Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace, Justice, and Ecology
https://jamesrichardbennett.blogspot.com/2024/09/omni-ukraine-war-33-september-12-2024.html
CONTENTS
Peace Talks
Abel Tomlinson. Two Messages on Peace Conference.
Global South v. West
Ben Norton. Ukraine War Unpopular in US
Sachs. “Putin Offers Diplomacy.”
ACURA. Poll: “Putin Wants Ukraine Ceasefire.”
“A Green Deal for Post-war Ukraine.”
Prashad. China’s 12-Point Peace Plan.
Kevin. China’s Peace Plan.
Quaker Peace Statement.
Fulbright’s Exchange and Bumper’s Peace Links.
Causes of and Continuation of the War
Benjamin Abelow. How the West Brought War to Ukraine.
Kit Klarenberg. “Civil War in Donbass 10 Years On.”
Russophobia
ACURA. William Drew. “The Hoover Institution Declares War on Russia.”
Rubenstein. US Weapons to Azov Battalion.
Associated Press. “New #225 Million…to Ukraine.”
Dave DeCamp. “Speaker Johnson Thinks Ukraine Should Use US Weapons on Russian Territory.”
The War: Military History, Strategies, Tactics, Failures, Victories
Big Serge. “Russo-Ukraine War: Widening the Front….”
Nikolai Petro. “Ukraine’s Draft Woes….”
Dick Bennett. Jacques Baud. (Book). Operation Z. Analyzing Propaganda.
TEXTS
[These items, dating from 2022, lack the excitement of breaking news, but gain in perspective. The categories arose from the articles and books themselves, but some of themfit more than one category –D]
PEACE
“It has been a mainstay of this book that successful antiwar movements are those that have been able to make direct links with those in the flight path of US aggression and to bring their struggles and concerns directly into the US political arena. Indeed, direct comprehension of their urgent struggles has often been a radicalizing factor in antiwar campaigns.”” Richard Seymour, American Insurgents: A Brief History of American Anti-Imperialism (2012). p. 193.
Out of the ignorance and complacency engendered by the avoidance of reality comes hatred and war.
The opening of a Jewish prayer from the Sabbath service: “Disturb us, Adonai, ruffle us from our complacency; make us dissatisfied. Dissatisfied with the peace of ignorance, the quietude which arises from a shunning of the horror, the defeat, the bitterness and the poverty, physical and spiritual, of humans. Shock us, Adonai, deny to us the false Shabbat which gives us the delusions of satisfaction amid a world of war and hatred.”
“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” — Robert H. Jackson, Chief U.S. Prosecutor, Nuremberg Military Tribunal
Hello all, With hopeful reason, It looks like the Ukraine War may end soon, along with the absolutely batshit insane threat of nuclear war. Finally the West & Zelensky are starting to talk about serious peace negotiations. This means they are finally coming to acceptance that the US-led NATO proxy war with Russia is a lost cause, even mainstream media is increasingly reporting the incredibly bleak reality. The US-led West will have killed hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians & Russians for Nothing. The outcome will surely be less favorable than the Istanbul peace negotiation that was formed at the beginning of the 2022 war escalation, but sabotaged by the West, just like the other two preceding Minsk peace agreements following the US-sponsored 2014 fascist Coup & subsequent civil war. Abel.
“German Chancellor says any future Ukraine peace conference must include Russia.” https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/09/09/german-chancellor-says-any-future-ukraine-peace-conference-must-include-russia
“War in Ukraine: Zelensky wants Russia to take part in a new peace summit.” https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/07/17/war-in-ukraine-zelensky-wants-russia-to-take-part-in-a-new-peace-summit_6687222_4.html
“Global South Countries Break With West On Ukraine Summit Declaration” By People’s Dispatch. Popular Resistance.org (6-19-24). Key Global South countries attending the Ukraine “peace” conference in Switzerland this past weekend refused to sign the joint communique issued at the end of the two-day summit. Many of them underlined the need for Russian participation in any such initiatives for them to be credible. Countries such as Indonesia, Thailand, Mexico, and BRICS members, India, South Africa, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) did not agree to what was outlined in the communique despite participating in the summit over the weekend. Russia, which was not invited to join the summit, had already rejected the outcome … -more-
“94% Of Americans Want To End Ukraine War, But US Rejects Peace Deal” By Ben Norton, Geopolitical Economy. Popular Resistance.org (6-9-24). Polling shows that the vast majority of people in the United States and Western Europe want negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. Despite this, NATO opposes a peace proposal made by China and Brazil, and refuses to invite Russia to a so-called “peace conference” that the Western powers are holding in Switzerland from June 15-16. The Institute for Global Affairs of Eurasia Group, an avowedly pro-NATO and anti-Russia consulting firm that has worked extensively with Western governments, published a study this June titled “The New Atlanticism”. -more-
PUTIN OFFERS DIPLOMACY MAY 2024
“Russia’s Fifth Offer To Negotiate With US On Ukraine”
By Jeffrey Sachs, Consortium News. Popular Resistance.org (6-23-24). For the fifth time since 2008, Russia has proposed to negotiate with the U.S. over security arrangements, this time in proposals made by President Vladimir Putin on June 14. Four previous times, the U.S. rejected the offer of negotiations in favor of a neocon strategy to weaken or dismember Russia through war and covert operations. The U.S. neocon tactics have failed disastrously, devastating Ukraine in the process, and endangering the whole world. After all the warmongering, it’s time for Biden to open negotiations for peace with Russia. -more-
“Reuters Exclusive: Putin wants Ukraine ceasefire on current frontlines.” ACURA. May 24, 2024 10:57 am.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to halt the war in Ukraine with a negotiated ceasefire that recognises the current battlefield lines, four Russian sources told Reuters, saying he is prepared to fight on if Kyiv and the West do not respond.
Read in browser »
“A Green Deal for post-war Ukraine.”
