Connect with us

Russia

Russia Calling the Shots: Extrapolating from the Kerch Strait

Published

on

The quasi-standoff this past week between Russia and Ukraine over the Kerch Strait has been painted in the West with a decidedly anti-Russian brush. After Russia fired near three Ukrainian naval ships attempting to enter the strait (which sits as a small maritime passageway between the eastern edge of Crimea and the western tip of the Krasnodar region of the Russian Federation, allowing ships to move between the Black and Azov Seas) and ultimately resulted in their seizure by Russian border guards, political actors all across the West have been quick to snap judgment against ‘Russian aggression:’ the EU has debated whether it needs to enact new sanctions against Moscow; Ukraine invited NATO to send a heavier naval presence into the Black Sea; even the Trump administration has at least temporarily canceled a future visit that was scheduled between the American president and Vladimir Putin, although it is not entirely certain that this is perfectly aligned with the Kerch Strait incident.

As has been the standard media and political play when it comes to Russian-American relations over the past several years, no one seems to be attempting to analyze what the Russian position is, other than derisively dismissing the Russian accusation of the entire incident being a Ukrainian ‘provocation.’ Regardless of the strong desire to put the black cowboy hat on to Putin (and to be fair, Putin sometimes seems to actually enjoy donning it, if at least to thumb his nose at the West), the Russian position, if taken more seriously, does give Western leaders important information about how Russia views not just its immediate region but also its political mentality on the global stage. America would do well to pay attention to this at least for the insights it can give into the Russian mindset.

First, Russia clearly still harbors irritation and resentment over what it considers to be continued interference from the West in Ukraine, ostensibly giving Ukraine a false sense of being able to ignore Russia as the true regional power and harbor false dreams of closer military ties to the European Union and NATO. This gives Russia the marked perception that the West is thereby purposely fomenting dissension between Russia and Ukraine. Second, Poroshenko, the President of Ukraine, has a unique talent for enflaming this Russian perception to near hysterical heights, what with his penchant for making nearly continuous claims about Russia intending to ‘steal his entire country’ and installing ‘partial martial law’ over part of his own country when it comes to access to Crimea. Third, the consequences of the first two problems create Russian exasperation with what the Kremlin considers a ‘foreign policy double standard’ that favors the United States, causes its neighbors to act ‘irrationally’ (at least irrational according to Russian national security interests) and which will simply never be accepted by Russia.

The Crimean referendum, which led to Russia accepting Crimea back into the regional fold of the Russian Federation formally, was the first obvious (to Russia) example that false promises were being made to Ukraine. After all, it was the Russian military that came into Crimea after the referendum and literally dared NATO or the EU to come forward and try to expel it from the peninsula. It was calling out the NATO promise – made to the leaders of the Maidan revolution in Kiev – that it would not allow Russia to make ‘any incursions’ into Ukraine, and proving it to be nothing but a bluff. Russia marched. Kiev called. NATO didn’t pick up. Even now, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the former Prime Minister of Ukraine, recently expressed disappointment with NATO over the Kerch Strait incident, declaring how the ‘good relations’ between Ukraine and the Western defense organization have not materialized into ‘stronger military communication.’

This has been the foundation of Russia’s tough love approach to Ukraine and its misplaced Slavic shuffle: stop thinking you have a bigger or more powerful ally than the one that has always been on your Eastern border and has deep historical, religious, and cultural ties to you. The EU and NATO will never stand up to Russia in favor of Ukraine when the issue is relatively small on the global conflict scale. And despite what current Russophobes may think, Crimea and the Kerch Strait, since they have not escalated into something bigger or more violent, apparently do not pass the Western intervention sniff test. Thus, with the Kerch Strait today (which not coincidentally is the maritime pass over which Russia built a massive superhighway, literally connecting the Russian mainland directly to Crimea and which, understandably, the Kremlin is a bit sensitive about when it comes to any appearance of military maneuvers near it by another nation), Russia is challenging what seems to be a second NATO bluff. Instead of hoping for NATO to draw a red line, Ukraine might be better off paying attention to the Russian red line.

In the end, this is not Russia trying to escalate violence or war with Ukraine. It is not Russia attempting to bring Western powers deeper into what it considers its own sphere of neighborhood influence (based on very simple, classical realist power considerations). Rather, it is Russia attempting to ‘educate’ Ukraine about who its real allies should be and who its false friends are. Perhaps more than anything, it is Russia somewhat condescendingly telling the West that no matter how much nonsense it fills in the heads controlling Kiev (consider Putin just announcing that Kiev would get away with ‘eating babies’ as long as it would make things more difficult for Russia, all major decisions in this region of the globe are going to remain firmly in Russian hands. The West may not like it, but so far in the game of Ukrainian Bluff, it is Russia 2, the West 0.

