India’s moment to shine

“Are you aware that #IstandwithRussia #IstandwithPutin are among the top tending hashtags in India?”

The observation above was written to me by a professional Indian journalist in the employ of a leading worldwide news provider. This insight has persuaded me to pay more attention to the Indian ‘market,’ which may yet play a decisive role in the denouement of the ongoing reshaping of global politics brought on by the Russia-Ukraine war.

Yesterday I was scheduled to appear in panel discussions of that war hosted by two of India’s best known news providers, Times Now and the India Today Group.  I was unlucky on both. There were some technical problems at the former which arose while I was in the Zoom holding pattern. They could not be resolved and I was disconnected. And at the latter Group a most peculiar editorial decision was taken to scrub its discussion of the incident at the Ukrainian nuclear plant in Zaporozhye in favor of coverage of the death of cricket player and so all panelists were figuratively speaking sent home.

Nonetheless, I had prepared some remarks for both programs which I now will share with readers of this website. I will be brief and to the point.

In the months leading up to the Russian incursion in Ukraine, several of my peers had called attention to the Russian-Chinese rapprochement, which President Xi had publicly described as ‘higher than an alliance.’ These same peers argued that it was precisely the backing of the Chinese which gave Vladimir Putin the confidence to take on the United States and NATO in a direct challenge to U.S. global hegemony, with Ukraine as the chosen battlefield. Moreover, Putin’s visit to Beijing for the opening of the Olympic Games provided an opportunity for last minute coordination by the two leaders of scenarios for cooperation in the coming showdown with NATO.

However, the Kremlin’s preparations for the coming war involved face to face talks with one other global leader about which much less was said in the world media: namely his visit weeks earlier to Delhi for talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. To be sure, Putin’s delegation to Delhi was numerous and highlighted the growing joint activities in the energy field and also in not only procurement but also production of military hardware. India, like Turkey, had acted in defiance of U.S. pressure over its military suppliers and was accepting delivery of the cutting edge S-400 air defense systems from Russia come what may from Washington.

I would stress that the visit to India was no less important to Moscow than the visit to Beijing.  Whereas the United States has for the past five years been applying ever greater efforts to de-couple from China and to implement a variety of military, political and economic policies to “contain” the PRC, it has been at equally great pains to woo India away from its decades long friendship with Russia and to bring Delhi into active participation in the plans for ‘Indo-Pacific’ defense directed against the People’s Republic of China.

Now, when push came to shove in the United Nations General Assembly meeting a week ago on the motion to condemn Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and to call for an end to hostilities, which at this moment would signify a Russian defeat, we note that the two countries, China and India, cast the very same vote: abstention.  China did not exercise a veto in favor of its ‘friend.’  It abstained.

Of course, in such a vote, abstentions carry great meaning. They are given in the face of massive U.S. diplomatic efforts to bribe or blackmail a host of UN member states and ensure they vote as America dictates.  In the end, the United States got what it wanted: an overwhelming number of member states supported the resolution.  However, given the abstentions of India and China, as well as the abstentions or vetoes of other populous states including Iran, South Africa and Vietnam, one can say that states accounting for more than 4 billion people, or more than half of humanity, did not support the propagandistic resolution authored in Washington. This constitutes a moral victory for the Kremlin in a vote which, after all, carries no legal consequences.

World leaders and the mass media of the United States and allies have been hyperactive, nearly hysterical in their reporting on the progress of the Russian advance into Ukraine and in disseminating speculation on what the Kremlin’s end game will be. The loss of focus, the confusion underlying the hysteria arises due to a memory span that usually does not go back beyond two weeks and a power of forecasting that does not reach beyond one week. The media are, in effect, lost in time and they are drawing the broad public into the same fog.

Considering the progress now achieved by the Russian forces on the ground in Ukraine, given that their numbers are generally well below those of the Ukrainian military, militias and recently hired mercenaries deployed by Kiev; considering that the worst of the Ukrainian radical nationalists, a.k.a. terrorists are now surrounded in places of their concentration, as for example, Mariupol; considering that Ukraine’s commercial life will soon be cut as the Russian forces take full control of the Black Sea littoral, I believe the conflict will not go on for more than a week or two before Russia achieves its objective of Ukraine’s unqualified capitulation and the hostilities come to an end.

If so, Russia will have achieved in Ukraine what Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Ryabkov said back in December when negotiating with the United States and NATO over Russia’s demand to revise the security architecture of Europe:  “move or we will move you.”  Russia will have exposed the ultimate uselessness of NATO to European defense and will mark a turning point in global power relations.

What will emerge from the changing power balance will be the formal end of U.S. global hegemony and of its monopolar moment. The world will become bipolar for the first time since the end of the Cold War:  the US/EU on one side and RU/PRC on the other side. 

The new bipolar world is a vast improvement on global U.S. hegemony over the past 30 years, which resulted in endless wars, in the death of millions of civilians and of whole national economies in places like Libya, Syria, Afghanistan in senseless and hopeless U.S. striving to remake the world in its image in keeping with the promises of the Neoconservative ideology set out very efficiently by Francis Fukuyama in The End of History in 1992. Far from being the defenders of the status quo, the United States used its moment of unfettered power to artificially accelerate the historic trends towards liberal democracy that it believed were destined to bring universal peace in some indefinite future.

The reinstatement of a bipolar world is a good in itself. You need not be a Manichaen to appreciate that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely: it is better for there to be opposing forces nominally designated as Good and Evil than to have a sole power that declares itself to be the Good.

But the bipolar world is not good enough to protect the rights, liberties and well being of the world’s peoples, who may not well appreciate the compulsion to choose this side or that on every global issue. Moreover, it falls short of the multipolar world that has been so widely promised, in which the major economic and military powers of the world will have their proper seats and weighted voting rights at the world’s board of directors’ table.  This is where India can yet play a determining role for our common welfare: by directing the emerging New World Order towards multipolarism.

In doing so, India would be reestablishing the preeminent position in global politics which it enjoyed way before it had the economic wherewithal and other power attributes that it possesses today. Along with Yugoslavia, it was for decades the leader of what was designated the Nonaligned Nations.

Let us hope that the Indian leadership appreciates the opportunity before the country to play a very constructive and necessary role in reordering not just the security architecture of Europe, but the forces that govern world politics.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2022

Bunny Rabbits and the Big Bad Wolf: Ukraine and Russia through the lens of Western reporting

As we all know, Ukraine is today the poster boy of the “international community,” meaning the United States and its allies. Translated into comic book images, the present military conflict between Ukraine and Russia pits a cuddly bunch of bunny rabbits (Ukraine) against the Big Bad Wolf (u know who).

Regrettably that is the intellectual level of most Western reporting on developments in an unfolding tragedy. Almost everything that the supposedly innocent victims say about their attackers instantly is disseminated at God’s honest truth. The exception is numbers. Generally the casualty figures cited by Kiev for both their own civilian and combatant losses and for the Russian soldiers they say they have killed are preceded in our newspapers and on the air as being ‘unverified’ or ‘unconfirmed.’