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists https://thebulletin.org › Climate Change
Nov 1, 2022 — A Green Deal for post-war Ukraine · Planning for recovery in the midst of war. A group of more than 50 nongovernmental organizations are advocating for a post-war reconstruction plan for Ukraine that prioritizes development of the green economy and integration of environmental and climate.
“Birth Again the Dream of Global Peace and Mutual Respect.”
Vijay Prashad. Mronline.org (3-18-23).
On 24 February 2023, the Chinese Foreign Ministry released a twelve-point plan entitled ‘China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis’.
Tony Kevin. “China’s peace plan for Ukraine.”
Editor. Mronline.org (3-14-23).
It will be attractive to the Global South, writes Tony Kevin. It will cause consternation in the Western war party camp. For the full article go to https://mronline.org/2023/03/13/chinas-peace-plan-for-ukraine/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=chinas-peace-plan-for-ukraine&mc_cid=f91a5581c0&mc_eid=ab2f7bf95e
. . .China has recently launched an activist peace diplomacy, setting out its “Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis.” This impressive general document, based on the U.N. Charter and the Five Principles, indicates China’s support for an immediate ceasefire without preconditions; no more Western arms supplies; and offering massive reconstruction aid to a post-settlement new government in Ukraine.
It will be attractive to the Global South. It will cause consternation in the Western war party camp. Russia has welcomed it. We will see the Chinese peace plan talked about in coming weeks. It may offer the breakthrough for peace for which many Ukrainians pray.
Tony Kevin is a former Australian senior diplomat, having served as ambassador to Cambodia and Poland, as well as being posted to Australia’s embassy in Moscow. He is the author of six published books on public policy and international relations.
China’s proposal on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis.
1. Respecting the sovereignty of all countries. Universally recognized international law, including the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, must be strictly observed. The sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries must be effectively upheld. All countries, big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are equal members of the international community. All parties should jointly uphold the basic norms governing international relations and defend international fairness and justice. Equal and uniform application of international law should be promoted, while double standards must be rejected.
2. Abandoning the Cold War mentality. The security of a country should not be pursued at the expense of others. The security of a region should not be achieved by strengthening or expanding military blocs. The legitimate security interests and concerns of all countries must be taken seriously and addressed properly. There is no simple solution to a complex issue. All parties should, following the vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security and bearing in mind the long-term peace and stability of the world, help forge a balanced, effective and sustainable European security architecture. All parties should oppose the pursuit of one’s own security at the cost of others’ security, prevent bloc confrontation, and work together for peace and stability on the Eurasian Continent.
3. Ceasing hostilities. Conflict and war benefit no one. All parties must stay rational and exercise restraint, avoid fanning the flames and aggravating tensions, and prevent the crisis from deteriorating further or even spiraling out of control. All parties should support Russia and Ukraine in working in the same direction and resuming direct dialogue as quickly as possible, so as to gradually deescalate the situation and ultimately reach a comprehensive ceasefire.
4. Resuming peace talks. Dialogue and negotiation are the only viable solution to the Ukraine crisis. All efforts conducive to the peaceful settlement of the crisis must be encouraged and supported. The international community should stay committed to the right approach of promoting talks for peace, help parties to the conflict open the door to a political settlement as soon as possible, and create conditions and platforms for the resumption of negotiation. China will continue to play a constructive role in this regard.
5. Resolving the humanitarian crisis. All measures conducive to easing the humanitarian crisis must be encouraged and supported. Humanitarian operations should follow the principles of neutrality and impartiality, and humanitarian issues should not be politicized. The safety of civilians must be effectively protected, and humanitarian corridors should be set up for the evacuation of civilians from conflict zones. Efforts are needed to increase humanitarian assistance to relevant areas, improve humanitarian conditions, and provide rapid, safe and unimpeded humanitarian access, with a view to preventing a humanitarian crisis on a larger scale. The UN should be supported in playing a coordinating role in channeling humanitarian aid to conflict zones.
6. Protecting civilians and prisoners of war (POWs). Parties to the conflict should strictly abide by international humanitarian law, avoid attacking civilians or civilian facilities, protect women, children and other victims of the conflict, and respect the basic rights of POWs. China supports the exchange of POWs between Russia and Ukraine, and calls on all parties to create more favorable conditions for this purpose.
7. Keeping nuclear power plants safe. China opposes armed attacks against nuclear power plants or other peaceful nuclear facilities, and calls on all parties to comply with international law including the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) and resolutely avoid man-made nuclear accidents. China supports the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in playing a constructive role in promoting the safety and security of peaceful nuclear facilities.
8. Reducing strategic risks. Nuclear weapons must not be used and nuclear wars must not be fought. The threat or use of nuclear weapons should be opposed. Nuclear proliferation must be prevented and nuclear crisis avoided. China opposes the research, development and use of chemical and biological weapons by any country under any circumstances.
9. Facilitating grain exports. All parties need to implement the Black Sea Grain Initiative signed by Russia, Türkiye, Ukraine and the UN fully and effectively in a balanced manner, and support the UN in playing an important role in this regard. The cooperation initiative on global food security proposed by China provides a feasible solution to the global food crisis.
10. Stopping unilateral sanctions. Unilateral sanctions and maximum pressure cannot solve the issue; they only create new problems. China opposes unilateral sanctions unauthorized by the UN Security Council. Relevant countries should stop abusing unilateral sanctions and “long-arm jurisdiction” against other countries, so as to do their share in deescalating the Ukraine crisis and create conditions for developing countries to grow their economies and better the lives of their people.
11. Keeping industrial and supply chains stable. All parties should earnestly maintain the existing world economic system and oppose using the world economy as a tool or weapon for political purposes. Joint efforts are needed to mitigate the spillovers of the crisis and prevent it from disrupting international cooperation in energy, finance, food trade and transportation and undermining the global economic recovery.