Dr. Matthew Crosston is Executive Vice Chairman of ModernDiplomacy.eu and chief analytical strategist of I3, a strategic intelligence consulting company. All inquiries regarding speaking engagements and consulting needs can be referred to his website: https://profmatthewcrosston.academia.edu/

Continue Reading
Comments

Russia

The U.S. doesn’t want to protect Ukraine; it wants to defeat Russia

Published

on

If the U.S. (and its allies) wanted to protect Ukraine, then it (they) would not be doing all they can to prolong Russia’s invasion and destruction of Ukraine. They would not be flooding Ukraine with their weapons to kill Russians. They would not be demanding that Ukraine fight on, which destroys Ukraine even more. But this is what they are doing. 

Is this because they are so stupid that they don’t know that they are destroying Ukraine? Or is it instead because they don’t care about their destroying Ukraine but do care about their defeating Russia?

The U.S. (and its allies) are doing everything they can to defeat Russia. They are also doing everything they can to increase the sales, and profits, and stock-market valuations, of Lockheed Martin and the other corporations whose only or main customers are the U.S. Government and its allied governments which buy their weapons — buy them increasingly now in order for those weapons to be used even more now by their vassal-nations such as Ukraine, and Israel, and Saudi Arabia, against the nations that they also are wanting to defeat, such as Palestine and Yemen, and other countries that the U.S. and its allied governments care nothing about except that they want them to be defeated — to be punished for NOT caving to the U.S. Government and its allied governments, and which nations they condemn while calling themselves ‘the free world’.

How evil is this? Let’s see:

On May 19th, U.S. President Joe Biden signed into law an additional $40.1 billion to Ukraine in order to continue its war against Russia, which Biden and his boss Barack Obama, and Obama’s organizer of the 2014 U.S. coup in Ukraine Victoria Nuland had begun by means of that coup, which had transformed Ukraine from being a peaceful neutralist country on Russia’s border, into becoming promptly a rabidly anti-Russian and pro-U.S. country on Russia’s border that’s in a civil war and that is a prospective future basing-area for U.S. nuclear missiles there (like a 1962 Cuban-Missile-Crisis in reverse) to hit Moscow only a 7-minute flight-time away. It would be a checkmate in the U.S. regime’s long war to add Russia to its conquered prizes, if the plan would succeed.

To place that $40.1B additional expenditure into perspective, the comedian Jimmy Dore headlined on May 19th “ALL DEMOCRATS Vote [in Senate] To Send $40 Billion To Ukraine”, and Dore said “That’s more than three times what the entire U.S. music industry makes in a year,” and he called it “a wealth-transfer to the military-industrial complex.” He said that if this $40.1B addition to the current year’s expenditure on Ukraine’s war were instead to be spent domestically, “that would stop homelessness.” 

I checked those allegations. Here’s what I found:  

The entire U.S. music-recording industry is $11B retail sales per year. (That’s sales; profits would be some percentage of sales, but even if it were ALL of sales, then this $40.1B would be “more than three times” it.)

Annual cost to eliminate homeless in U.S.=$30B.

He wasn’t exaggerating; he was under-stating. This is how evil the U.S. Government actually is.

Mr. Dore also noted that all Democratic Party U.S. Senators and members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted for this additional $40.1B expenditure, and that the overwhelming majority of the Republican ones also did. Are Republicans now even more neoconservative than Democrats are? Not really: it is always the case that a neoconservative bill in the U.S. Congress gets virtually 100% support from the Party in power, and gets an overwhelming majority of the votes of the Party that doesn’t happen to be in power at the time. All the while, America’s ‘defense’-contractors increase their sales and profits and stock-market valuations. So, Dore expressed anger that in the Senate, even Bernie Sanders voted for this. And Glenn Greenwald presented a scathing condemnation of the hypocritical ‘progressive’ Democrat Octavio Ocasio-Cortez’s “complete reversal of everything that she pretended to believe in for years”. He attributed this contradiction of herself to “In 2016, when Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump, … instead of accepting responsibility because they themselves had nominated one of the most destructive and outright hated political candidates in modern American history in Hillary Clinton, … they decided to blame everybody else, … especially Putin and Russia. … And so Democrats have been feeding on this anti-Russia antipathy and hatred” ever since. And, so, “there is no viable anti-war [political] left in the United States.”