Now the latest front page news regarding the alleged Russian bombardment of a nuclear power station in Zaporozhye in southeastern Ukraine is a perfect test case for us to see who is really the villain in the piece, the bunny rabbits or the wolf.

The alleged bombardment ignited a fire near a main reactor but happily it was extinguished quickly and no leakage of radioactivity was reported by the Ukrainians, nor was there any interruption of critical functions of the reactor. The whole point of the incident was to establish that Russians are firing indiscriminately on infrastructure, worst of all on nuclear installations with a potential for incalculable damage, moreover that they were in violation of international rules to safeguard the operations of nuclear plants. 

The intent here was to internationalize the Russian-Ukraine military conflict in the same way as the supposed poisoning of the Skripals in 2018  in the United Kingdom turned what would have been strictly an attempted murder under English law into a violation of the international rules governing nerve agents and other prohibited chemical weapons. Or in the same way that the supposed chemical weapons attacks on civilians in Syria by the Assad regime would have turned a civil war into a breach of international law that was intolerable. Or in the same way that the destruction of a commercial airliner over the war zone in Eastern Ukraine in 2014, the MH17 case, raised the fighting on the ground in Donbas to an international incident meriting the condemnation of the entire civilized world and imposition of sanctions on the assumed culprit who was abetting the local conflict, that same wolf.

Each of those three major incidents of the recent past was a ‘false flag’ operation carried out by enemies of Russia for the sake of clearly defined geopolitical objectives. I will not take the reader’s time with the proofs of my assertion here. The relevant literature in favor of the ‘false flag’ interpretation is extensive. What I wish to do here is simply to note why today’s allegations with regard to the Zaporozhye stink to high heaven and to note why the cuddly rabbits are the true villains.

Let us go back to the very beginning of the Russian ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine.  One of the first acts of Russian forces after they crossed the Belarus border into Ukraine was to seize the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, where there is the sarcophagus of the unit which exploded and also other units which are still operational. The Russian forces immediately entered into collaboration with the Ukrainian operational staff to ensure that the facility would remain secure.  Why did they do that?  Precisely because they did not want any radical Ukrainian militias to gain access to the nuclear waste buried on the site to build one or more dirty bombs, or otherwise to put the working stations in danger.

These militias, including the infamous Azov battalion, which has had concentrations of its combatants in Mariupol and other  locations in the southeast of Ukraine, were the forces that turned street demonstrations of the Maidan into a coup d’état that overthrew the legitimate president of the country in February 2014. They have been the power behind the throne in Kiev ever since.

It has taken some time for the Russian forces to move across the southern tier of Ukraine as they gradually take control of the entire Black Sea coast to close down Ukraine’s commercial shipping, strangle the economy and force capitulation on the Kiev regime. In this sweep yesterday they approached the Zaporozhye atomic power plants with intent to capture them and keep them out of harm’s way.  In these conditions could there have been any sense whatsoever for the Russians to bombard that installation?  Absolutely not. But could there have been any reason for Ukrainian radicals to stage some kind of showy but not overly risky blast at the facility?  I rest my case there on cui bono reasoning, which is entirely sufficient for the moment and until full forensic work can be performed by outside investigators.

Now I turn our attention to nomenclature.  The Kremlin has chosen to call the radical nationalists in Ukraine “neo-Nazis.”  Within Russia, this designation makes good sense.  Among the Ukrainian arch nationalists are a great many who venerate as a national hero Stepan Bandera, an ultra-right political and military leader who actively collaborated with Hitler’s forces.  Bandera was and his memory in Ukraine remains today a conflation of their own national identity with a near-racial hatred for (Soviet) Russia, or in folk language, for the Moskali, or Muscovites.

Outside of Russia, the designation “neo-Nazis” does not resonate in the same way.  This is why German Chancellor Scholz was so dismissive of the term, which he found “laughable,” to the outrage of his hosts in Moscow during the joint press conference with President Putin a couple of weeks ago.

Sometimes, however, Putin speaks of the radical nationalists in Ukraine as “terrorists.” That is really the term which should be used when addressing the international community, which knows little of Bandera, but a lot about terrorists. In this connection, the Kremlin has in recent days pointed out that the nationalist militias have been using the civilian population as human shields for their own protection. The Russians say the radicals have so far refused to allow civilians in besieged towns and cities to avail themselves of escape corridors which the Russian military was making available to them. In this connection as well, the Ukrainian militants were placing weapons in residential buildings and firing on Russian units in the hope of attracting return fire to cause civilian deaths that will be reported to international humanitarian organizations.  And, I maintain, the attack on the Zaporozhye nuclear installation was almost certainly the work of these same terrorists claiming to be Ukrainian patriots.

Dear Western journalists,  do please try to be more discerning and stop telling fairy tales about cuddly rabbits and the Big Bad Wolf.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2022

Independent minded people in India provide optimism for a multi-polar world

For those who believe that the intolerance and occasional viciousness of American media have no equals, I can recommend that they take a look at Republic TV in India, specifically at the daily program “Debates” hosted by Arnab Goswani

When I agreed to take part in one of their programs, I had gone by their self definition set out in their invitation.  I quote:

“India’s first independent global news venture. Republic Media Network — India’s Number 1 All-India News Network— is now beaming to over 300 million viewers in English (on Republic TV), Hindi (on Republic Bharat) and Bangla (on Republic Bangla).”

The eye-watering prospect of reaching 300 million viewers is not one you dismiss lightly and I blithely agreed to appear in a session entitled Has The West Turned A Mere Spectator To Russia-Ukraine War?

As we went on air in the afternoon (Central European Time) on Monday, 1 March, I found myself among panelists from the USA, from Belarus and several other locations nearly all united by determined hostility to Russia and its present campaign in Ukraine. There is no surprise in that, of course. The surprise was the behavior of the “moderator,” who spoke in the most heated, shrill manner and who proceeded to interrupt and crush the one voice ahead of me, a Chinese, who tried to explain the formally neutral position of the PRC on the Ukraine conflict and his country’s sympathy for the security concerns of Russia vis-à-vis NATO that underlie the ongoing military operation to demilitarize Ukraine.

Accordingly, when the microphone was made available to me, I used my several minutes of air time to rebuke our host for rendering impossible anything resembling intellectual discourse.  And then, when Mr. Goswani flatly rejected being “lectured” by a guest, I simply hung up, cut the Skype connection.

The only saving grace in the episode was that the videotape of this whole affair which Republic TV later put on line did not excise our little spat. But I found this out after something quite remarkable happened in the meantime.

About an hour after I parted company with the show, I received the following email:

“Dear Professor,
Being an Indian please accept my sincere apologies on behalf of my country for the behavior of a commentator of the Indian news channel that I happened to witness.
With my sincere regards.”

And then an hour later, this came to my Inbox:

“Respected Professor, Hope you are doing good.