12. Promoting post-conflict reconstruction. The international community needs to take measures to support post-conflict reconstruction in conflict zones. China stands ready to provide assistance and play a constructive role in this endeavor.
Quaker “Statement on the Peace Testimony and Ukraine.” Nov 2, 2022. Quakers are a people who follow after peace, love and unity. Our peace testimony is our witness to the Truth as we experience it.
Our testimony manifests as a cumulative set of actions, continually tested and added to over centuries. These actions are diverse in form, but have been broadly united by:
1. Refusal to kill,
2. Relief of suffering,
3. Building the institutions of peace, and
4. Supporting peacebuilding and removing the causes of war.
At the onset of the full scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the Friends World Committee for Consultation issued a Christian Call for Peace, affirming that invasion and occupation are the opposite of Christ’s universal call to reconciliation and unity, and echoing church statements in many countries, including Ukraine, calling for an immediate ceasefire replaced by a peacemaking dialogue. This call would echo the Golden Rule (treat others as you would want to be treated), which is a foundational value of all major world religions, has the potential to eliminate violence, and helps us to recognize one another.
Almost by definition, peacemaking often involves engaging with people making war and understanding the reasons they do so. Nevertheless, our vocation as a peace church is to seek and make real the peaceful alternatives to armed conflict, which with God’s help, are possible, and to ensure that the long-lasting human costs of war are not forgotten or neglected.
We continue to uphold the right to refuse to kill. We stand with conscientious objectors on all sides of this conflict, with the people in Russia who stand up against their leaders’ belligerent actions, and the people in Ukraine employing creative forms of nonviolent civil resistance.
We continue to help relieve suffering and hold that all nations must radically improve their approach to welcoming refugees, to fully honor the United Nations’ Refugee Convention and ensure that all displaced people—no matter their origin—have access to civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. We will continue to press for this.
We continue to seek to build the institutions of peace. Justice with peace requires binding frameworks of international law and restorative justice, as well as global investment in violence prevention at the community level. We know that all of these have been insufficient to prevent the injustice in Ukraine, and must be strengthened to win peace.
And we continue to support peacebuilding measures. We call on the governments of Ukraine, Russia, neighboring countries, the United States, NATO, and the European Union, to explore all avenues—whether public or private—for a renewed conversation to address the human security needs of all the peoples and countries in the region, to help provide the basis for long term peace.
Whichever way this war ends, we are realistic that healing and sustainable peacemaking will in all likelihood take more than a generation, and will only be possible through inclusive and sustainable processes from the international to the local. That process must begin now.
We are ready to play our part.
Signed by, Timothy Gee
General Secretary, Friends World Committee for Consultation, et al.
ARKANSAS LEADERS ONCE LED THE NATION IN US/RUSSIA FRIENDSHIP. Had we followed their example, no Ukraine War 2022 would have occurred. J. William Fulbright during the height of the Cold War attempted to extend his Exchange Program to the Soviet Union, but his plan to acquire a part of WWII Lend Lease money the Russians were repaying was scuttled by US Sovietphobes. See The Price of Empire. Another Arkansas native, Betty Bumpers, wife of then Senator Bumpers, created the women’s organization, Peace Links, to exchange women from the US and Russia and other countries. Both programs are urgently needed.
[Several of the articles in the categories that follow could be placed with Peace, such as items critical of Western Russophobia: If that pathology were eliminated, hope for peace would be significantly increased.]
CAUSES AND CONTINUATION OF THE WAR
US Chiefly Caused the Ukraine War by Repeated Provocations
Benjamin Abelow. (Book). How the West Brought [Provoked] War to Ukraine: Understanding How U.S. and NATO Policies Led to Crisis, War, and the Risk of Nuclear Catastrophe.” 2022.
“…primary responsibility lies with the West, in particular with the United States. . . .Had the United States not pushed NATO to the border of Russia; not deployed nuclear-capable missile launch systems in Romania …not contributed to the overthrow of the democratically elected Ukrainian government in 2014; not abrogated the ABM treaty, and then the intermediate range nuclear missile treaty, and then disregarded Russian attempts to negotiate a bilateral moratorium on deployments; not conducted live-fire exercises with rockets in Estonia to practice striking targets inside Russia. . .the war in Ukraine probably would not have taken place” (56-57).
Kit Klarenberg. “Civil War in Donbass 10 Years On.”mronline.org (7-25-24).
Originally published: Global Delinguents on July 8, 2024 (more by Global Delinguents). Culture, Ideology, Inequality, WarEurope, UkraineNewswirecivil war, Donbass, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky
July 1st marked the 10th anniversary of a brutal resumption of hostilities in the Donbass civil war. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it passed without comment in the Western media. On June 20th 2014, far-right Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko called a ceasefire in Kiev’s “anti-terrorist operation”. Launched two months prior following vast protests, and violent clashes between Russian-speaking anti-Maidan activists and authorities throughout eastern Ukraine, the intended lightning strike routing of internal opposition to the Maidan government quickly became an unwinnable quagmire.
Ukrainian forces were consistently beaten back by well-organised and determined rebel forces, hailing from the breakaway “People’s Republics” in Donetsk and Lugansk. Resultantly, Poroshenko outlined a peace plan intended to compel the separatists to put down their arms, during the ceasefire. They refused, prompting the President to order an even more savage crackdown. This too was a counterproductive failure, with the rebels inflicting a series of embarrassing defeats on Western-sponsored government forces. Kiev was ultimately forced to accept the terms of the first Minsk Accords.
This agreement, like its successor, did not provide for secession or independence for the breakaway republics, but their full autonomy within Ukraine. Russia was named as a mediator, not party, in the conflict. Kiev was to resolve its dispute with rebel leaders directly. Successive Ukrainian governments consistently refused to do so, however. Instead, officials endlessly stonewalled, while pressuring Moscow to formally designate itself a party to the civil war. . . . MORE
RUSSOPHOBIA
“ACURA ViewPoint: William M. Drew: The Hoover Institution Declares War on Russia.” Jun 19, 2024 03:27 am.
In sharp contrast to the original Cold War of 1946-1989 which generally differentiated between Russia as a nation and its then-Communist government, the renewed hostilities between Russia and the West over the Ukraine conflict have seen an ominous wave of Russophobic propaganda targeting the history and culture of Russia. The West’s ideological crusade has repeatedly […]
Read in browser »
“US Lifts Ban On Weapons To Ukraine’s Nazi Azov Battalion”
By Alex Rubinstein, Scheer Post. Popular Resistance.org (6-19-24). Well, it’s official. The United States has lifted its ban on the transfer of American weapons to neo-Nazi Azov Battalion in Ukraine. Today, Azov is led by Denis Prokopenko, a recipient of the ‘Hero of Ukraine’ award from interim Ukrainian President Vlodomyr Zelensky, a figure he once refused to salute. Prior to becoming its commander, Prokopenko was featured on the front cover of Azov’s magazine, called “Black Sun” – named after the Nazi sonnenrad symbol. Prokopenko is a longtime member of Azov, but before he joined the group, he was a member of the Ukrainian soccer ultra gang. -more-
“US to send new $225M aid package to Ukraine. “ Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Jun 07, 2024). COMPILED BY DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE STAFF FROM WIRE REPORTS, Information for this article was contributed by Lolita C. Baldor, Matthew Lee and staff writers of The Associated Press. Read more…
PRO-WAR CONGRESS
Dave DeCamp: Speaker Johnson Thinks Ukraine Should Use US Weapons on Russian Territory. US Committee for US/Russia Accord.May 27, 2024. A bipartisan group of House members asked Biden to lift any restrictions on Ukraine’s use of US-provided weapons. Read in browser »
THE WAR, Military History, Strategies, Tactics, Failures, Victories
Big Serge from Big Serge Thought <bigserge@substack.com> 5-25-24. [This long, encompassing, and well-supported article seems authoritative. I have presented a bit of the opening and the closing to enable you to choose whether you wish to read the whole or not. I found it engrossing as a war story told by someone who knows about the facts on the ground and the history. –D]
BIG SERGE. “Russo-Ukrainian War: Widening the Front. The Fifth Battle of Kharkov.” May 25, 2024.
There are certain regions of the world that seemed destined by the cruel caprice of geography and chance to be perennial battlegrounds. Often these ravaged lands lay at the crossroads of imperial interests, as in the case of Afghanistan or Poland, which have been so frequently trampled by armies going this way or that, or else they are simply plagued by perennially unstable governance or roiling ethnic conflict. Sometimes, however, it is the peculiar logic of military operations that brings violence to the same place, again and again. One such notorious sufferer is the great industrial city of Kharkov, in northeastern Ukraine.
Originally founded as a modest fortress in the 17th Century, Kharkov was fated to play an unusual role in the Second World War. The city became a sort of symbol of frustration for the warring Soviet and German armies: it was the place that both armies wanted to get to, but could not quite seem to take and hold. In 1941 the city was captured in the waning phases of Germany’s colossal invasion of the USSR, and fell under occupation through the winter. In 1942, the city’s environs became the scene of an enormous battle when the Germans planned to launch an offensive out of Kharkov at exactly the same time that the Red Army planned an offensive towards it. The following year, the city was briefly recaptured by the Red Army as it pursued retreating German armies away from Stalingrad, before once again changing hands after a timely German counterattack. Finally, at the end of August 1943, the Soviets retook the city for good as they began their inexorable drive towards Berlin.
No major city changed hands as many times in World War Two as did Kharkov, which became the scene of no less than four substantial battles. The cruelty of fate had turned Kharkov into a sort of mutual culmination point – the spot on the map beyond which both armies repeatedly found it difficult to advance.
History does not repeat, as they say, but it does rhyme. Kharkov’s strategic position, as the great urban center blocking the inner bend of the northern Donets River, has not changed much in the eighty years since the Soviets and the Germans last fought in the forests here, and Kharkov Oblast is once more becoming the rope in a deadly game of tug of war. The area was briefly overrun by the Russian army in the opening weeks of the Special Military Operation, with the Russians establishing a screening line to cover their capture of the Lugansk shoulder. Later that year, Kharkov became the scene of Ukraine’s seminal military achievement of the war, when they overran the thin Russian defenses and launched a pursuit all the way to the Oskil River. And now, the Russians are back, launching a fresh attack into Kharkov Oblast on May 10 [2024]. The sound of artillery is once again heard in the city.
The Northern Front
I understand the impulse to draw “big arrows”, as the parlance goes. Many people are becoming frustrated with the pace of the war and the positional nature of the combat, and so Russia opening a new front looks like a chance to unlock the frontline and restore mobile operations. I think this is misguided for several reasons, and more generally the idea that the Russians are making some sort of serious play for Kharkov is very wrongheaded. In fact, the opposite is true – it’s likely that we will see the Russians attempt to avoid fighting in Kharkov’s shadow. On the other end of the spectrum are those labeling the new offensive a “feint”, which is wrong both as a misunderstanding of the military nomenclature and of the Russian intentions.
First off, let’s clarify something about the word “feint”, and see how it does not at all apply to Russia’s Kharkov operation. A feint refers to a deceptive or distracting maneuver designed to disrupt the enemy’s decision making or pull his forces out of position. That is not what is happening here, for two reasons. First, the Kharkov operation is a real attack involving meaningful Russian forces. Russia currently has two Army Corps in this area of operations – the 11th and 44th, along with elements of the 6th Combined Arms Army and the 1st Guards Tank Army. This is a grouping with serious punch – the Ukrainians are of course forced to divert forces in response, but they are doing this not because they have been deceived but because the Russians are presenting a serious threat that warrants response. Secondly (as we will see shortly), this is an operation that has the potential to be supportive of Russia’s operations on the Oskil front (around Kupyansk).
In other words, it’s not a deception or a feint, but a real front that forces Ukraine to reallocate assets. By extending the front, they are drawing in Ukrainian reserves and fixing them in place – more on that later. But the new front is far more than just a distraction.
It may be useful to look a stripped down map of the area to get a handle on things. There are of course a variety of great mappers out there, like Kalibrated and Suryiak who do excellent work geolocating the war and marking front lines, but one drawback that they all share is that they use Google Maps for their base, which can make things look rather cluttered. In this case, a more minimalist view can help us see what is going on.
Right now, Russian operations are directed on two towns close to the border – Volchansk and Lypsti. Let’s consider what this means.
The first thing that we have to note is that Volchansk is on the east bank of the Donets River, meaning it is on the Kupyansk side and not the Kharkov side. The initial Russian thrust managed to cut Volchansk off from the west bank of the river, which means the main route for AFU forces to access the town would be the arterial road running north and crossing the river at Staryi Saltiv. However, on May 11 the Russians managed to destroy the bridge in Staryi Saltiv. There were only two bridges over the Donets within 30 miles of Volchansk; one is now physically blocked by the Russians after they captured the village of Staritsa, and the other is destroyed. Russia has also struck several ancillary bridges on the Volchya river, preventing the Ukrainians from efficiently moving reserves to the flanks of Volchansk.. . . MORE click on the title
[Readers, ready to read more? –D]
. . .The problem for Ukraine is that they tend to maniacally focus on token “big ticket” items that do not ameliorate their broader strategic crisis. License to hurl ATACMs at targets inside Russia is not a panacea for Ukraine’s bigger problem. Ukraine has already showed the ability to hit Russian strategic assets – sniping naval installations, radar, and air defense batteries. Ukraine’s successful strikes on such assets have continually trickled in as the west has propped up their strike capability with Storm Shadows, ATACMs, and more. And yet, Ukraine continues to give ground in the Donbas amid an increasingly dire shortage of basic war making necessities like infantry.
The trajectory of the war suggests that the NATO bloc will do everything in its power to prop up Ukraine’s strike capabilities, and that Ukraine will continue to hunt for high profile strategic assets, even as it continues to be ground down in the critical theater, which is the Donbas. When the AFU is finally ejected from their last toeholds along the line — losing Kramatorsk and Slovyansk, being squeezed out of southern Donetsk Oblast, and forced back on the west bank of the Oskil– the temptation in Kiev will be to blame the west– that they gave too little, too slowly, too late. This is one lie that they must not be allowed to get away with. The NATO Bloc has, virtually without exception, given Ukraine everything they’ve asked for. It just didn’t matter.
Nicolai N. Petro. “Ukraine’s draft woes leave the West facing pressure to make up for the troop shortfall.” US Committee for US/Russia Accord.Jun 19, 2024. Ukraine’s current military recruitment campaign is not going according to plan. Announced on April 16, 2024, the drive was aimed at enlisting hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainian men to help push back against a Russian invasion that has gained momentum in recent months.
ANALYZINGPROPAGANDA.
Dick Bennett on Jacques Baud. Operation Z. Max Milo, 2022.
[Baud’s books gives, as CN says about the Palestinian conflict, “a completely different way from what Western governments and media are telling us” about the Ukraine War. I’ll start with section #5 of the book, entitled “Operation Z.” But let me first quote Baud’s “Methodology” (p. 17).
“In order to counterbalance the radical, simplistic, and under-informed discourse that hinders understanding of the conflict and favours the recitation of an anti-Russian vulgate to the detriment of informational objectivity, my approach is different from the media that respect neither the Munich Charter nor the most elementary journalistic deontology—among which are Swiss RadioTelevision, France 5 or LCI. It is also different from those who fight the propaganda of one party by using the propaganda of the other (and often of the extreme right), such as heidi.news. My aim is to combat the propaganda of each party by examining its own information and therefore its own contradictions. There, I will use exclusively Western and Ukrainian sources (governmental side), as well as those from the Russian [speaking] opposition. . . .most of my sources [are from] the Anglo-Saxon mainstream media, which are often more honest than their French-speaking counterparts, even if they remain fiercely opposed to Russia.”
Sounds like a good plan, but let’s check it out, as he invites readers to do, for although he offers no Index he organizes the entire book logically, the way manuals sometime appear, with all of the ten sections of his argument numbered: 1. Fundamentals and perceptions. 1.1 The emotional and cultural level, etc. 5. Operation Z. 5.1 The issues. 5.1.1. Ukrainian issues. 5.1.2. Russian issues. 5. 2. Planning, etc. Baud offers a transparent diagram of the rational order of his book to enable us better to follow and to test his argument and claims. For example:
5.1Theissues.5.1.1.Ukrainianissues.
Ukraine’s “main stake is accession to NATO.” (p. 181). It cannot gain that status if civil war continues. Because nationalist Uk leaders in Kiev want a unified Uk, they must defeat the Russian speaking Donbass (Uhansk/Donetsk), but to do that they must defeat Russia. How does Baud know this? He quotes “Oleksei Arestovich, advisor and spokesman for President Zelensky…in an interview with Ukrainian channel Apostrof TV on 18 March 2019.” And a whole page quoting Apostrof (“With a 99.9% probability, our price for joining NATO is a big war with Russia. . . .”). Of course, you have to have read pp. 1-180 to understand the conflict between western Ukraine and the eastern “Russian speaking Donbass,” but he follows the same transparent procedure of stating what he will argue, making the argument, and documenting every claim. We can check him out; i.e., we can search out his contradictions easily. Do we still receive the truth? My approach is relative: how clearly, substantially, evidentially do the Biden and Zelensky administrations make their case? And how many contradictions do we find there, compared to Baud?
Note on Munich Charter, which I had to look up: “ The Munich Declaration of the Duties and Rights of Journalists, signed in 1971, affirmed telling the truth no matter what consequences it might bring about to journalists, because the right of the public is to know the truth.”
[A long interview but covering many essential topics straightforwardly and clearly. I couldn’t find an especially appropriate place to shorten so informative was each section.] “ The Chris Hedges Report Show with Medea Benjamin on her book War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict.“
Nov. 6, 2022.
TRANSCRIPT
Chris Hedges: No one, including the most bullish supporters of Ukraine, expect the nation’s war with Russia to end soon. The fighting has been reduced to artillery duels across hundreds of miles of front lines and creeping advances and retreats. Ukraine, like Afghanistan, will bleed for a very long time, and this is by design. The militarists who have waged permanent war costing trillions of dollars over the past two decades have invested heavily in controlling the public narrative. The enemy, whether Saddam Hussein or Vladimir Putin, is always the epitome of evil, the new Hitler. Those we support are always heroic defenders of liberty and democracy. Anyone who questions the righteousness of the cause is accused of being an agent of a foreign power and a traitor.
The mass media cravenly disseminates these binary absurdities in 24-hour news cycles. Its news, celebrities, and experts, universally drawn from the intelligence community and the military, rarely deviate from the approved script. Day and night, the drums of war never stop beating. Its goal: to keep billions of dollars flowing into the hands of the war industry and prevent the public from asking inconvenient questions.
Medea Benjamin, who, along with Nicolas Davies, authored War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, placed the war in Ukraine in its proper historical and cultural context, warning that protracted war in Ukraine threatens open warfare between the United States and Russia, a nuclear Armageddon. Joining me to discuss her book is Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink, and author of Drone Warfare, Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the US Saudi Connection, and Inside Iran.
So in the book, Medea, you begin first by setting Ukraine in historical context, and in particular the Russian speaking regions. Just lay out for us, because I think there is this perception that Ukraine or Russia’s interest or claims over Ukraine are somehow new.
Medea Benjamin: I think people don’t understand how close Ukraine and Russia have been for centuries, how many Russian speakers there are in Ukraine, how the connection between Ukraine and Russia has gone back and forth for a long time, but Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. And places like Crimea, people in Russia have told me that the Americans might think of the state of Alaska, that’s how people in Russia see Ukraine, as a part of their country for a long time. And it’s really recently that there has been this discrimination against Russian speakers, against Russian publications, against using Russian language in the schools. And of course, that is part of the conflict that we have seen raging in the last decade.
Chris Hedges: Well, with this caveat that Crimea was part of Russia a century before we got Alaska, wasn’t it?
Medea Benjamin: That’s right. And I think just the idea that anyone would say that Crimea’s not part of Russia, for the people in Ukraine now calling for all of Crimea to be taken back, and the way the US media is portraying it as part of this fight right now is to get Crimea back into Russia. I think people should think of how it would feel if a hostile power in Canada, for example, decided that Alaska would no longer be part of the United States.
Chris Hedges: Let’s talk a little bit about the antecedents to the conflict. I was in Eastern Europe in 1989. I covered the revolutions in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Romania. I was there when promises were made to Gorbachev – Who, by the way, wanted to build a security and economic alliance with Europe and the United States. But promises were made not to expand NATO beyond the border of a unified Germany. This is a historical fact. It’s one I reported. And yet, to even bring this up is an anathema among the media. So before we talk about what happened in 2014, let’s talk a little bit about what happened between 1989 and 2014.
Medea Benjamin: Well, in terms of the NATO expansion, as you said, people today are trying to act like that promise was never made because it wasn’t written down in some kind of treaty. But we do have evidence from all kinds of US politicians, academics, diplomats, saying that this was just common knowledge, that it was part of the deal brokered between secretary of State James Baker and Gorbachev, and how this was part of the agreement around the reunification of Germany. It’s also important to note that the Warsaw Pact was dissolved after the downfall of the Soviet Union. And it was at that time that many thought that would be the end of NATO, that NATO had done its job protecting the West from the Soviet Union.
And yet, these promises were violated by Democratic presidents like Clinton, Republican presidents like George Bush. In fact, it was at that 2008 meeting of NATO in Budapest where George Bush twisted the arms of other leaders in NATO to say that we would promise membership to Georgia and to Ukraine, against the best interests of the region and against many of the other NATO members that knew that would be tremendously problematic, which is why they agreed to make the announcement but not to set a date. And then as progressive from there, the continuous US expansions that not only went Eastward but went right to Russia’s border are somehow disregarded today.
But it is important to try to imagine what it would be like in the United States if a hostile force, let’s say in Mexico or in Canada, were building bases right on our borders, and the NATO expansion was also accompanied by the redesign of NATO not to be a defensive alliance but to be an offensive one. We saw that in Yugoslavia, and then we saw it far from the North Atlantic countries when NATO got involved in the invasion of Afghanistan, in the invasion of Libya, and not in the beginning, but later on in the US occupation of Iraq as well. So Russia was seeing not only the movement of NATO towards its borders, but it also saw the increasingly aggressive nature of NATO itself.
Chris Hedges: And despite this, Putin, in the beginning, cooperated within the so-called war on terror. Of course, they had problems with Islamic extremism after the wars in Chechnya. Russia provided resupply routes for US troops in Afghanistan. There was a real effort on the part of the Russian government to reach out.
Medea Benjamin: Well, yes. And that has been the case even in more recent times when Russia worked with the United States, for example, to get an agreement on the Iran nuclear deal; when Russia worked with the United States around Syria to try to solve this crisis around Syrian biological weapons. I think there are many examples that we can point to today of Russia working with the United States, which is one of the reasons why it’s so ridiculous to hear this common phrase that you can’t negotiate with Putin, you can’t negotiate with Russia. The US has been doing it for quite a long time.
Chris Hedges: What do you think is driving the hostility towards, or what drove it? I’m not defending, of course, the war in Ukraine, as you don’t either. A preemptive war is a war crime. But what drove that hostility? Andrew Bacevich argues that it was just the hubris of a broken Soviet empire and a weakened Russia. I’ve got to believe that the billions in profit that were made, are being made by the war industry, by refitting Warsaw Pact countries with NATO equipment was also a factor. But what do you believe drove this hostility?
Medea Benjamin: I think there are many factors behind it, and you named some of it. We also have, within the Democratic Party, the last years of the demonization of Russia around Russia-gate, instead of admitting that Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate, blaming the Russians on the victory of Donald Trump. We know that we have two war parties. I think the Republicans are more focused on China as the adversary and the Democrats more focused on Russia. But in any case, we have this growing militarization that has taken over NATO, but a militarization of Ukraine by the US. And even under Obama, we see that right after the Minsk Agreement was signed and there was supposed to be some peaceful solution to the conflict in the Donbas, you see him sending weapons to Ukraine, supposedly defensive weapons.
And now of course, all of that charade of defensive versus offensive have been lifted, but it has been both Democrats and Republicans who have really pushed for increased hostility towards Russia, increased militarization of Europe. And this is also a way to get Europe totally behind the United States, whereas I think with the Europeans, like the Germans and many other European countries becoming so dependent on Russia for their energy supplies, the US was trying to find a way to sever the ties between Western Europe and Russia, and make sure that Western Europe was solidly behind the United States. And this terrible invasion by Putin has given them exactly what the US wanted.
Chris Hedges: Let’s talk about the Minsk Agreement. This was an agreement that Ukraine never honored. Explain what it was and what it was meant to do.
Medea Benjamin: When the Maidan protests began and they were overtaken by violent protests and a government that was corrupt, but an elected government was overthrown, there was the protest that happened in the Donbas, and the civil war broke out between the supporters of Russia inside the Donbas and the opponents, many of them hard right elements that had neo-Nazi origins like the Azov Brigade. And the European security organization sent in monitors after an agreement was reached that there would be greater autonomy given to Donbas, that there would be elections there, that there would be talks between the leaders of the breakaway republics and the heads of state in Ukraine. That political part never happened.
What happened was that the monitors did indeed come in, and many of the explosions of the conflict, of the killing that happened in the first year, was calmed down by the presence of these monitors. But the political agreement was never implemented. There was never an election that was held. There were never the talks with the leaders of the breakaway republics. And every time one of the leaders in Ukraine tried to go ahead and implement the process, they were threatened by the extreme right. And this is true when Zelenskyy came in, having come to power on a popular agenda of creating peace in the Ukraine, of implementing these Minsk accords. Then he was threatened, his life was threatened by the extreme right, saying that they would hang him from a tree if indeed he went ahead with this. So the political elements of the Minsk II were never implemented, but they actually did form the basis of what could have been and still could be a solution to the conflict in the Donbas.
Chris Hedges: We should be clear, when Zelenskyy ran, he made quite a fact of the fact, or he brought up the fact that he was a Russian speaker, which was seen as an asset.
Let’s go back to 2014, Victoria Nuland. I think the US put $5 million. Explain what happened. Many Russian speakers in Ukraine argue this was a coup, and I think there’s much validity to that, but explain. And also the intrusion of the United States into the domestic politics of Ukraine, something that Soviet experts like George Kennan, even Burns, argued was dangerous. . . . MORE
World at War and Anti-War
“Worse than Ukraine..but doesn’t get Western media’s attention.” Forwarded by Sonny San Juan.
“Ethiopia crisis worse than Ukraine .” – EU official . Will Ross, Africa editor, BBC World Service AFP, Nov. 4, 2022.
More than four million Ethiopians are now refugees in their own country.
Achieving a permanent ceasefire in Ethiopia won’t be easy after a brutal two-year war in which more than 100,000 people are believed to have been killed, warns the EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell.
At a G7 meeting in Germany, Mr Borrell said attention was focused on Ukraine but the humanitarian crisis was worse in Ethiopia.
The Ethiopian government and Tigrayan officials signed a cessation of hostilities deal on Wednesday after coming under international pressure.
However the Tigrayan authorities have accused government forces of carrying out attacks against civilians in the city of Maychew since then.
By Alex de Waal, Africa analyst
Foreign powers have hailed the truce signed by the Ethiopian government and Tigrayan leaders to end the brutal war in the north of the country and open up the flow of aid to those at risk of famine, but questions remain over whether it will succeed. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-63503615
“War is always an atrocity: Let’s consider U.S. bombing.” Art Hobson, ahobson@uark.edu. NWADG, 1 November 2022.
When existential threats cause nations to take up arms, all available means are employed to achieve victory. Propaganda and hypocrisy are part of the arsenal. Thus, U.S. reporting on the Ukraine War inevitably reeks of hypocrisy.
The “available means” have always included burning the enemy’s towns, raping its women, and pillaging its homes. Such atrocities against civilians can devastate the enemy’s morale, destroy its ability to fight, and satisfy the victor’s righteous anger.
As humankind “advanced” from arrows and swords to rifles and cannons, civilian suffering became more widespread. For example, America’s Civil War killed an estimated 750,000, of whom 50,000 were civilians.
The invention of dynamite and airplanes around 1900 made warfare far more deadly. WW1 killed about 20 million, including 10 million civilians. WW2 killed 70-85 million, 3 percent of all humans on the planet, including 50-55 million civilians.
It’s a plus that civilian wartime deaths are today largely viewed as atrocities. But paradoxically, this very concern results in the use of civilian deaths as evidence of the cruelty of one’s adversary, heightening the bitterness and anger on all sides. In fact, it is war itself–the purposeful and organized slaughter of large numbers of our own species–that is the ultimate atrocity. Rather than banishing any particular nation, war must be banished if we are to survive.
America, whose military budget equals that of the next 9 countries combined, is by far the most militarily powerful nation the world has ever seen. If humankind is ever to understand the atrocious nature of all wars, it is imperative that we Americans understand the consequences of our own actions. Here is part of the record.
During WW2 in the Pacific Theater, American air raids attacked 67 Japanese cities, burning down 25 to 75 percent of each. Tokyo was 51 percent destroyed, including 16 square miles in the city’s center where many died in the ensuing firestorm. Japanese cities, where civilian houses were made of wood and paper, were especially vulnerable to U.S. incendiary bombs. Repeated attacks focused on the large cities of Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe. And of course U.S. nuclear bombs destroyed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, raising firestorms and killing about 200,000, largely civilians. All of these bombings were clearly designed to terrorize civilians and force Japan’s surrender. They were quite successful in this task.
There was a similar story in the European Theater. Allied (mostly U.S. and U.K.) bombing killed between 400,000 and 600,000 German civilians, while 7.5 million German civilians were rendered homeless. Air raids against Hamburg and Dresden raised firestorms., and Berlin was bombed into rubble.
During the Korean War, U.S. bombing destroyed nearly all North Korea’s cities, including 85 percent of its buildings. Total North Korean civilian casualties (dead, injured, missing) were 1.5 million. U.S. bombs destroyed five hydroelectric and irrigation dams, resulting in flooding and starvation.
The bombing campaigns during the U.S. invasion of Vietnam constituted the longest and heaviest aerial bombardment in history. We dropped more than three times as much explosive energy on that small nation as we dropped in all theaters of WW2. A careful study calculated between 0.8 million and 1.1 million deaths on all sides during the war, of which 30,000 to 182,000 were estimated to be North Vietnamese civilians killed in U.S. bombings.
Finally, an estimated 387,000 civilians have died violent deaths as a direct result of the U.S. post-9/11 wars on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thus, bombing civilians has been standard intentional practice for America since at least 1941. Set against this backdrop, Russian-caused civilian wartime deaths in Ukraine are deplorable but hundreds of times less numerous. The United Nations, which carefully studies civilian casualties, provides an estimate of about 6,000 civilian deaths through October. For comparison, the number of military deaths in Ukraine appears to be around 20,000 on each side. The numbers of Russian-killed civilians in the present Ukraine War is at least hundreds of times smaller than the number of U.S.-killed civilians killed during our wars.
Has Russia killed many civilians in Ukraine? Yes. Was some of this intentionally directed at civilians? Yes. Is this an atrocity? Yes. But it pales beside past U.S. atrocities.
Be careful before you point your finger, and be sure to first look into the mirror. If you wish to help the human race rather than just thoughtlessly letting off steam, remember that the real enemy is neither President Putin nor Russia, nor is it America. The real enemy is war itself. The real solution is war prevention. [References omitted—D]
Art Hobson is professor emeritus of physics at the University of Arkansas. He worked at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and co-authored “The Future of Land-Based Strategic Missiles” (Am. Inst. of Physics, 1989). Email him at ahobson@uark.edu.
CONTENTS UKRAINE WAR #32
What’s at Stake: “I think that this is something the people of the West need to come to grips with; that the government of Ukraine has done great violence against its own people in the Donbas, and that the people of the Donbas had every right to choose to leave Ukraine and join Russia. If Westerners understood this reality, they would think twice about ‘standing with’ and continuing to arm Ukraine.” Daniel Kovalik
Part I: ORIGINS OF THE WAR : Why Is the US in Ukraine?
THE WAR (9 articles)
Vijay Prashad.“UN or NATO?”
Ivan Katchanovski. “Buried Trial Verdict Confirms False-flag Maidan Massacre in Ukraine.”
Natylie Baldwin. “The Maidan Massacre, Censorship & Ukraine.” Interview of Katchanovski.
Joe Lauria. “US Victim of Own Propaganda in Ukraine War”: Odessa.
Swiss Standpoint. Background and elements of the war in Ukraine [Minsk Agreements etc.]: Interview of Jacques Baud.
Schwarz and Layne. US and NATO Expansion.
Oleg Nesterenko. Ukraine’s “Atlanticist” Narratives.
Jeremy Kuzmarov. Western Intelligence Services.
Yossi Alpher: “Ukraine, NATO: the ‘Israel Model’?”
(Sources: Canadian Dimension, Consortium News, Covert Action Magazine, Donbas Insider, Harper’s Magazine, Schweizer Standpunkt)
Part II: THE WAR
(6 articles)
Seymour Hersh. “Harold Pinter had it right.” Destruction of Nord Stream Pipelines, Roles of Biden and Scholz , Consequences.
A Scott Ritter Investigation: “Agent Zelensky (Part 1).” Audio.
Daniel Kovalik. “Russia, Donbass and the Reality of Conflict in Ukraine.”
M. K. Bhadrakumar. “Glimpses of an Endgame in Ukraine.”
VijayPrashad. “World Hunger & War in Ukraine. “
Yossi Alpher. “Ukraine, NATO: the ‘Israel Model’?”
(Sources: Consortium News, Covert Action Magazine, Indian Punchline, Peoples Dispatch, Scheer Post, Scott Ritter Extra)
Part III: MAKE PEACE
(8 articles)
Roger Harris. “The North American Peace Movement at an Inflection Point.”
Veterans Speak in NYT Ad. “The U. S. Should Be a Force for Peace in the World.”
Gerry Condon, Veterans for Peace. “Why Veterans are Calling for Peace.”
Jeffrey Sachs. YouTube Interview.
John Mearsheimer. “What Should Be Done.”
Abel Tomlinson. Three Essays. Senator Blumenthal. “Negotiate Ukraine Peace Now.” “Stop the War, Make Peace.”
(Sources: Dissident Voice, NYT advert., Popular Resistance, Abel Tomlinson direct, YouTube)
END UKRAINE WAR ANTHOLOGY #33