Though I enormously respect Glenn Greenwald, and everything that he said is true, I think that his analyses suffer from shallowness due to his apparent ignorance of history — his excessive focus on the obvious and recent news, outside of the broader context that’s required in order for there to be a deeper analysis, a scientific understanding, which identifies actual historical causes behind current events. This is not to deny that what Greenwald says is true, but to assert that it lacks the wisdom that ONLY an authentic historical analysis can bring to current events and to public-policy issues. Only by understanding causes can one move forward into the future (if there will be a future) so as to control future events in a constructive way, that will benefit future generations, instead of for future events to continue to degenerate even further into a hell which comes closer with every passing day.

I documented at Greanville Post, on May 19th, “The Secret U.S.-&-UK War Against Europe”, showing that BOTH American political Parties are controlled, at the very top, by a cabal of very closely connected individuals who are basically servants of the billionaire controlling owners of firms (such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and General Dynamics), which corporations’ major or even ONLY customers are the U.S. Government and its allied governments, but especially these controlling individuals are an organization that was started in 1877 by the British aristocrat Cecil Rhodes, and which finally took control over the U.S. Government itself on 25 July 1945, just three months after U.S. President FDR died and became replaced by the naive and manipulable Harry S. Truman, who set America’s Government irrevocably onto its control by “the military-industrial complex” and in league with Britain’s aristocracy, to ultimately control the entire world and obviate altogether the United Nations that FDR had started planning and hoping for back in 1941. (The Republican Dwight Eisenhower was also a key part of the Rhodesists’ American operation.)

This organization by the Rhodesists is the source of the evilness that pervades today’s U.S. Government, and it cannot be overcome unless and until it first becomes widely known-about, and then condemned so that all of today’s U.S. Government becomes replaced, because the corruptness of America’s (and UK’s) Government has, by now, become virtually 100%. And if this assertion doesn’t seem credible, then check the links in this report, which explains (and those links document) the actual source for the 19 May 2022 law to pour an additional $40.1B into Ukraine, which after the 2014 coup is a U.S. vassal-nation that’s self-destructing in order to serve as today’s main battleground (and U.S.-proxy) in the American (and British) aristocracy’s long war to conquer not only Russia, but also Europe, and the entire world.

First, the entire world (especially in Europe) has to recognize and publicly acknowledge the unacceptability of America’s Government, so as to condemn it and to order all of its troops out, ASAP. It is a hostile power, to the publics, everywhere — even in places where its stooges and hangers-on-billionaires are in political control (like a cancer) (such as in Europe). America’s Government is NO DEMOCRACY. No empire can be, and America’s most assuredly IS NOT a democracy. (Nor is UK’s.) It is a hostile occupying alien force, even inside the United States. (And this is widely suspected to be true, even by the American people.) In fact: the U.S. is the world’s #1 police-state. It is a cancer, everywhere that it occupies, and needs to be rooted-out everywhere. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and the majority of America’s Founders, would have viewed this nation, today’s U.S. Government, to be their enemy, because it violates everything that they believed in, and hoped for, about America’s future, and the world’s. Everything.

Continue Reading

Russia

NYT Presents Strong Case for a War-Crimes Prosecution Against Russia

Published

on

Dozens of bodies near the cemetery in Bucha. Photo By Rodrigo Abd. Image source: war.ukraine.ua

Whereas numerous instances of U.S. war-crimes have been documented in some news-reports well enough to be successfully prosecuted in international war-crimes tribunals (but the U.N.-authorized agency the International Criminal Court cannot prosecute U.S. war-crimes but only war-crimes by third-world countries’ leaders), such well-evidenced instances by Russia are far rarer. However, on May 19th the New York Times presented precisely such an instance, under the headline “New Evidence Shows How Russian Soldiers Executed Men in Bucha”. Local security-cameras there recorded the frog-marching to their death of nine Ukrainian men who weren’t in Ukraine’s official armed forces but who had become armed to fight against the invading Russian soldiers in Bucha, and who were then executed by specifically identified Russian soldiers and their corpses abandoned on the ground as Russia’s soldiers left Bucha. Locals also told the NYT’s reporters what they had seen, and it fit with what those security cameras showed. The NYT reported:

The execution of the captured fighters and the homeowner in Bucha “is the kind of incident that could become a strong case for war crimes prosecution,” said Stephen Rapp, former United States ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues. The captives, having been disarmed and taken into custody by the Russians, were “outside of combat,” under the laws of war, Mr. Rapp said. According to the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross, such laws mean that prisoners must be treated humanely and protected from mistreatment in all circumstances.

