnya in late 1999 to smash the national resistance there. Thousands died but Russian rule was restored.

Rising oil and gas prices in the 2000s boosted the Russian economy and helped the government build one of the world’s biggest foreign currency and gold reserves. Economic growth up until 2014 allowed Moscow to spend more on its military, particularly its nuclear arsenal. It also created support for Putin among sections of the population, particularly pensioners who had lived through the ‘hungry 1990s’ but were now enjoying higher pensions, and consolidated a layer of loyal oligarchs and senior state officials.

These developments allowed Putin to rebuild influence beyond Russia’s borders. In Syria in 2015, the Russian air force, working closely with Iranian government militias, pulverised the rebels who had risen up against the dictatorial President Bashir al-Assad. Thousands of civilians died from the bombardment, and millions were displaced. The grateful Assad gave Russia permission to expand its naval base in the port of Tartus to equip it to handle bigger warships.

In Libya in the same year, Russia threw its weight behind a powerful warlord, General Khalifa Haftar, chief of the Libyan National Army and a rival to the NATO-backed government based in the capital Tripoli. Russia is hoping that its military aid will persuade Haftar to grant it access to Libya’s deep-water ports, along with the two air bases Russia is already using.

A Russian mercenary firm, the Wagner Group, run by close Putin ally Yevgeny Prigozhin, works as an extension of Russian military power in Africa. The Wagner Group trains the armies of several African governments in the use of Russian-supplied weapons, actively fights Islamist forces that have become a threat to these governments and supplies bodyguards and security advisers to loyal presidents and prime ministers. These are in the service of Russia’s oligarchs, protecting their investments in the continent’s extractive industries, including diamonds, gold and gas.

Russia retains one of the world’s deadliest nuclear arsenals and is one of the world’s biggest arms suppliers. It accounts for more than 60 percent of India’s arms imports; China, Vietnam and Iraq are also big customers. Russia’s oil exports give the country leverage in OPEC.

Seeking to balance against the US, Russia has sought closer relations with China and on the eve of the Beijing Winter Olympics this year, presidents Putin and Xi ostentatiously announced what they called ‘a friendship without limits’. Russia has also attempted to undermine Europe’s political establishment by backing a range of right-wing individuals and parties, including Marine Le Pen in France and the Alternativ für Deutschland in Germany, along with Hungary’s ‘strong man’ Prime Minister Viktor Orban. Finally, the Putin government has tried to extend Russia’s disruptive power overseas through cyber-attacks on its rivals, targeting governments, political parties and companies, along with power grids, banking systems and other vital infrastructure.

These developments demonstrate that Russian imperialism is not simply ‘reactive’ or defensive. Like any imperialist power, it is trying to extend its geopolitical reach. Sometimes this may be driven by straightforward financial interests, but what matters ultimately is the country’s overall economic, political and military footprint in a world where to weaken is to perish.

Russia’s weaknesses are, nonetheless, still very apparent. Most obviously, it is still a fairly poor country that has slid down economic rankings and been overtaken by countries once far poorer. Its manufacturing industry was dismantled in the 1990s and, outside a few sectors, has not recovered, leaving an economy dangerously dependent on fossil fuels. Outside energy and arms production, few Russian companies make an impact on world markets. Healthcare, social services and the environment are all in very poor condition. Inequality is severe: at 46 percent, the share of income accounted for by the top 10 percent of the population is twice as high as in 1990 and substantially higher than the EU average of 35 percent. Incomes of most of the population have stagnated since 2013. The concentration of wealth is still higher. As a result, the support Putin enjoyed in the 2000s has been eroded in the past decade.

Putin has increasingly relied on bombastic nationalism to deflect from poor living standards. Power has been centralised to a narrow clique around Putin, who, other than rhetoric about Great Russia and its mighty past, has less and less to offer the Russian people. State repression has driven opposition underground, making Putin’s regular election triumphs more a sign of his success in crushing dissent than of winning support.

Russia faces difficulties abroad as well. It has few solid allies. Its attempt to replace the old Soviet structures with the Commonwealth of Independent States and its military arm the Collective Security Treaty Organization, has failed to bring more than a few poor countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia, together with neighbouring Belarus, into its sphere of influence. Its replacement for the old COMECON, the Eurasian Economic Union, has fared little better.