Television Viewers across India, who abhor & boycott “Republic TV” channel for its nonsense, snooped over yesterday & this morning 02.03.2022, and the clip of your closing comments directing at the moderator, who is known for insults & abuses and not decency & respect, has gone viral & is all over social media spreading like wild fire.

And every one asking who is “Gilbert Doctorow” who taught a lesson on manners & behaviour to that moderator.

Thank you for your appearance.
Request you to kindly write on your experience as to what happened in this news panel.
Eagerly waiting for your article here.”

I am honoring that request with this brief essay.

The ball did not stop there.  I have since then received invitations to take part in debates or be interviewed on two other major Indian television channels, both fully aware of my positions and of my refusal to participate in a ‘kangaroo court’ on the subject of the Russian military operation in Ukraine.  These were planned for this afternoon, but were trumped by a newly scheduled televised speech of the Indian premier.  I expect to hear from them again next week and if they proceed I will post the results for comparison and contrast with the Republic TV show which is available in full (my ‘speech’ starts from minute 22) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI1HOlVLQEk&t=1268s  and in a two minute excerpt showing only my rebuke at https://scroll.in/video/1018531/your-programme-is-against-the-interests-of-your-own-country-tv-show-panelist-to-arnab-goswami

Yesterday, I found that the second largest contingent of viewers of my website after the USA now comes from India. At the same time, my Linked-In account shows Delhi, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Mumbai and a couple of other Indian cities as home to the greatest number of visitors to my latest articles reposted there, pushing Brussels, London, Paris down the list. 

I heartily welcome the new readership, some of whom have sent in requests to join my Linked-In network. It is very heartening to see that the vicious anti-Russian propaganda now disseminated daily by Western governments and amplified by Western media is not swallowed whole in the broader world and that free thinkers still exist.

                                                                              ****

As a separate issue, I use this communication to share the link to a 2 March discussion program hosted by Iran’s Press TV:  “Press TV Spotlight:  Russian-Ukrainian Conflict” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM5w0ZVsnDo

The program runs for 25 minutes.  For those with less time to spare, I can suggest the following 2 minute excerpt that was separately posted:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dng-TBhHpxQ

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2022

U.S. has its knee to the neck of Europe in the form of NATO: an interview 1 March with Radio Belarus

I offer visitors to my website the link to yesterday’s 20 minute video interview with the Belarus radio and television broadcaster.

This chat dealt with issues raised in my latest written report on Day Five of Russia’s Special Military Operation in Ukraine, but it went further to probe the reasons why America’s success in provoking Russia to engage in a war with Ukraine will likely not achieve its intended purpose of burying talk of a revised security architecture in Europe.  On the contrary, both sides, the U.S.-led West and Russia, are escalating their aggressiveness precisely because the struggle is, in the last analysis, about expanding and enhancing NATO or smashing it to pieces. Ukraine just happens to be the field of combat for this historic struggle that will shape the world order for decades to come.

The murder in the U.S. of George Floyd gave momentum to the Black Lives Matter movement and also provided an image that captured the imagination of the nation and the world:  the knee on the neck of a prone victim.  That image is entirely appropriate to describe the essential nature of the NATO alliance and of the European Union, which NATO has de facto taken hostage.  It is absolutely stunning to witness how in the days since Russia launched its ‘Special Military Operation’ in Ukraine the whole of Europe has snapped to attention and is doing its very best to implement the orders coming from Washington. 

Should the Russians succeed in their mission in Ukraine and continue on their way in the face of the ‘nuclear bomb’ economic sanctions that Washington and Brussels have directed at Moscow, the whole NATO alliance will appear to be a sham, and the security umbrella of Washington will be blown inside out by gale force winds.

I call attention to the fact that until now the Russians have not responded to the latest waves of sanctions apart from their closing their air space to all nations that have shut out Russian airlines, meaning the entire EU.  However, the freezing of Bank of Russia assets in the West remains without a response, as does the partial exclusion from SWIFT. This is not for lack of options on the Russian side to inflict extreme pain on the West.  The confiscation of all Western corporate assets in Russia would largely balance the frozen Russian assets in the West.  The shut-off of gas and oil supplies, of uranium for French and other European power plants, and of still other essential raw materials that are largely or even exclusively sourced in Russia would be very damaging to the European economies.  None of this has been done because the Russians expect to finish up their business in Ukraine rather soon, and then to negotiate a gradual return to normality with the West.

Fortunately such colossal confrontations as we are now witnessing come along once in several generations. Let us hope that this one will end sooner rather than later, and will see us all through safe and sound to a new world order that is better balanced and just than the one that we have known till now.

                                                            *****

These are busy days for Russia specialists, I am sad to say.  My ongoing vacation in the Lisbon area has not provided the rest and battery recharge it was supposed to do because of a flow of demands from broadcasters and others to grant extensive interviews or to participate in panel discussions of the Ukraine-Russia crisis. 

In this connection, I close this note with mention of the podcast chat with me that Tom Woods released on the internet a day ago:  https://tomwoods.com/ep-2074-russia-ukraine-and-nato/

The podcast is well over an hour long, which made it possible to go into the history of the present conflict in and over Ukraine in some depth.  I hope listeners will find it especially informative.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2022

Day Five of Russia’s ‘Special Military Operation’ in Ukraine

I am not a military expert and will not comment daily on the action on the ground during this military operation. However, the analytic possibilities of even military professionals are severely limited due to the intentional withholding of information by the Russian side as regards all activities outside the Donbas area, which they cover extensively in minute detail for reasons I will set out below.  As regards the “news” released by the Ukrainian authorities, its propagandistic nature is evident both in inflated and fake reports and videos of Russia-caused devastation and death and in reports on the extraordinary bravery and successes of their own forces.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, some things begin to become clear about this operation at the strategic as well as tactical levels.

Firstly, what we received from the Russian side at the outset was only their war objectives and their conception of the path to victory.  The objectives were two:

  1. to denazify Ukraine by killing in battle or arresting and sending onward to trials those radical nationalist elements who were behind the coup d’état of February 2014 and worked hand in glove with the Americans to establish a viciously anti-Russian government that has oppressed Russian speakers throughout Ukraine and waged an incessant war on the breakaway republics of the Donbas
  2. to demilitarize Ukraine and establish its future development as a neutral country that does not participate in any alliances

To this, in recent days the Kremlin has added a third objective:  Ukrainian formal recognition of the loss of Crimea and of its incorporation into the Russian Federation.

Secondly, at the strategic level, the Russians from the beginning said they planned to separate the professional Ukrainian army from the radical nationalist battalions who were the main aggressors in the conflict at the line of demarcation between the breakaway Donbas republics and Ukraine proper, and who have been the ‘force behind the throne’ in Kiev ever since 2014 as presidents of Ukraine come and go. Indeed, the Kremlin’s stated ambition was to do a deal with the senior command of the Ukrainian army establishing a period of martial law during which the denazification could proceed.