In addition to the soldiers who shot the men, their commanders could be charged if they knew about the killings and failed to act to prevent or punish the conduct, Mr. Rapp said.  

However, Ellen Ioanes at Vox posted on April 9th an excellent article, “Here’s what the ICC can actually do about Putin’s war crimes”, and documented in detail that the consequence would be nothing except bad publicity which the U.S. and its allies could exploit, but even that would entail “a lot of hypocrisy” because:

one of the most vocal nations suggesting Putin be tried at the Hague — the United States — isn’t itself a party to the ICC. The US government voted against the ICC during the Rome Conference in 1998; former President Bill Clinton signed on to the Rome Statute in 2000 but never submitted it to Congress for ratification. Former President George W. Bush in 2002 notified then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan that the US would not ratify the Rome Statute and didn’t have to abide by any of its provisions.

The U.S. Government, and many of its allies (such as the post-U.S.-coup-in-Ukraine’s government ever since 2014) perpetrate war-crimes (such as this) far more heinous than what the NYT reports there, but that doesn’t excuse what these Russian soldiers did. None of these war-crimes will be able to be successfully prosecuted.  

Here is the reason why the ICC, and the U.N. itself, turned out to be this way (Ioanes’s article provided only a superficial account regarding that matter — “A permanent international court is still relatively new,” etc. — but the actual cause, or reason, goes all the way back to answering how and why that has turned out to be the case, and this requires history going back to the 1940s):

Though the United Nations had first been conceived by U.S. President FDR in 1941 only shortly before the U.S. itself famously entered WW II on “a date which will live in infamy”; and though FDR developed, prior to his death on 12 April 1945, a remarkably detailed plan for what the U.N. would be and for what its Charter would need to include, his immediate successor, Harry S. Truman, while he was at the Potsdam Conference with Churchill and Stalin in July 1945, became persuaded by his hero, General Dwight David Eisenhower, that if the U.S. would not conquer the Soviet Union, then the Soviet Union would conquer the United States; and, so, on 25 July 1945, Truman made the decision (which soon thereafter became irrevocable) to set the U.S. Government onto the path of world-domination, to conquering the Soviet Union, and he even decided to demand of Stalin, regarding eastern European countries that the Soviet Union had freed from Hitler’s grip, that “I told Stalin until we had free access to those countries and our nationals had their property rights restored, so far as we were concerned ther’d never be recognition. He seems to like it when I hit him with a hammer.” Stalin was shocked at this turn of events, because he knew, in general terms, what FDR had been intending for the U.N. to be — a democratic federation of all nations which would terminate all imperialisms and be restricted to addressing only international relations (thereby excluding anything that pertains to intranational matters, such as Truman insisted upon) — and he still hoped, even for a few months afterwards, that Truman wouldn’t turn out to be a 180-degree reversal of what FDR had been, but thereafter Stalin gave up altogether on any such hope, and knew that the U.S. was now at war against the Soviet Union. Tragically, Truman, instead of FDR, oversaw, and basically dominated, the creation of the U.N., and so it turned out to be a toothless tiger, nothing like what FDR had intended, which would have been the international democracy of nations and possessed of a practical monopoly of geostrategic weaponry and international armed force, and also including, at the earliest practicable date, an international criminal court, which would try not only the international crimes by the former Axis powers, but the international crimes by the former Allied powers. The U.N. would have been fundamentally different than it is.

And, so, though there do exist international war-crimes cases regarding which the solidly documented historical record is sufficiently complete for an unprejudiced and trustworthy conviction to be possible, it cannot happen unless and until all of the bad history since 12 April 1945 (FDR’s death) has become effectively condemned, repudiated, and reversed, by enough of the world’s nations, so that the needed type of world government (international laws and their enforcement and juridical handling), replacing all of the existing imperialisms, becomes finally instituted (which was FDR’s obsession from 1941 on). However, even today — after all of these many decades of bad history — no one is even so much as talking about this.

One of the experts that Ioanes quoted said “‘It really shows a lot of hypocrisy,’ and encourages the perception of ‘justice for thee, not for me’.” And that (“for thee, not for me”) is, really, a pervasive and total impossibility of justice, for anyone. In its place can only be hypocrisy. Perhaps that’s what “liberalism” (which is certainly NOT progressivism) comes down to: hypocritical conservatism. Rule by the aristocracy (the super-rich), everywhere.