Russia has failed to make itself an economic pole of attraction. In its heyday, the USSR dominated the trading patterns of its neighbours. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the European Union has exerted a much greater pull on them: the EU now accounts for about half of imports and exports in each case, with Russia just 15 percent. China too is elbowing Russia aside in countries with which it has historically had close relations, including Serbia and Kazakhstan. Relations with China itself have completely reversed from the old Soviet days, when China stood in Russia’s shadow. Now it is Russia that must defer to its eastern neighbour because China’s explosive economic growth has left Russia far behind.

In short, Russia suffers significant domestic problems and has had little success in imposing itself on its neighbours. These factors help explain why it has been forced to place such reliance on its armed forces to promote its international interests. This year, the dangers of this have been ruthlessly exposed.

Relations with the West

Western media routinely describe Putin as the ‘new Hitler’, while Putin scorns the West as morally corrupted and in terminal decline. But relations between Putin and the West were not always like this. Shortly before assuming the presidency for the first time in 2000, Putin told British interviewer David Frost ‘I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world’. Could Russia join NATO? ‘I don’t see why not. I would not rule out such a possibility’. The US reciprocated these warm feelings. Putin was, as US President Bill Clinton explained in 2000, ‘a man we can do business with’. Flagship publications such as the New York Times similarly admired him.

The two sides worked together on a range of fronts. Early on, they realised their common interest in the ‘War on Terror’, which served both to legitimise Russia’s destruction of Chechnya and the US’s invasion of Afghanistan. Putin repeatedly expressed his desire for closer integration with Europe, with which, he said, Russia shared ‘ideals of freedom, human rights, justice and democracy’. The World Bank gave Putin its tick of approval as a bulwark against any return to a centrally planned economy. In 2011, Russia gave NATO diplomatic cover, abstaining in a UN Security Council vote giving Britain and France the opportunity to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, signalling the imminent downfall of Russia’s one-time Libyan ally, President Muammar Gaddafi. In 2013, Russia’s foreign policy made ‘relations with Euro-Atlantic states’ a top priority, and as late as 2015, Putin was still pushing for an anti-terror alliance with the West.

Then there were the close personal connections between the elites. Many Russian oligarchs owed their fortunes to the Western architects of the Yeltsin government’s mass sell-off of government assets in the 1990s. The newly enriched businessmen piled their money into London and New York real estate, companies, bank accounts and football teams. They donated money to political parties and in return were warmly welcomed at social events and given passports and titles.

There are no principled differences, then, between Putin’s Russia and the West. There is no clear line, as US President Joe Biden claims, between ‘absolutism’ and ‘democracy’, merely an assessment by each imperialist camp of what will advantage it. This also explains why these relatively cordial relations have given way in more recent years to greater acrimony.

The collapse of the USSR offered the West the opportunity to expand its sphere of influence in Europe. The West grabbed it with both hands, over time expanding NATO to incorporate fifteen new member states, eleven countries formerly part of the Warsaw Pact and four countries that had once been Soviet republics. The new member states were almost without exception enthusiastically pro-American and hostile to Russia. Russia was forced to accept the situation because it was too weak to stop it. It was eager to find a place in what was still a US-dominated European and world order and yet it was also refused admission: NATO rejected Russia’s overtures to join, as well as its attempts at greater economic integration into Europe and its proposal to form a joint anti-terror alliance. NATO’s consistent snubbing caused growing Russian resentment. Recognising this fact does not justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but it provides context. Two imperialist blocs are unable to share power in Europe, making conflict inevitable.

Imperialist conflict began to heat up in 2007-08. In February 2007, in a landmark speech at the Munich Conference on Security Policy, Putin vigorously criticised US aggression in international relations. In April 2008, at a NATO summit in Bucharest, US President George W. Bush raised the prospect of membership for Russia’s neighbours Georgia and Ukraine—only to defer it in the face of Putin’s strenuous objections. Georgia, however, took the NATO summit as a green light to attack the separatist Russian-speaking region of South Ossetia. Russia retaliated, using the language NATO had used to justify its support for its bombing of Serbia in 1999—’responsibility to protect’—and sent its army into not just South Ossetia but Abkhazia too, driving out the Georgian forces within five days. Still bogged down in the Middle East, the US could only stand and watch, allowing Russia a notable victory that sent a clear message that it was prepared to use military force to prevent further NATO expansion in its region.

Georgia marked the beginning of a more ambitious Russia. Foreign adventures offered a way to whip up nationalism and to demonise internal opposition as unpatriotic. Military deployments also gave Russia the opportunity to test the country’s new military equipment.

In 2014, Ukraine became the front line in the growing Russia-NATO conflict. The country is a rich prize with extensive mineral assets, including neon gas and krypton, necessary for the production of semiconductors. Ukraine is also a major wheat producer and has immense strategic importance to Russia. The immediate contest was whether Ukraine would look towards the European Union or Russia’s Eurasian Economic Community.

The Ukrainian population were not prepared to be passive bystanders in this fight. The appeal of the much wealthier EU was considerably stronger, even if EU membership was still a distant prospect. And so, following a decision by Russia-aligned President Viktor Yanukovych to abandon Ukraine’s application to join the EU and to join the Russian economic bloc instead, thousands took to the streets to protest. Violent repression swelled the crowds, which then occupied Independence Square in central Kyiv. They were motivated not primarily to join a military bloc—support for NATO membership was still a minority position—but for an end to corruption and an improvement in living standards, which were and are among the lowest in Europe. Unfortunately, in the absence of any significant left forces, the right had free rein to whip up a reactionary atmosphere in the square, cultivating hostility to the country’s Russian-speaking minority, who they referred to as colonisers. After three months of protest, Yanukovych was forced to flee and, after a stop-gap president, the pro-EU businessman Petro Poroshenko took over.

In retaliation for the humiliation of Russia’s favoured president, Putin ordered Russian special forces into Ukraine’s Donbas region, where they backed right-wing Russian-speaking separatists fighting the government. Together they easily defeated attempts by the Ukraine army to drive them back, and the subsequent Minsk 2 peace agreement gave substantial autonomy to the separatists in the east and, thus, greater Russian influence. At the same time, Russian soldiers entered and occupied Crimea in Ukraine’s south, leading to Crimea’s annexation by Russia and the return of the Black Sea naval base in Sevastopol to Russian hands.

In response, the US, EU, Canada and others imposed sanctions on dozens of high-ranking friends of Putin, choking foreign investment in Russia. These sanctions have been extended and renewed several times, most dramatically in the spring of 2018, after the attempted killing of a former Russian spy in the UK.

Taken together, these developments ended the fantasy of Russian integration or alliance with the West, and signaled a shift to a more confrontational stance. This has been reflected in successive defence and national security reports published by the US and Russian governments, which identify the other power as a growing threat.

The invasion of Ukraine

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine must be understood in this broader context of global imperialist competition. It is not, as Russia’s apologists claim, a direct consequence of NATO expansion. There was no immediate Western threat to Russia in February: NATO was not about to invade Russia and nor was NATO about to let Ukraine join, because it did not want to be drawn into World War III in Ukraine’s defence. Nor of course did the invasion have anything to do with protecting Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine from genocide or removing the supposedly Nazi government in Kyiv, two lies used by Putin to justify it. It is really about Russia’s desire to recover its status as a world power, and Ukraine is a stepping stone in that project.

The invasion is a test of Russian imperialism, but one that Russia appears so far to be failing. Putin and the generals believed they would score a quick victory in Ukraine. They believed that the US was a fading power, undermined by failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, plagued by internal instability and political polarisation and therefore reluctant to oppose Russia with much more than words. They believed that Biden, with approval ratings in January among the worst in postwar American history, would want to focus on his contested Congressional agenda and the disastrous winter COVID-19 outbreak at home.

Putin also believed that NATO was too divided to resist Russia’s invasion. The Trump administration had openly scorned NATO, calling it obsolete, poisoning relations between Europe and the US. Germany, it was believed, would not be a reliable military partner for the US in Eastern Europe, given its close economic connections with Russia and its longstanding positioning as a bridge between Russia and the US. Following their meeting in Beijing in February, Putin might have believed that the invasion would receive strong support from China and assistance in providing markets and finance to offset the impact of Western sanctions. Putin probably also believed that Russia’s military would be capable of defeating Ukraine, a poor country with fewer resources at hand and which Russia had decisively beaten in the Donbas in 2014. And possibly the Russian president really did believe that Ukrainians would welcome the invasion.

None of these beliefs proved correct. Russia is facing opposition on all fronts and serious internal problems. Militarily, Russian forces are having difficulty taking major cities. Their tanks and armoured vehicles lie abandoned or destroyed in their hundreds. Their nuclear arsenal affords them protection against US attack, but doesn’t help conquer Ukrainian territory. Morale among soldiers seems to be low and food, fuel and ammunition in short supply. Thousands of Russian soldiers have been killed. A leaked figure in late March of a little under 10,000 deaths has been denied by the Russian government, but even if that is exaggerated, the real figure will be well above the official death count. It is possible that by the time the war is over, the death toll could approach the 14,000 losses Russia suffered during its nine-year occupation of Afghanistan, something widely considered a military disaster and credited with contributing to the collapse of the USSR.

The invasion has rallied the Ukrainian population, including the Russian-speaking minority, against Russia. The president, who was suffering poor polling last year, is now very popular. The Ukrainian armed forces appear to have acquitted themselves well. There seems little chance Russia can impose a puppet government in Kyiv that would not be reliant on massive Russian military support, which would then be the target of a popular insurgency.

At home, the war in Ukraine is spurring discontent. Putin made no attempt to soften up the population for war and established no credible casus belli. The economy faces the prospect of serious recession if the war drags on. The loss of life and the growing economic turmoil resulting from the war and Western financial sanctions are taking their toll.

State media call the invasion a ‘special military operation’, but millions of people will be getting a much clearer picture of the situation from contacts either involved in the fighting or affected by it. It is difficult to get a gauge on public opinion, but limited polling by the liberal opposition suggests initial support for the war is slipping, particularly among those on lower incomes. Failure to accomplish a solid victory in Ukraine will damage support for Putin, and his removal by a palace coup or even by a popular revolt cannot be ruled out. Little wonder that Putin is now cracking down mercilessly on those he calls ‘national traitors’ and ‘fifth columnists’ who oppose the war.

Far from being weakened by Russia’s attack on Ukraine, NATO has now become more unified behind the US. Europe has also followed the US lead on financial sanctions, which are far more extensive than have ever been levied against another major power. Very significantly, Germany has abandoned its attempt to bridge between NATO and Russia and is more firmly committed to the US-led contest with Russia. It has announced plans to double military spending and is now allowing NATO weapons to pass through Germany. It has suspended the NordStream II gas pipeline, even if it is also pushing back against US attempts to force NATO members to join its Russian oil and gas boycott. Other countries are lining up to join NATO. And for the Boris Johnson government in Britain, the war has distracted from its domestic political crises.

Russia’s difficulties in Ukraine and the West’s response are also pushing China to adopt more measured language towards its ‘friend without limits’. The US has told China that any attempt to circumvent sanctions, let alone to supply weapons to Russia, would be met with sanctions on China. And while China might have hoped that Russia’s invasion would distract the US from its military build-up in the Indo-Pacific, it is equally plausible that the rearming of NATO’s European member states might free the US to concentrate on Asia.

The invasion has also made clear to China the potential consequences of invading Taiwan. The difficulty Russia has had in seizing control of Ukrainian cities will be nothing compared to the problems involved in mounting an amphibious invasion of Taiwan. And the Ukrainian resistance has given China some idea of the widespread popular resistance that will likely confront any invasion of Taiwan. This gives China more reasons to delay such an attack, removing a cause for US concern for now.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is one of the most important geopolitical developments since the end of the Cold War. It was meant to signal Russia’s determination to find a place in the emerging multipolar world, along with the US, China, India and the EU, each with its sphere of influence. It has instead demonstrated Russia’s limited power and, unless the military situation is turned around quickly, potentially represents a big setback in its claims for regional hegemony, let alone any global ambitions. It has also allowed the US to recover ground lost following its debacles in the Middle East and years of prickly relations with big European member states.

The situation is nevertheless very dangerous. The conflict is one indication of increasing tensions around the globe, from Taiwan to the South China Sea to Yemen, to ongoing conflicts between India and Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran. America’s close allies in Asia, Australia and Japan, are using Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to justify expanding their own military spending in preparation for a war with China. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison takes every opportunity to link China with Russia as a way of further bolstering domestic hostility to China, which is growing.

The example of Europe in the summer of 1914 shows that disputes in one corner of the world can escalate quickly. The US and Russia may not go to war over Ukraine, but the possibility cannot be ruled out, and nor the use of nuclear weapons. Imperialism is only bringing us more conflict, death and destruction as well as ever increasing military budgets at the expense of healthcare, social services and welfare. It cannot exist without destroying human life. Here in Australia, both Morrison and Albanese are committed to fighting a war against China at some point in the coming years. We have to stand in their way by creating the biggest anti-war movement possible and a socialist organisation that can fight to smash imperialism and all wars.

 

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by redsnapper

[Nic]

5 hours ago, UniVehje said:

Over here in Finland people have been strongly against joining NATO until Putin wanted to have a veto right over our sovereign right to choose our security solutions independently. We are effectively joining now just because he told us not to. In our perspective NATO is not expanding here. We are making a choice to join. We've seen what the Russian "sphere of influence" means and nobody wants their imperialism. There is no neutral buffer zone between NATO and Russia. The non-aligned nations are under constant influence operations by Russia. Finland and Sweden, for example, are subjected to frequent air space violations whereas NATO countries are not. Russian game is playing a victim and claiming NATO is threatening them. But for the countries that Russia is threatening NATO is about their sovereign right to make their own decisions as independent countries. They don't want to be pawns in the sphere of influence game. One side is actively trying to influence the decision and the other just has open doors policy without aggressive influence operations. 

The reason Russia doesn't want bordering countries to join NATO is because Russia plans on invading those countries one day and it doesn't want to fight NATO. Russia (i.e. Putin and his gangsters) were always going to invade Ukraine and decided to invade before Ukraine could join NATO and thus close their window of opportunity. Finland and Sweden need to join NATO because if they don't they will be invaded one day as that is in Russia's plan. Russia always lies and they will never reveal their true intent, but instead give other reasons to sow doubt and confusion (propaganda) ... but make no mistake, not joining NATO as a way to appease Russia is playing into Russia's trap and will almost certainly lead to invasion at some point in the future. The Ukraine invasion was never going to be stopped by peace talks and negotiations because that invasion was planned and NATO membership is the only thing that would have caused Russia to think twice before invading. The reasons Russia give for invading are all just red herrings to push the blame onto Ukraine and the West.

Edited May 4, 2022 by Nic

[Eucner]

Julia Ioffe has studied her Putin very well.

 

[Paul A]

@redsnapper good articles, info, thanks.

[Nic]

 

[Paul A]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/04/russia-ukraine-war-news-putin-live-updates/

By Mary Ilyushina and Adela Suliman 9:08 a.m.

 

Russia denies it will declare war on May 9, says peace talks stalled

Russian presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov on Wednesday dismissed speculation that Moscow was working toward a deadline to declare a formal war with Ukraine by May 9 — when Russia celebrates Victory Day, commemorating the end of World War II.

Russia has so far termed its invasion a “special military operation,” and any declaration of war would probably involve ramping up arms and a greater mobilization of troops.

Asked by journalists whether President Vladimir Putin could declare war with Ukraine on May 9, Peskov told reporters: “No. We have already answered this question. No, this is nonsense.”

[Paul A]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/04/ukraine-collaborators-chernihiv-fear-paranoia-villages/

By Robert Klemko

and 

Isabelle Khurshudyan

 

Yesterday at 2:00 a.m. EDT

 

In Ukrainian villages, whispers of collaboration with the Russians

IVANIVKA, Ukraine — Olena peered out from her bedroom window to see what looked like her neighbor, a tall man nicknamed Girovka, step out of a car with Russian markings and begin sending flares into the night sky from the side of the road.

The next day, Russian tanks and armored vehicles emerged from the woods in a long column, descending on this small village about 60 miles south of the Russian border, along the same road.

 

Days later, after the Russian retreat from northern and central Ukraine, four investigators from the Security Service of Ukraine filed into 66-year-old Olena’s living room.

She told them what she’d seen and showed them the spot where Girovka had stood and fired the flares.

Other neighbors told investigators Girovka had been seen walking to and from Ukrainian positions minutes before they were shelled by Russian forces.

 

No one in the village has seen the neighbor since.

[Circuitmage]

Ok, interesting perspective.

I'm glad this is posted on here , as I am unable to speak of these things at work, on facebook or in public. This subject is Taboo and cause for immediate persecution (yes , even in the states here, they have ways of making you suffer).

First of all, my general take on the current path of the United States is that we are well on our way to Christofascism. I live in TX and here the leaders in power are banning books in schools (usually those dealing with slavery or other minority topics), clamping down on disabled and minority rights, limiting voting rights, taking healcare away from low income and women (abortion laws now), and many many other fascist and ideological agendas. This is also the general path of many people in the US (riots on the capitol, openly racist remarks from members in our federal government, support of white supremacists. When the war in Ukraine started this year, the Christofascists in America were praising Putin as being "smart" and a "good leader" and seemed to indicate they were supporting his war against Ukraine. Somehow that narrative changed quickly.

We are all not Christofascists here. There are many of us who do not support this agenda. Only time will tell. This week we now have to realize even our Supreme Court has been infiltrated by this Christofascist agenda with the further repealing of women's rights.

That said, it is good to get another perspective on Ukraine. The narrative we in the US have been given is that Ukraine wants our help, has always been wanting more Western help and is right now wanting Western help. In fact , all appearances here are that Ukraine has been fighting for their freedom and is against a Russian takeover. However, just as we in the US are dealing with internal division, I'm sure that is the case (to some degree) in Ukraine....especially with the long history it has had.
 

[Paul A]

Greg Abbott, Ron DeSantis, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Fox News, Alex Jones, Rupert Murdoch, DJT, Lysol, Person Woman Man Camera TV, Roe v Wade, January 6.....

just can't make this stuff up 

[redsnapper]

7 hours ago, Paul A said:

@redsnapper good articles, info, thanks.

@Paul A right bk at ya!

[fryman]

2 hours ago, Paul A said:

Greg Abbott, Ron DeSantis, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Fox News, Alex Jones, Rupert Murdoch, DJT, Lysol, Person Woman Man Camera TV, Roe v Wade, January 6.....

just can't make this stuff up 

Sorry but it is made up. January 6th insurrection, made up.  Trump in bed with the Russians, made up.  Hunter Bidens laptop was fake and was Russian misinformation, made up. on and on and on.

[Jswizzy84]

5 minutes ago, fryman said:

Sorry but it is made up. January 6th insurrection, made up.  Trump in bed with the Russians, made up.  Hunter Bidens laptop was fake and was Russian misinformation, made up. on and on and on.

Yep it's projection, spin, and lies. 

[redsnapper]

12 hours ago, Eucner said:

Julia Ioffe has studied her Putin very well.

 

the 2 part Frontline is great -  Putins Rise & Putins Revenge - gotta be in US to watch though - this is also a great window into Putin - 

One thing though - going all the way back to Stalin who was a monster killing millions of Russians in the gulag etc. - the US found a way to keep open channels via a serious diplomatic/intelligence apparatus and the discipline to use it. Too much was at stake - no matter how reprehensible was Stalin, then Kruschev, etc - to not have a way to talk to the only other power that could blow up the world. This was a pragmatic approach to balance of power - you had to find a way to work through differences via compromise or risk everyone losing everything via MAD. Since the fall of USSR, Russia has maintained the same capacity to blow up the world but in all other respects it has lost (economy the size of Texas, military outdated, sphere of influence shrunk way down, prestige in the world way down,etc.). So the US sensing this weakness has operated without the same pragmatic approach. What Russia thinks or wants is irrelevant cuz what can they do about it anyway (other than fire nukes)? This is a post cold war strategy that indeed may isolate & weaken Russia (maybe even to the point of Putin getting overthrown) but is not without obvious risks. On this point, the US (the world) just cannot afford to be wrong. Only time will tell - but if you read the old timer cold war guys, they seem to articulate a growing fear over the cavalier attitude of US policy that fails to balance the growing nuclear risks.

Lastly - Putin is surely a tyrant and an arch criminal.  But consider the endless drone/missile strikes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. that blew up innumerable innocents and destroyed crucial infrastructure. Of course these are mostly scrubbed from our history and simply dubbed collateral damage blah blah. But from their perspective, it is Bush and Obama and Trump and Biden who are the war criminals whose bombs blew up their children and their villages. We shouldn't forget them...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/19/magazine/victims-airstrikes-middle-east-civilians.html

Great powers behave ruthlessly and we would do well to hold all war criminals to account  - including our own... 

Edited May 5, 2022 by redsnapper

[Jswizzy84]

Daily Beast calls the Pope a conspiracy theorists for claiming NATO provoked the Ukraine invasion.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/pope-francis-says-nato-started-war-in-ukraine-by-barking-at-putins-door

[redsnapper]

On 5/2/2022 at 8:14 AM, Jswizzy84 said:

““I’m introducing this AUMF as a clear redline so the Administration can take appropriate action should Russia use chemical, biological, and/or nuclear weapons. We must stand up for humanity and we must stand with our allies. As President Biden has said, Putin must be stopped. Accordingly, the Commander in Chief to the world’s greatest military should have the authority and means to take the necessary actions to do so.”

This is pretty scary. The Executive branch shouldn't have this power. 

 https://kinzinger.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=402924

The resolution would have to be passed in both chambers - US congress has been historically reticent to vote on war (might look bad later and hurt their chances at a nice job with big pharma or defense contractor) so I am not surprised they would try to punt this to the executive branch. All of US wars since WW2 have been done without congressional approval so not sure it makes much diff:

https://www.history.com/news/united-states-official-declarations-war

[Paul A]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/pope-pessimistic-war-in-ukraine-will-end-by-may-9/

3 May 2022

 

Pope: Orban says Putin plans to end war by May 9, when Russia marks defeat of Nazis

Pope Francis said Tuesday that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban told him Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will be over by May 9, but that he was pessimistic.

He also said that he has requested a meeting in Moscow with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but has heard nothing back.

“Orban, when I met him, told me that the Russians have a plan and that on May 9 it will all be over. I hope that is the case,” the pontiff told Italy’s Corriere Della Sera newspaper.

“Because now it’s not just the Donbas, it’s Crimea, it’s Odesa — it’s taking away the Black Sea port from Ukraine. I am pessimistic, but we must make every possible gesture to stop the war.” he said.

May 9 is “Victory Day” — the day Russia annually celebrates the 1945 surrender of Nazi Germany to allied forces, including the then-Soviet Union.

__________________________________________

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-israel/

Times of Israel

Last updated on September 20th, 2021

Overall, we rate the Times of Israel Left-Center biased based on editorial positions that slightly favor the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record.

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: Israel (88/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

 

___________________________________________________________

 

 

[Paul A]

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/05/russian-generals-killed-in-ukraine-with-help-of-us-intelligence-nyt-a77583

3 hours ago

The Moscow Times

Russian Generals Killed in Ukraine With Help of U.S. Intelligence – NYT

U.S. intelligence has helped Ukraine kill some of the 12 Russian generals who had died in the frontline, The New York Times reported late Wednesday. 

Real-time U.S. battlefield intelligence reportedly includes locations of the Russian military's frequently changing mobile headquarters and anticipated troop movements taken from assessments of Russia's secret battle plan. 

Unnamed officials interviewed by the publication declined to say how many Russian generals have been killed with the help of U.S. intelligence or how they have acquired information on Russian troop headquarters.

U.S. intelligence agencies are known to have used classified and commercial satellites to trace Russian troop movements in Ukraine.

[Paul A]

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/05/russia-simulates-nuclear-capable-strikes-near-eu-a77586

Updated: 29 minutes ago

The Moscow Times

Russia Simulates Nuclear Strikes Near EU

Russia said Wednesday its forces had carried out simulated nuclear missile strikes in the western enclave of Kaliningrad on the border with the European Union.

The announcement came on the 70th day of Moscow's military action in the pro-Western country, with thousands killed and more than 13 million displaced.

After sending troops to Ukraine in late February, Russian President Vladimir Putin has made thinly veiled threats about Russia's willingness to deploy tactical nuclear weapons.

 

During Wednesday's war games, Russia practiced "electronic launches" of nuclear-capable Iskander mobile ballistic missile systems near Russia's borders with EU-members Lithuania and Poland, the defense ministry said in a statement.

The Russian forces practiced single and multiple strikes at targets imitating missile systems, airfields, defended infrastructure, military equipment and command posts, according to the statement.

The units involved also practiced "actions in conditions of radiation and chemical contamination."

More than 100 servicemen took part in the drills.

Russia placed nuclear forces on high alert shortly after the start of the invasion of Ukraine.

 

Putin has warned of a "lightning fast" retaliation if the West directly intervenes in the Ukraine conflict.

In recent days, Russian state-owned media has attempted to make the use of nuclear weapons more palatable to the public.

"For two weeks now, we have been hearing from our television screens that nuclear silos should be opened," Russian newspaper editor and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Dmitry Muratov said Tuesday.

[Paul A]

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/05/russian-ceasefire-to-begin-at-besieged-mariupol-steel-plant-a77584

Updated: one hour ago

The Moscow Times

Russian Ceasefire to Begin at Besieged Mariupol Steel Plant

A Russian-announced ceasefire was due to begin Thursday at the besieged Azovstal steel plant in the devastated Ukrainian city of Mariupol to allow civilians to flee.

The three-day halt in Russia's attack on the Azovstal steelworks was announced as EU member states debated a proposed ban on Russian oil, the bloc's toughest move yet over Moscow's invasion of its neighbor.

 

The EU also pledged to "significantly increase" support for Ukrainian neighbor Moldova, where a series of attacks in a Russia-backed separatist region has sparked fears a war that has killed thousands could spread more than two months after it began.

European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen on Wednesday said the bloc would "phase out Russian supply of crude oil within six months and refined products by the end of the year," a move that would still not touch its huge gas exports.

 

But within hours, Hungary — whose populist leader Viktor Orban is one of Russian President Vladimir Putin's few EU partners — said it could not support the plan "in this form," as it would "completely destroy" the security of its energy supply.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba hit back that EU countries blocking an oil embargo would be "complicit" in Russia's crimes in Ukraine.

 

Ukraine's allies have sent money and, increasingly, heavy weapons to Kyiv to help it defend itself in a war U.S. President Joe Biden has framed as a historic battle for democracy.

 

Biden said Wednesday he was "open" to imposing more sanctions on Russia and would be discussing measures with allies from the Group of Seven democracies in the coming days.

But despite severe blows to its economy and the thwarting of its early war goals, Russia continues to steadily pound away at Ukraine's embattled eastern defenses.

[Paul A]

Drone footage appears to show Mariupol's Azovstal Steelworks being bombed by Russian forces

165,772 views

May 5, 2022

The Telegraph

 

Ukraine has lost contact with soldiers defending Mariupol’s stronghold of Azovstal amid reports of Russian troops trying to storm the last pocket of resistance in south-eastern Ukraine.

“Unfortunately, we have lost touch with the guys and we can’t know if they are safe or not,” Vadym Boichenko, Mariupol’s mayor, said on Ukrainian TV on Wednesday.

In drone footage filmed by Moscow-backed eastern Ukrainian separatists, the factory was seen being pounded by what appears to be thermobaric bombs.

 

 

 

[Paul A]

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

A thermobaric weapon, also called an aerosol bomb, a vacuum bomb or a fuel air explosive (FAE),^[1] is a type of explosive that uses oxygen from the surrounding air to generate a high-temperature explosion. The fuel–air explosive is one of the best-known types of thermobaric weapons.

Thermobaric weapons are almost 100% fuel and as a result are significantly more energetic and last longer than conventional explosives of equal weight.^[2] Many types of thermobaric weapons can be fitted to hand-held launchers,^[3] and can also be launched from airplanes.

 

The explosion of a thermobaric bomb in Syria live explosion recorded

165,131 views

Nov 28, 2021

 

[Paul A]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/05/russia-ukraine-war-news-putin-live-updates/

By Paulina Firozi, Annabelle Chapman and David Stern 3:56 a.m.

 

 

Mariupol mayor and Ukrainian commander describe heavy fighting at Azovstal steel plant

Heavy fighting engulfed the Azovstal steel plant on Wednesday as its Ukrainian defenders fought a “very difficult” battle against Russian forces attempting to storm the complex, Mariupol’s mayor said.

 

As he described Russian troops using heavy weaponry against the plant, including tanks and bombs, Mayor Vadym Boychenko said contact has been lost with the Ukrainian forces inside.

“Unfortunately today the connection with the boys broke off. There is no connection to understand what is happening, whether or not they are safe,” he said, adding that he was able to reach them the day before.

 

In a video posted separately on Telegram on Wednesday, Azov commander Maksym Zhorin said that for the second day in a row, Russian forces had broken into the “territory of the plant.” He echoed that heavy fighting is ongoing.

“The situation is extremely difficult, but we continue to defend ourselves,” he said.

Hundreds of civilians remain at the besieged plant, the mayor previously said. In Mariupol overall, he said more than 100,000 residents still await evacuation.