The opening days of this military campaign have put in serious doubt the validity of the assumptions underlying that strategy. It is now becoming fairly obvious that the past 8 years of military reorganization in Ukraine under the tutorship of the USA and other NATO powers has established discipline within the armed forces, while the political indoctrination from radical nationalists embedded within the military ensures that defection, raising the white flag is not easy any more.

By bringing up reinforcements to the initial 80,000 troops that Russia committed to operations within Ukraine, the Kremlin has indicated that it is about to change its game. Today, we understand that the ‘cauldron’ has been closed around Mariupol, the port and Ukrainian naval base on the Azov Sea, which has a substantial radical nationalist force defending it, the infamous Azov Battalion, in the environs. We will see in the coming days how the Russian command deals with these worst of the Ukrainian elements and whether ordinary Ukrainian army forces in their midst are treated any differently. How this plays out will indicate the further conduct of the Russian troops throughout Ukraine.

Thirdly, I wish to share an observation that bears on my previous description of what I called “the Russian Way of War.”  There is a very specific consideration in how the Russians have prosecuted the incursion, invasion, however you wish to call their operation, in Ukraine.  That consideration arises from the special relationship of the two peoples, Ukrainian and Russian.  In a way, the present conflict is fratricidal, or a form of civil war.  Ukrainians and Russians are very extensively intermarried.  A great number of Russians have relatives in Ukraine and vice versa.  Moreover, during the past eight years there have been several million Ukrainians who fled their country not to the West but to the East and have settled either temporarily or permanently in the Russian Federation.  This being the case, the Kremlin wanted to avoid any brutal assault on Ukraine that would generate enormous casualties, both of combatants and of civilians.  Such an eventuality, much more than the plight of aggrieved oligarchs caught in the sights of Western sanctions, could pose a threat to the stability of the Russian government.

Fourthly, and in conclusion, I call attention to the fact that nearly all Russian news coverage of the opening days of the campaign in Ukraine has focused on the combat being waged by the military forces of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republic with only minor support from the Russian Federation.  This is a key point both for the population of those republics and for the Russian ‘mainland’ in the RF. These republics must win their own territory back by their efforts, not be handed it on a silver platter by RF forces.  The net result of this approach will be to reinforce the sovereignty and national pride within these republics and obviate the need to annex them to Russia, which Moscow plainly does not want to do.

Instead, the independent, Russia friendly Donbas republics are a model for what may be the division of Ukraine into several different states, among which the westernmost based in Lviv will be the homeland of the dyed-in-the-wool radical nationalists. It will be land-locked and sufficiently far from Russian borders not to pose a greater threat to Russia when it joins NATO and the EU than do Slovakia or Poland. In the middle of what is today still Ukraine the Russians may oversee the formation of a country with its capital in Kiev and with genuinely mixed ethnic Russian and ethnic Ukrainian populations that is tolerant of minorities and freed of all radical nationalists and neo-Nazis.  I am not saying that this endgame solution is already set, but it does exist as a possible denouement.

Time will tell.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2022

Five Minutes Interview on RT International, Moscow, 27.02.22

Yesterday RT International was licking its wounds over the forced closure of its operations in the European Union by order of the EU Institutions in Brussels. Here is yet another pitiful demonstration of the false claims to Western values of tolerance and respectful debate with those holding different points of view that the herd of ignoramuses and cowards running Europe today perpetrate day by day. Like their darling of the moment, the Kiev regime run by book burners and radical ideologues, the gang headed by von der Leyen and Michel daily abuse the trust of the European peoples and take away value from the institutions they head. By their grandstanding, they also dilute the authority of the only person who can, if he wishes, speak for his country and for NATO in a direct negotiation with the President of Russia. It is the Babel now going on which works against the kind of settlement reached in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a crisis that was resolved one on one between John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev while the rest of the world just held its breath.

In this context, RT International in Moscow invited me to speak on air yesterday. They kindly allowed me swiftly to move on from their own problems to the greater problems we all now face as both nuclear superpowers have put their arsenals on full alert.  Regrettably, willy-nilly we are all hostages of the ill-advised refusal of Mr. Joe Biden and his advisers to reach out to Moscow and together agree on readily available compromises that will snuff out the present conflict over Ukraine and over the architecture of European security architecture.

The main thrust of my brief remarks was to direct attention to the history of the Pearl Harbor attack by Imperial Japan:  it was a unforgettable lesson on how economic warfare converts to kinetic warfare when the pressure exerted on your adversary crosses a certain red line.  It is a pity that the leadership in the USA has either forgotten or never learned this lesson.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2022

Interview on ‘Trish Wood is Critical’ podcast

I am pleased to offer followers of this website links to the lengthy interview which Canadian journalist Trish Wood taped with me on Friday, 25 February and released on the internet yesterday.

The program opened with an excellent introduction to the subject of the Russia-Russia-Russia problem in America, namely segments from the 2019 presentation of his then newly published book War With Russia?  by professor Stephen Cohen.  As you may be aware, I was a colleague of Steve’s in the fight for sane relations with Russia and I greatly valued his friendship up to his untimely death a little more than a year ago.

Trish Wood also put in the introductory segment of the podcast some wise words by the widely known commentator on US-Russian relations, Vladimir Pozner, taken from an address he made in 2018 at Yale University. He spoke about the danger presented by general indifference both in the USA and in Russia to the risks of nuclear war. This indifference is in stark contrast to the mortal fear of such a war among the broad populations of both countries back in the midst of the original Cold War from the 1960s till the 1980s

Regrettably the last point is all too relevant to where we sit today, on Sunday 27 February, when both Russia and the United States have put their strategic nuclear arsenals on full combat alert.

Yesterday, in answer to a journalist’s question why the United States is just imposing economic sanctions on Russia as its response to the ongoing Russian intervention in Ukraine, President Joe Biden said that “the alternative would be World War III.”  This sounds sage, but anyone with some knowledge of history will wonder how the President and his advisers have forgotten or never learned the lessons of Pearl Harbor.  The fact known to every fair minded historian of that subject is that the attack on Pearl Harbor was precipitated precisely by very harsh sanctions on Imperial Japan which jeopardized its access to hydrocarbons and so imperiled their economy. At a certain point economic warfare leads to kinetic warfare.  In our relations with Russia today, it appears that we are crossing that tipping point.

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/gilbert-doctorow-inside-russia/id1513237951?i=1000552280022

https://directory.libsyn.com/episode/index/show/twcritical/id/22262462

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2022

The Russian Way of War

What I am about to say should be self-evident to anyone following closely the move of Russian forces into Ukraine and having a recollection of what the same Russian general command did in Crimea and then did again in their Syrian campaign.  Regrettably, Western audiences do not find these observations on CNN, the BBC, The Financial Times and The New York Times, not to mention on the still less reputable television channels and print media that provide 99% of the (mis)information which the public receives daily on the Ukrainian conflict and on much else. Their producers and editorial boards, their journalist staff all are looking at one another or just contemplating their belly buttons. They have for some years now been living in a virtual world and paying little heed to the real world.  I can only be surprised that an astute observer of commercial opportunities like Zuckerberg took so long to launch Meta.

I have three points to make today about how the Russians are conducting their military campaign in Ukraine.

The first point is a generalization from the remarks I made yesterday about their humane treatment of the enemy’s servicemen. This approach to the military tasks results from awareness that the military is a handmaiden to diplomacy and to politics, not vice versa, as has been the case in each of the major wars that the United States fought and ultimately lost in the past thirty years. That is why the Russians are not practicing “shock and awe,” which is the American way of war.

The second point closely abuts the first.  The ascent of Russia’s military capability in the past decade was defined not by their celebrated cutting edge hypersonic missile technology or the deep sea nuclear drone Poseidon..  After all, in the final analysis once parity is established in means of nuclear deterrence, the weapons become useless in the garden variety conflicts that we see everywhere and in every age.  Ultimately what counts to project power at the regional level, which is where Russia positions itself, is conventional weapons which can be and are used in attempts to resolve intractable conflicts by force of arms. This is precisely where the Russians amazingly caught up with the United States, bypassing, incidentally, all of the weapons industry of Western Europe in quality and quantity. 

So the Russians have their ‘toys for the boys,’ which they designed, manufactured and implemented in their ground, air and sea forces. They did all this at bargain basement prices. But they use them sparingly and demonstratively rather than as blunt instruments of mass destruction. This is a cardinal difference from the American way of war.

The third point is that there is continuity in Russian military behavior which makes it predictable.  In the takeover of Crimea, the game-changer favoring the Russian PsyOps was their ability to disrupt entirely the military communications of the Ukrainian enemy, so that field units lost touch with their commanders and were exposed on the spot to calls for surrender and desertion, to which the vast demoralized and confused majority acceded at once.  There is evidence that the same technique is being practiced today by Russia in Ukraine

Yesterday anyone watching Euronews on one screen and Russian state television on another would have been perplexed by the totally contradictory coverage of both with respect to the fate of the armed detachment of Ukrainian border guards on one island in the southeast of Ukraine.  Euronews carried the address of President Zelensky awarding posthumous designation as Heroes of Ukraine to the entire detachment, which reportedly resisted the attacking Russian forces and were slaughtered.  Meanwhile Russian news showed those same border guards seated at tables and signing sworn statements that they voluntarily lay down their arms and awaited repatriation to their homes and families.

Was Zelensky engaging in brazen propaganda?  No, he was simply misinformed because the detachment had been wholly cut off from its superior officers in Kiev and they feared for the worst.  This is what the Russians practiced so successfully in their Crimean campaign in 2014.

Finally, I wish to share one more defining pattern of Russian military behavior today that carries over from their operations in their Syrian campaign to destroy the US-backed terrorist groups in that country. In Syria, the Russian army established special units to sort out in field conditions the bad terrorists from the very bad terrorists. The former were allowed to lay down their arms and go home to their families. The latter were fought to the death and “neutralized.”

This slow, painstaking effort to distinguish enemies who can be brought back into civil society from those who cannot is unique to the Russian way of war today, and it deserves much more attention than it receives in our media. It is surely enabled by advanced psychological training of officers in charge. And it is an entirely different mindset from the “counterinsurgency” techniques that David Petraeus popularized and rode to fame and advancement in the Iraq War.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2022

Day Two of the Russian ‘Military Operation’ in Ukraine

This afternoon, President Putin was back on state television, which showed a 2minute 30 second video clip of his summary report to members of Russia’s Security Council on the course of the ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine that is now proceeding.

The following is my translation of his little speech as broadcast on http://www.smotrim.ru:

“The main fighting is not with the Ukrainian regular army but with the nationalist formations [Azov and other special battalions] who, as is well known, bear direct responsibility for the genocide in Donbas and for spilled blood of innocent civilians of the People’s Republics.  In addition, nationalist elements integrated into the regular Army units, incite them to resist… Moreover according to the information we possess, the Banderovtsy [WWII Ukrainian Nazi collaborator, hero of the present day radical nationalists] are placing heavy artillery, including volley fire systems, in downtown areas of major cities including Kharkov and Kiev. They are planning to attract return fire from Russian attack units straight into residential blocks.  Essentially they are operating just like terrorists around the world. They take cover among civilians in order to then level accusations against Russia for killings of innocent people.  It is well known that all of this is happening on the advice of foreign consultants, above all American advisers.

“Once again I appeal to the servicemen in the armed forces of Ukraine. Don’t allow the neo-Nazis and Banderovtsy to use your wives, children and old folks as human shields.  Take power into your own hands. It will be easier for us to come to terms with you than with the band of neo-Nazis and drug addicts [reference to Zelensky, a cocaine user] who settled in Kiev and have taken the whole Ukrainian people hostage.

“I also want to give the highest ratings to Russian soldiers and officers. They are acting bravely, professionally, heroically carrying out their warrior’s duties and successfully ensuring the security of our people and our Fatherland.”

It is difficult to follow the progress of the Russian military operation, because they are intentionally holding back information in keeping with the PsyOps nature of their modus operandi that aims to confuse and demoralize the enemy.  As Putin mentioned, the Russian forces are appealing directly to Ukrainian soldiers and officers to desert and go home.  There are indications that this is succeeding, as it certainly enabled the Donetsk and Lugansk home armies to make considerable advances towards retaking the larger territory of their original administrative units (oblasts) which they lost to the Ukrainian army back in 2014.

As I understood, casualties of the Russian incursion in Ukraine on Day One numbered 141 Ukrainian combatants, zero civilians.  If true, these numbers are miniscule compared to what the United States and Europeans were projecting from the beginning. Why is that so? There is a reason for everything.

I will use the interview with retired General David Petraeus on the BBC which I watched last night to explain.  Wearing a well tailored suit, he looked very much like a corporate Board member as he delivered his professional assessment of the Russian “invasion” of Ukraine at the end of Day One. He said he wasn’t impressed, that the Russians were advancing very slowly, presumably because they encountered unexpected resistance from Ukrainian forces. He added that their coordination of air and ground forces was poor compared to the American war-making machine. In conclusion, he observed that on Day One of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, in which he took part as commander of the 101st Airborne Division in the drive to Baghdad, they traveled much farther and faster than the Russians are doing now.

The smart looking BBC interviewer did not dig deeper.  Let’s do that now:  the U.S. onslaught on Baghdad was savage, causing perhaps hundreds of thousands of deaths.  Iraqi lives, civilian and combatant alike, counted for nothing.  By contrast, as I noted in my news analysis yesterday, the Russian armed forces have been given strict instructions by Putin, through Minister of Defense Shoigu, to treat the Ukrainian servicemen with respect and to allow all those who lay down their weapons to leave the field of battle and go home through a corridor that will be opened for them. In addition, the Russians have been instructed to stay clear of cities and to avoid shelling residential blocks, all with the aim of avoiding civilian casualties to the extent possible.  These various constraints of course slow down the progress of the Russian forces.

Let us assume that what the Russians are now saying about themselves has a grain of truth: namely that this show of humanity goes back to their traditional gallantry at war. In this regard, they cite Tolstoy’s War and Peace.  Unfortunately the reference is not entirely convincing, because in 1812 the Russian peasantry and other irregular bands of fighters had no qualms about murdering captured soldiers of the Grande Armée.   In my view, something else is operative and explains both the commands and the resulting miniscule casualty figures so far:  good political sense, the understanding that the Ukrainians, both civilians and men in arms, must not be unduly antagonized if there is going to be a durable settlement when the military victory comes. It does not serve Russian interests to stoke fires of revanchism.

During this day, Zelensky appealed to the Russian leadership to hold peace talks, and tentatively there was agreement for representatives of both countries to meet in Minsk.  Why Minsk?  Because the Ukrainian airports have been put out of action and the Kiev representatives can instead travel by car to Minsk without difficulty. However, in the end this initiative came to naught.  Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov explained that a meeting will be possible only after the current military operation achieves its objective of denazification. From Vladimir Putin’s speech today cited above, it is clear that the Kremlin has no interest in talking to the present Ukrainian ‘gang’ in power and is pursuing regime change as its end game.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2022

Unjustified and Unprovoked? Russia’s ongoing ‘military operation’ in Ukraine

In a speech to the nation yesterday, American president Joe Biden called the military operation which Russia launched against the Kiev regime late in the night Moscow time “unjustified and unprovoked.”  By doing so, by willfully ignoring the lengthy justifications and list of provocations that Vladimir Putin had set out in his address to his nation and the world two days earlier, President Biden fully justified Putin’s remarks in a televised speech just hours ago characterizing present-day America  as “the Empire of Lies.”  Finally, the Russians have found an appropriate and suitably evocative response to Ronald Reagan’s memorable characterization of the Soviet Union as an “Empire of Evil.”  This is a phrase that will ring around the world, first of all in Beijing.

In recent days, some of my peers have expressed the pious hope that Washington would find the political courage and rise to the occasion of the Russian demands from 15 December 2021 by agreeing to revise jointly the security architecture of Europe in a more equitable manner, thereby bringing Russia in from the cold.  They alluded to the wisdom and Realpolitik of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in their visit to Beijing fifty years ago, during which bitter enmity was set aside and the countries entered into a new relationship of live and let live.  However, the authors of these hopeful recommendations ignore the plain fact that Joe Biden and his closest advisers in the Executive branch of government are intellectual pygmies compared to their predecessors. As I remarked in an essay several weeks ago, the Biden administration is intellectually bankrupt, lost in Cold War mythology. They will eventually be brought to the negotiating table snarling and kicking when they are confronted with superior force that poses an existential threat to the American homeland.  There is every reason to believe that will happen in the coming months as the Russians move on with their multi-stage attack on the now fragile structure of US global hegemony.

Several readers of my analytical essay yesterday have commented this morning that I was wrong in my scenarios of an entirely peaceful application of psychological pressure by Putin. Indeed, I said yesterday that violence is not in his playbook.  I freely acknowledge that I misjudged, though in the opening paragraphs of yesterday’s essay I issued a disclaimer, saying that predictions in this matter are very risky. Let all know that I stand ready ‘to eat my hat’ and that I have a straw boater held in reserve for just this purpose.

Nonetheless, I insist that my overriding message yesterday, that the conflict with the United States and NATO would not end with recognition of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics, but that Russia would address the mortal dangers it sees in NATO expansion and in particular in the ongoing implantation of NATO military infrastructure in Ukraine irrespective of that country’s possible admittance into the Alliance.

This leads us to the question of why now?  Why has Vladimir Putin decided to accelerate the timetable for taking on the big issues and make the move that we see on our television screens this morning?  I will address that directly in the next section of this essay. After that I will comment briefly on the extraordinary speech that the Russian president delivered last night, one in which the reader wants to underline every second sentence.  I have selected some of the more memorable lines in this speech which I offer here to allow the reader to savor the turns of speech and thought processes of the Russian leader without mediation.

 In the concluding section today, I will consider what implications there are for Russia’s other neighbors arising from Russia’s  planned clean-up of Nazism and radical nationalism in Ukraine today.

                                                                          *****

Why the change of course from Monday?  Steely nerved opportunity and risk calculations are behind the Kremlin’s decision-making in this whole adventure. 

People have recalled the disastrous American withdrawal from Afghanistan last August as a contributor to Russian decision-making. Yes, to a limited extent this helped set the timing for Russia’s push to settle the Ukraine challenge from the very start. It demonstrated the Biden administration’s amateurism, plain incompetence and cowardice.

The Kremlin applied pressure on Washington by the build-up of its forces on the Ukrainian borders in November and in December we heard the American president say that the country will not send a single soldier to defend Ukraine in any armed conflict with Russia.  This statement alone surely was among the considerations in the calculation of Risk and Opportunity that went on for weeks in the run-up to yesterday’s decision to solve the Ukraine problem by military force now. The impression of an irresolute and cowardly America was heightened by Joe Biden’s call for Americans to leave Ukraine in advance of a possible invasion and by his moving, then closing the U.S. diplomatic missions in Ukraine, all of which added to the economic and political disorganization in the country.

But there is much more.

The USA and NATO have continued to double down in the past couple of weeks precisely to spite Russian demands for a roll back in Eastern Europe. We may have no doubt this was a factor. I have in mind the incremental increase of US and NATO staff and offensive weapons in Poland and the Baltic States. This could no longer be ignored.  And then there was the demonstrative, unprecedented airlift of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of munitions and advanced lethal weapons systems to Kiev. That all of this was cosmetic, unlikely to change in any way the outcome of a Russia-Ukraine war is obvious. It was playing to the home audience in the USA, and was nothing more than an electoral stratagem as the country enters the campaign for midterm elections. In this regard, it was as domestic focused as opposed to pragmatic and effective in managing relations with Russia as Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Moscow to ‘mediate’ the crisis for the sake of his image back home in France ahead of the soon to be held presidential elections there.  Finally, the charade of domestic policies in the West that take no account of the real world impact abroad is exacting a price on its practitioners, starting with Biden.

Still another factor must have been the Ukrainian President’s revealing in Munich last week his country’s plans to become a nuclear power and their possible withdrawal from the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 that had denuclearized the country in exchange for security guarantees. This prospect was already outside and beyond the authority of NATO and could he resolved only by direct intervention of Moscow to “demilitarize” Ukraine here and now. Moreover, we can be certain the Kremlin understood perfectly well that Zelensky’s initiative on the nuclear issue was viewed behind the scenes in Europe, and particularly in Poland, with something like horror.  Thus, in diplomacy Russia would have a strong Soft Power argument for its military intervention with countries that will never publicly admit their fear and repugnance at the ambitions of the madmen now running Ukraine.

One might argue that all of the foregoing factors were present already on Monday, 21 February when Putin spoke to the nation and gave no indication that military action might be forthcoming. So what is new?

The immediate trigger to this decision was yesterday’s appeal for military assistance coming from the two republics which claimed that the Ukrainian forces were advancing on their territory.  Cause or pretext for the Russian ‘military operation’ today?  We cannot say now, though in the days to come there may be proof from OSCE observers.

Then there are a couple of other very relevant developments since Monday. I have in mind the sanctions which the West has imposed on Russia following its recognition of the Donbas republics but before a single Russian soldier crossed the border.  In effect, these were the kind of ‘preventive sanctions’ before the fact of some violation that Zelensky had been calling for.  It was, of course, contradicting common sense to think that when you have been sanctioned and have nothing to lose you will not proceed to do exactly the opposite of what is expected of you.  Among the most offensive and potentially painful sanctions were those imposed by the German chancellor, who ordered the ‘suspension of the certification’ of the Nord Stream II pipeline, a move equivalent to cancellation.

If you are going to pay the price, why not take the prize?  This reasoning had to play a role in Putin’s latest move.  Moreover, it was supported by the bitter disappointment the Russians have with the German leader overall.  Olaf Scholz’s remark at his joint press conference with Putin in Moscow last week that it was ‘laughable’ to speak of the Ukrainian authorities’ policies towards the Donbas as ‘genocide’ was deeply offensive to Vladimir Putin and to the Russian political class.  It was intended to remove all basis for comparing Russia’s recognition of the Donbas republics with NATO’s recognition of an independent Kosovo in 1999.  And lest no one think that Scholz’s remark was a slip of the tongue, he repeated it in the open session of the Munich Security Conference last week.  From intercessor for Russia within the EU, which role it had played in the Merkel years, Germany now showed itself to be a willing tool of U.S. policies of confrontation and domination with respect to Russia.  The Germans will pay dearly for the unprofessional and ill-considered policies of their new coalition government.

Against this background, the call of Donetsk head of government Denis Pushilin for immediate Russian military help to fend off attack fell on fertile ground.  Moreover, by having kept his military forces in holding pattern off the Black Sea coast of Ukraine and at the Belarus-Ukraine and Russia-Ukraine borders, President Putin had at his disposal all necessary means to act swiftly and decisively.  Attacking by night, as he did, restored a certain element of surprise to the operation and reduced to a minimum likely collateral damage to civilians.

                             Russia’s objectives in the ongoing military campaign

There is no room for uncertainty over Russian plans.  Vladimir Putin named the objectives of this ‘military operation’ as being to demilitarize and to denazify Ukraine.  A Russian military occupation of Ukraine is out of the question.  Ukrainian cities will not be touched, if Putin has his way. The intent is to oversee a regime change that removes the Maidan installed junta for which Zelensky is just the front man. Alwo to round up the neo-Nazi and radical nationalists who have perpetrated clearly identified crimes against humanity when they took power in February 2014 and consolidated power immediately thereafter.  Surely this includes the snipers and others who killed innocent demonstrators of the Maidan movement so as to put the blame on the Yanukovich government’s Berkut security forces and raise the Opposition‘s determination. More than 50 died in shootings that have since been well illuminated by the widely disseminated testimony of foreign mercenaries and others who took part. Surely another incident that will be pursued by Russia when it collects criminals for prosecution in Moscow will be those responsible for the outrageous murder of innocent protesters in Odessa soon after the coup. They were chased into the Labor Union building which was then set alight.  Anyone trying to escape was fired upon. The names of the perpetrators are mostly well known from private investigations that took place afterwards. None has ever faced any charges from authorities of the Kiev regime.  Now the day of reckoning will come.

It is in Russia’s interests to hold such trials in order to expose to the world the clearly documented facts of genocidal crimes against Russian speaking Ukrainian citizens by their own government and its irregular supporters including neo-Nazi elements.  All of this will lay to rest the empty and offensive remarks of Joe Biden that Russian action was unprovoked and unjustified.

It is noteworthy that in the speech last night Vladimir Putin issued strong warnings against those in the West who may entertain thoughts of intervening in one way or another in the Ukrainian theater against Russia.  The subtext is clearly Lithuania and Poland, where there have been official statements in recent weeks of willingness to assist resistance movements in Ukraine against any Russian imposed new order. The Russian response will be immediate and unlike anything the world has seen, per Putin.

Looking more generally at Vladimir Putin’s address to the nation last night, which came to 10 typed pages, somewhat less than half his address of Monday night, there is a change of tone, a still greater frankness over the misdeeds of the United States and its allies, a greater willingness to call a spade a spade. The “empire of lies” phrase is exemplary in this regard.

He takes to a new level of openness the explanation of how/why the United States was able to work its will in the 1990s and ignore Russian complaints over the trampling of its national interests.

Without further ado, I offer below some of the choice quotations in this speech:

“The answer is clear, everything is understandable and obvious. The Soviet Union at the end of the 1980s was weak, and then it collapsed. The whole train of events that occurred then provide a good lesson for us today. They convincingly showed that paralysis of the government, of its will is the first step to complete degradation and oblivion. We just had to lose our self-confidence for a certain time and everything – the whole balance of forces in the world was destroyed.

“This led to the situation where all former treaties, agreements de facto no longer operate. Requests and coaxing do not help. Everything that does not please the hegemon..is declared to be archaic, outdated, unnecessary. And vice versa: everything that seems advantageous to him is held up like the truth of final instance, is pushed through at any price, in a boorish manner, by all means. Those who don’t agree have their backs broken.”

Putin went on to say that this kind of treatment was meted out by the United States not just to Russia but concerns the entire system of international relations, including allies of the USA:

“After the collapse of the USSR de facto a repartition of the world began and the norms of international law which had accumulated till then – among which the key norms arose from the results of the Second World War and largely consolidated its results – began to get in the way of those who declared themselves to be the victors in the Cold War.”

“The euphoria from absolute superiority, a sort of contemporary form of absolutism, rose in the context of the low level of general culture and arrogance of those who prepared, undertook and promoted solutions that were advantageous only for themselves.’’

In the foregoing we see an unparalleled expression of the frustration and scorn that underlies Vladimir Putin’s present actions to overturn the U.S. led world order. Otherwise, he once again lists the misdeeds of the United States and its allies in their unsanctioned and disastrous military interventions in Yugoslavia, in Iraq, in Libya, in Afghanistan, from which he concludes:

“Generally the impression we get is that practically everywhere, in the many regions of the world where the West comes to establish its order, the results are bloody wounds that do not heal, ulcers of international terrorism and extremism. ..

“In this list, we find the promises made to our country not to expand NATO one inch to the East. I repeat, they deceived us, or to use a folk expression, they just screwed us. Yes, it is often said that politics is a dirty business. Maybe, but not so much as this. Such cheating behavior contradicts not only the principles of international relations but above all, it contradicts the generally recognized norms of morality and ethics. Where do we find justice and truth here? It is all one big lie and hypocrisy.

“And by the way, American politicians, political scientists and journalists write and talk about the fact that in recent years inside the USA a real ‘empire of lies’ has been created.  But there is no reason to go halfway: the USA is of course a great country, a power that shapes the world system. All its satellites not only dutifully and obediently sing along on any matter, but also copy its behavior and joyfully accept the rules proposed to them. Therefore there is full basis for saying confidently that the entire so-called Western bloc formed by the USA in its likeness is as a whole that “empire of lies.”

Putin freely acknowledges that the US-led West will apply against Russia its financial, technological and military possibilities.  He insists that he proceeds “without any illusions and with maximum realism.”

He can do so for the following clearly stated reasons:

“As regards the military sphere, present-day Russia even after the collapse of the USSR and loss of a significant part of its potential, is one of the most powerful nuclear powers of the world and, in addition, has certain advantages in a number of new forms of armaments. In this connection, no one should doubt that a direct attack on our country will lead to defeat and to horrible consequences for any potential aggressor.”

However, as he notes, technologies change in the defense sector and leadership swings back and forth over time.

“For this reason, military control over the territories bordering with us will be a matter of concern for decades going forward and will create for Russia a constantly growing, absolutely unacceptable threat. Already now, to the extent that NATO has moved to the East, the situation for our country with each passing year becomes worse and more dangerous.  In addition, in the last few days the leadership of NATO is talking directly about the need to hasten, to force the pace of movement of the Alliance infrastructure to the borders of Russia. In other words, they are tightening up their position. To continue and simply watch what is going on is no longer possible for us. It would be wholly irresponsible on our part…

“For the USA and its allies this so-called policy of containing Russia pays obvious geopolitical dividends. But for our country, it is finally a question of life or death, the question of our historic future as a people. And this is no exaggeration – it is actually so. This is a real threat not only to our interests but to the very existence of our state, to our sovereignty. This is the red line about which we spoke repeatedly. They have crossed it.”

As regards the Kiev regime:

“The entire course of developments and analysis of the incoming information show that a clash between Russia and these forces is inevitable. It is only a question of time: they are getting ready, they are waiting for a suitable moment. Now they are also claiming the right to own nuclear weapons. We will not allow them to do this.

“As I said before, after the collapse of the USSR Russia accepted the new geopolitical realities. We have behaved respectfully and will continue to be respectful to all the newly formed countries in post-Soviet space. We respect and will respect their sovereignty and an example for that is the help we extended to Kazakhstan, which experienced tragic events that challenged its statehood and integrity.  But Russia cannot feel secure, develop, exist under a constant threat coming from the territory of contemporary Ukraine….

“They left us with no other possibility than to defend /Russia, our people than what we are compelled to do today. The circumstances demand of us decisive and immediate actions. The Peoples Republics of the Donbas turned to Russia asking for help. In this connection…I have taken the decision to carry out a special military operation.

“Its objective is to defend people who in  the course of eight years have been subjected to mockery, to genocide from the Kiev regime. And for this purpose we will strive to demilitarize and de-Nazify Ukraine, as well as to turn over to courts those who committed numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including citizens of the Russian Federation.

“All the while we have no plans for an occupation of Ukrainian territories. We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force. ..

“At the basis of our policy is freedom, freedom of choice for everyone to independently determine their future and the future of their children. And we consider it to be important that this right, the right of free choice, may be exercised  by all peoples living on the territory of present-day Ukraine, by all who so wish.”

As regards the Ukrainian armed forces, Putin issued the following appeal:

“Respected comrades. Your fathers, grandfathers, great grandfathers did not fight against the Nazis and defend our common Motherland just to see today’s neo-Nazis seize power in Ukraine. You took an oath of loyalty to the Ukrainian people and not to a junta against the people which is robbing Ukraine and has only contempt for the people.

“Do not carry out criminal orders. I call upon you to immediately lay down your arms and to go home. Let me explain: all servicemen in the Ukrainian army who carry out this demand can freely leave the area of combat and go back to their families.”

As regards third party countries:

“Now several very important words for those who may be tempted to intervene in the events presently occurring. Whoever tries to hinder us, or still worse to create threats to our country, to our people, must know that Russia’s response will be immediate and will lead you to such consequences as you never experienced in your history. We are ready for any development of events. All necessary decisions in this regard have already been taken. I hope that I will be heard.”

                                                                 *****

                                     Implications for other states in the region

The United States and its NATO allies have responded in the past two weeks to the Russian preparations for what the Kremlin unleashed yesterday by sending reinforcements to NATO’s ‘front line states’, meaning the Baltics, Poland, Romania . This was done both as a show of force, a show of plumage, to impress the Russians, to impress the receiving countries with the strength of NATO commitment to article 5 and mutual defense, but mostly to silence domestic critics of the noninvolvement policy in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and America’s resort only to sanctions.

Is there in fact a Russian threat to the Baltics?

Prior to the recent NATO measures of posting additional troops there I would have said ‘no.’  In light of the stubborn resistance the United States is showing to deal with any of the key security issues in the Russian ultimatum of 15 December 2021 and its doubling down by raising the force level in these countries bordering Russia, that question has to be reviewed with greater attention to detail.

The basic issue of cultural genocide that Vladimir Putin raised in his discussion Monday evening of the Donbas crisis applies equally well to one of the Baltic states, Latvia, where the correlation of Russian speakers to Latvian speakers was from the time of the break-up of the USSR roughly the same as in Ukraine, 40% or more of the population.  I have written about Latvia as an apartheid state with reference to the blatantly discriminatory legislation which from soon after independence denied Russian speakers of their citizenship papers except for the trickle of applicants who mastered Latvian. Some 300,000 Latvian born and bred residents of the country were thus made stateless and deprived of many civil rights including professional advancement and the right to own property.  Meanwhile, as in Ukraine, the Latvian authorities looked the other way at the neo-Nazis in their midst who were allowed to hold annual marches in the capital and to venerate Nazi collaborators from the period of WWII in the same way as the Ukrainians do the Banderovtsy.

(See Chapter 22, “Latvia’s 300,000 Non-Citizens and the Ukrainian Crisis Today” and Chapter 33 “Latvia’s failed US-inspired policies towards Russia and Russians” in Gilbert Doctorow, Does Russia Have a Future?, 2015)

Russia took no action on these abuses, which violate all of the “European values” promoted by the European Union, not to mention universal human rights concepts. 

Will Russia remain indifferent to the fate of its ‘compatriots’ in Latvia going forward?  No one can say. However, if NATO continues on its present path of reinforcing troops and offensive weapons systems in Latvia and the other Baltic states, it is logical that Russia will respond, and it will not pussy-foot around in consideration of the Article 5 obligation of the United States to defend the country.

I point out that similar abuses of Russian speaking minorities are not significant causes of friction between Russia and Estonia or Lithuania. 

© Gilbert Doctorow, 2022