What is bad in the past must be publicly acknowledged (no longer lied about), if ever we are to go forward to an authentically better world. If that fails to happen, the world will only continue to get even worse.

Continue Reading

Russia

Putin’s House of Cards: What will happen to Russia’s satellites if his regime falls?

Published

on

The war in Ukraine has astonished even knowledgeable observers, impressed by Ukraine’s valor and ingenuity and by the Russian military’s ineptitude. While the war’s outcome remains unknown, many are beginning to speculate what Putin’s failure to achieve his objectives in Ukraine might mean for the empire he has tried to reconstitute. 

Alexei Navalny has even suggested that a defeat for Moscow would result in the break up of the Russian Federation. But what would Putin’s humiliation on the world stage mean for those countries beyond Russia’s borders that he has dominated? What would it mean for leaders who derive legitimacy not from popular support, but from Vladimir Putin’s brutal patronage?

Bashar Al-Assad’s regime might be the first to fall. Assad recently traveled to the United Arab Emirates in search of new allies. Prior to that trip, he hadn’t left Syria in eleven years except for brief excursions to Tehran or Moscow, his main benefactors. Were Putin to fall, Assad could find himself as isolated internationally as North Korea and possibly the victim of a coup by his elite. Assad currently controls only 60% of Syrian territory. With the coming shortage of bread as a result of severely reduced grain exports from Russia and Ukraine, another Arab Spring could erupt.

The Lukashenko regime in Belarus cannot exist without the economic and power support from Moscow. The Belarusian democratic revolution of 2020 was suppressed by the Russian Federation. Lukashenko possesses few independent resources to defend his unpopular regime. His participation in the Ukrainian war has left him completely dependent on the Kremlin, effectively relinquishing his country’s sovereignty. The moment a political crisis arises in Moscow, the turmoil will immediately spread to Belarus. Currently detained opposition leaders, including Viktar Babaryka and Sergei Tikhonovskiy, whose wife Svetlana probably won the  2020 Presidential election, would likely come to power.

The government of Kassym-Jomart Tokayev sacrificed Kazakhstan’s national sovereignty by inviting Russian troops to help suppress protests there last January, alienating the Kazakh-speaking majority, and the Almaty elite, who largely shape public opinion, and were already outraged by Tokayev’s orders to shoot peaceful protesters. The continuing turmoil has helped produce and is exacerbated by the sharp decline of Kazakhstan’s economy, Central Asia’s largest, a downturn compounded by sanctions imposed on the Russian Federation, and by Kazakhstan’s membership in the Eurasian Economic Union.

The future leader of Kazakhstan will be someone who has the support of the Kazakh-speaking majority, and isn’t tainted by last January’s bloodshed. Imangali Tasmagambetov has the best shot. Immensely popular, and not a Kremlin puppet, he might be the only candidate who could consolidate support throughout Kazakh society, and enact independent and pragmatic policies.

Putin’s downfall could encourage the advancement of universal principles of democracy and human rights in all of Russia’s former satellite countries, and the restoration of their territorial integrity. With the support of Turkey, Azerbaijan will take complete possession of Karabakh while ensuring its historic autonomy within Azerbaijan. Georgia would be in a strong position to recover South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

In Moldova, despite Acting Russian Commander Rustam Minnikaev’s recent claim that Moscow’s forces could extend control along the Black Sea coast to Transnistria, should the Russian army falter, Transnistria could be unified with Chisinău, paving the way for Moldova’s European integration. 

At the same time, Russia’s defeat in Ukraine could propagate new geopolitical risks. Ambitious Turkey will increase its regional influence, and countries bordering Taliban ruled Afghanistan like Tajikistan and Uzbekistan will be subjected to greater Islamist challenges.

China will take advantage of the situation. With Russia’s decline, Beijing’s Belt Road Initiative could supplant the Eurasian Economic Union in Central Asia. The influence of the democratic West will be limited unless the West provides greater economic assistance to countries in the region to encourage their commitment in word and deed to democratic principles.

Although Putin often compares himself to Czar Alexander III, his real historical parallel is Nicholas II, who believed a small victorious war with underestimated Japan would elevate his second rank power to great power status in the courts of Europe. The result was defeat on the world stage, and more violence and chaos in Russia. Putin made the same mistake with Ukraine, and the consequences will threaten the survivability of his regime and his cherished goal of restoring a great Russian empire.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending