Ukraine

[Nicholas Carey]

[...continued]

And to date, Russia’s economy has weathered the sanctions, although growth rates are forecast to plunge this year. The real pinch from Western export controls will be felt in 2023, when Russia will lack the semiconductors and spare parts for its manufacturing sector, and its industrial plants will be forced to close. The country’s oil industry will especially struggle as it loses out on technology and software from the international oil industry.

Europe and the United States have imposed wide-ranging energy sanctions on Russia, with the European Union committed to phasing out oil imports from Russia by the end of 2022. But limiting gas imports is much more challenging, as a number of countries, including Germany, have few alternatives to replace Russian gas in the short term, and Putin has weaponized energy by severely reducing gas supplies to Europe. For 50 years, the Soviet Union and Russia cast themselves as reliable suppliers of natural gas to Western Europe in a relationship of mutual dependence: Europe needed gas, and Moscow needed gas revenues. But that calculation is gone. Putin believes that Russia can forgo these revenues because countries still buying Russian oil and gas are paying higher prices for it—higher prices that he helped provoke by cutting back on Russia’s exports to Europe. And even if Russia does eventually lose energy revenues, Putin appears willing to pay that price. What he ultimately cares about is undermining European support for Ukraine.

Russia’s economic and energy warfare extends to the weaponization of nuclear power. Russia took over the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine at the beginning of the war, after recklessly sending Russian soldiers into the highly radioactive “red zone” and forcing the Ukrainian staff at the plant to work under dangerous conditions. Then, it abandoned the plant after having exposed the soldiers to toxic radiation. Russia subsequently shelled and took over Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant, Europe’s largest, and turned it into a military base. By attacking the power plant and transforming it into a military garrison, Russia has created a safety crisis for the thousands of workers there. Putin’s broad-based campaign does not stop at nuclear energy.

Russia has also weaponized food supplies, blockading Ukraine and preventing it from exporting its abundant grain and fertilizer stocks. In July 2022, Turkey and the United Nations brokered an agreement to allow Ukraine and Russia to export grain and fertilizer, but the implementation of this deal faced multiple obstacles, given the war raging in the Black Sea area. Indeed, immediately after the official signing of the agreement, Russia shelled some of the infrastructure at Ukraine’s critical Odessa port.

Putin has fallen back on another historic Russian military tactic—bogging down opposing forces and waiting for winter. Much as his predecessors arranged for Napoleon’s armies to be trapped in the snows near Moscow and for Nazi soldiers to freeze to death outside Stalingrad, Putin plans to have French and German citizens shivering in their homes. In his speech at the June 2022 St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Putin predicted that, as Europeans face a cold winter and suffer the economic consequences of the sanctions their governments have imposed on Russia and on Russian gas exports, populist parties will rise, and new elites will come to power. The June 2022 parliamentary elections in France, when Marine Le Pen’s extreme-right party increased its seats elevenfold—largely because of voters’ unhappiness with their economic situation—reinforced Putin’s convictions. The collapse of Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi’s government in July 2022 and the possible return of a populist, pro-Russian prime minister in the fall were also considered results of popular economic discontent. The Kremlin aims to fracture Western unity against Russia under the pressure of energy shortages, high prices, and economic hardship.

In the meantime, Putin is confident that he can prevail. On the surface, popular support for the war inside Russia seems reasonably robust. Polling by the independent Levada Center shows that Putin’s approval rating went up after the invasion began. Nonetheless, there is good reason for skepticism about the depth of active support for him. Hundreds of thousands of people who oppose the war have left the country. Many of them, in doing so, have explicitly said that they want to be part of Russia’s future but not Vladimir Putin’s version of the past. Russians who have stayed and publicly criticized the war have been harassed or imprisoned. Others are indifferent, or they passively support the war. Indeed, life for most people in Moscow and other big Russian cities goes on as normal. So far, the conscripts who have been sent to fight and die are not the children of Russia’s elites or urban middle class. They are from poor, rural areas, and many of them are not ethnically Russian. Rumors after five months of combat that the Moscow-linked Wagner mercenary group was recruiting prisoners to fight suggested that Russia faced an acute manpower shortage. But the troops are urged on by propaganda that dehumanizes the Ukrainians and makes the fighting seem more palatable.

DIVIDE AND CONQUER

Despite calls by some for a negotiated settlement that would involve Ukrainian territorial concessions, Putin seems uninterested in a compromise that would leave Ukraine as a sovereign, independent state—whatever its borders. According to multiple former senior U.S. officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries. But as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated in a July interview with his country’s state media, this compromise is no longer an option. Even giving Russia all of the Donbas is not enough. “Now the geography is different,” Lavrov asserted, in describing Russia’s short-term military aims. “It’s also Kherson and the Zaporizhzhya regions and a number of other territories.” The goal is not negotiation, but Ukrainian capitulation.

At any point, negotiations with Russia—if not handled carefully and with continued strong Western support for Ukraine’s defense and security—would merely facilitate an operational pause for Moscow. After a time, Russia would continue to try to undermine the Ukrainian government. Moscow would likely first attempt to take Odessa and other Black Sea ports with the goal of leaving Ukraine an economically inviable, landlocked country. If he succeeds in that, Putin would launch a renewed assault on Kyiv as well, with the aim of unseating the present government and installing a pro-Moscow puppet government. Putin’s war in Ukraine, then, will likely grind on for a long time. The main challenge for the West will be maintaining resolve and unity, as well as expanding international support for Ukraine and preventing sanctions evasion.

This will not be easy. The longer the war lasts, the greater the impact domestic politics will have on its course. Russia, Ukraine, and the United States will all have presidential elections in 2024. Russia’s and Ukraine’s are usually slated for March. Russia’s outcome is foreordained: either Putin will return to power, or he will be followed by a successor, likely from the security services, who supports the war and is hostile to the West. Zelensky remains popular in Ukraine as a wartime president, but he will be less likely to win an election if he makes territorial concessions. And if Donald Trump or a Republican with views like his becomes president of the United States in 2025, U.S. support for Ukraine will erode.

Domestic politics will also play a role outside these three countries—and, in fact, outside the West altogether. The United States and its allies may want to isolate Russia, but a large number of states in the global South, led by China, regard the Russia-Ukraine war as a localized European conflict that does not affect them. China has even backed Russia rhetorically, refused to impose sanctions, and supported it in the United Nations. (One should not underestimate the durability and significance of Russia’s alignment with China.) Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar summarized the attitude of many developing states when he said that Russia is a “very important partner in a number of areas.” For much of the global South, concerns focus on fuel, food, fertilizer, and also arms. These countries are apparently not concerned that Russia has violated the UN Charter and international law by unleashing an unprovoked attack on a neighbor’s territory.

[more...]

[Nicholas Carey]

[...continued]

DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR

Putin’s manipulations of history suggest that his claims go beyond Ukraine, into Europe and Eurasia. The Baltic states might be on his colonial agenda, as well as Poland, part of which was ruled by Russia from 1772 to 1918. Much of present-day Moldova was part of the Russian empire, and Russian officials have suggested that this state could be next in their sights. Finland was also part of the Russian empire between 1809 and 1918. Putin may not be able to conquer these countries, but his extravagant remarks about taking back Russia’s colonies are designed to intimidate his neighbors and throw them off balance. In Putin’s ideal world, he will gain leverage and control over their politics by threatening them until they let Russia dictate their foreign and domestic policies.

In Putin’s vision, the global South would, at a minimum, remain neutral in Russia’s standoff with the West. Developing nations would actively support Moscow. With the BRICS organization—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—set to expand to include Argentina, Iran, and possibly Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, Russia may acquire even more partners, ones that together represent a significant percentage of global GDP and a large percentage of the world’s population. Russia would then emerge as a leader of the developing world, as was the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

All this underlines why it is imperative that the West (Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, the United States, and Europe) redouble its efforts to remain united in supporting Ukraine and countering Russia. In the near term, that means working together to push back against Russian disinformation about the war and false historical narratives, as well as the Kremlin’s other efforts to intimidate Europe—including through deliberate nuclear saber-rattling and energy cutoffs. In the medium to long term, the United States, its allies, and its partners should discuss how to restructure the international and European security architecture to prevent Russia from attacking other neighbors that it deems within its sphere. But for now, NATO is the only institution that can guarantee Europe’s security. Indeed, Finland’s and Sweden’s decision to join was in part motivated by that realization.

As he looks toward a quarter century in power, Putin seeks to build his version of a Russian empire. He is “gathering in the lands” as did his personal icons—the great Russian tsars—and overturning the legacy of Lenin, the Bolsheviks, and the post–Cold War settlement. In this way, Putin wants Russia to be the one exception to the inexorable rise and fall of imperial states. In the twentieth century, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire collapsed after World War I. Britain and France reluctantly gave up their empires after World War II. But Putin is insistent on bringing tsarist Russia back. Regardless of whether he prevails in Ukraine, Putin’s mission is already having a clear and ironic impact, both on Europe and on Russia’s 22 years of economic advancement. In reasserting Russia’s imperial position by seeking to reconquer Ukraine, Putin is reversing one of the greatest achievements of his professed greatest hero. During his reign, Peter the Great opened a window to the West by traveling to Europe, inviting Europeans to come to Russia and help develop its economy, and adopting and adapting European artisans’ skills. Vladimir Putin’s invasions and territorial expansions have slammed that window shut. They have sent Europeans and their companies back home and pushed a generation of talented Russians fleeing into exile. Peter took Russia into the future. Putin is pushing it back to the past.

[Fin.]

[Nicholas Carey]

Sandtown's claim that Ukraine and Russia had tentatively reached a peace agreement is based on the above article, with the "claim" taken out of context. Here it is in context:

DIVIDE AND CONQUER

Despite calls by some for a negotiated settlement that would involve Ukrainian territorial concessions, Putin seems uninterested in a compromise that would leave Ukraine as a sovereign, independent state—whatever its borders. According to multiple former senior U.S. officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries. But as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated in a July interview with his country’s state media, this compromise is no longer an option. Even giving Russia all of the Donbas is not enough. “Now the geography is different,” Lavrov asserted, in describing Russia’s short-term military aims. “It’s also Kherson and the Zaporizhzhya regions and a number of other territories.” The goal is not negotiation, but Ukrainian capitulation.

At any point, negotiations with Russia—if not handled carefully and with continued strong Western support for Ukraine’s defense and security—would merely facilitate an operational pause for Moscow. After a time, Russia would continue to try to undermine the Ukrainian government. Moscow would likely first attempt to take Odessa and other Black Sea ports with the goal of leaving Ukraine an economically inviable, landlocked country. If he succeeds in that, Putin would launch a renewed assault on Kyiv as well, with the aim of unseating the present government and installing a pro-Moscow puppet government. Putin’s war in Ukraine, then, will likely grind on for a long time. The main challenge for the West will be maintaining resolve and unity, as well as expanding international support for Ukraine and preventing sanctions evasion.

And the claim that Johnson somehow spiked that agreement is likewise nonsense.

[Nicholas Carey]

While falling down this Russia/Ukraine rabbit hole this morning, this interview from the Brookings Institution, Putn's War: A Conversation with Fiona Hill and Angela Stent is interesting. Nearly an hour in length, though, but they've also got the transcript:



https://www.brookings.edu/essay/puti...-angela-stent/



And this paper from The Journal of Applied History, "Not One Inch, Unless It Is from Lisbon to Vladivostok: NATO-Russia Mythmaking and a Reimagined Kyivan Rus" may be of help to people like Sandtown. Full text at https://brill.com/view/journals/joah...l%20html-copy1

Abstract



A careful evaluation of recent history illustrates that the claim that US and NATO expansion threatens Moscow’s existence is an exaggeration. That Russia would inflate fears of NATO to pursue its global aspirations is understandable. What is less comprehensible is the degree to which influential Western thinkers, particularly on the anti-imperial US left, have promoted this narrative. This paper will examine the work of prominent US anti-imperial leftists who view the Russo-Ukrainian war through a US-centric lens, a conceptual framework that distorts the historical record. It will first document how these commentators’ explanatory models give outsized attention to US maneuvers, while neglecting regional fault lines, Russian irredentism and historical nuance. Consequently, many US anti-imperial leftists conclude that the US/NATO alliance is to blame for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This paper will explore Russia-NATO interactions and Moscow’s imperial discourse to demonstrate that the blame NATO stance obfuscates the historical record.



1. Introduction



“I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO,” Vladimir Putin announced in 2002. “The decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners,” the Russian president insisted.1 This comment is not an aberration. In fact, a careful examination of recent history reveals that the NATO “threat” to Russia has been exaggerated. That Russia would inflate fears of NATO to pursue its global aspirations is understandable. What is less comprehensible is the degree to which influential Western thinkers, particularly on the anti-imperial US left, have promoted this narrative. The purpose of this paper is twofold.



It first documents how many prominent Western leftists are ironically boosting Putin’s expansionist ambitions.2 The Left, of course, is an ambiguous, contested term that defies precise classification. Walzer attempts to delineate a “left foreign policy” as including those who are anti-militarist, consider domestic concerns (equality at home) over global affairs; and view US foreign policy primarily as an instrument to enforce an exploitative neoliberal order.3 This paper foregrounds this “left.”



It first illustrates how US-centric tools obscure global conflict through what critical geopolitics’ practitioners call “thin geopolitics”, a framing that “thinks in universal abstractions and operates with only the most superficial regional geographical understanding.”4 Both US policymakers and radical leftists frequently employ thin geopolitics. For US policy makers this translates into the tendency to present conflicts to the public as a battle of good against evil, or a benevolent superpower protecting against anti-democratic forces. Radical left analysts similarly center US behavior, but as a destabilizing force. The Ukraine conflict, then, serves as a case study of critical geopolitics insofar as significant segments of the US left rely on what Toal calls a “thin geopolitics” that overemphasizes American motives at the expense of investigating the nuanced, regional geopolitical dimensions.5



Another reason to foreground the anti-imperial left concerns Hill’s and Stent’s observation that Russia has initiated an information war, fostering a battle over who “owns history.”6 Manipulative disinformation is distributed throughout global media outlets to exacerbate existing societal divisions as part of Moscow’s hybrid war tactics. A Harvard University study finds that the radical left (and right) are especially susceptible to this disinformation.7 We should not overestimate this influence or its impact, yet should not ignore it either. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, likewise complains that Russia controls the “information space,” particularly with respect to peace negotiations. Hill and Stent explain that maintaining Western “resolve” will be difficult as the war drags on.8 Domestic politics deserve consideration, they suggest, as the 2024 presidential elections are on the horizon in both the US and Ukraine. In the US, an increasingly splintered society coupled with an overall decline in confidence in American institutions makes it vulnerable to disinformation and division.9 A possible resurgence of Trumpism, a mood of “America first”, will likely erode US support for Ukraine’s military effort. That the US radical left adopts a foreign policy analysis that intersects with conservative isolationism (and at least some of Kremlin disinformation) presents a potential domestic backlash in terms of Ukraine policy.



This potential is understudied in part because many scholars dismiss the anti-imperial left as marginal. These marginal voices, however, during the Vietnam and Iraq wars gradually become more accepted in the mainstream.10 The analytical tools that drove anti-imperial analysis of those conflicts centered on the problem of imposing a Western order on those who viewed outside interference as a threat to its sovereignty. That model is unreliable in the Ukraine case because its US-centric gaze loses sight of the fact that Russia is the foreign force imposing its will on Ukraine, and one that threatens its sovereignty. The left’s anti-imperial analytical tools could prove useful if applied to Russian imperialism. Consider that Ukrainian historian Taras Bilous, a self-described socialist, who reports the US left has largely ignored its left counterparts in Ukraine, advocates such an approach. Yale historian Timothy Snyder turned to leftist, anti-colonial author Franz Fanon to situate his arguments on Russian colonialism.11 Instead, the US anti-imperial left adopts a blame NATO stance that both obfuscates Russia’s imperial motives and boosts its disinformation.



The academic anchor for the anti-imperial left’s analysis of the RussoUkrainian war includes influential liberal Stephen F. Cohen. A former Princeton University professor and director of its Russian Studies program, Cohen was also a columnist for the left-leaning The Nation. Another academic who is often cited is the realist Professor John Mearsheimer. Radical left academic Peter Kuznick, professor and director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, has at times advanced this narrative. He co-authored with Oliver Stone, The Untold History of the United States, that for an American history survey text contains an unusually frequent mention of Ukraine. Readers learn that Ukraine is dominated by Nazis and that US/NATO policy was “more than Putin could stomach.”12



The blame NATO scholars have a far wider audience than imagined. It has been popularized by Hollywood icon Oliver Stone’s film Ukraine on Fire in addition to his aforementioned book. Social media messaging further provides a wide audience. Consider journalist John Pilger beckoning his 200,000 followers to read Cohen.13



The fundamental premise here is that NATO expansion caused the Russian invasions of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022. This one-dimensional narrative holds that US-NATO’s encirclement of Russia violates a 1990 promise that it would not expand “one inch eastward.” While Russia tried assiduously to work with NATO, the narrative goes, the military alliance ignored its grievances, having become increasingly unbearable until Putin’s “red line” was crossed and his restraint in international affairs was no longer tenable.14 This blame NATO platform generally identifies two pivotal turning points in NATO-Russian relations. The first is Putin’s 2008 warning at Bucharest that NATO opening the door to Ukraine and Georgia was a direct threat. The other crucial turning point is the “CIA-orchestrated” Euromaidan protests and subsequent 2014 coup against Ukraine’s democratically-elected president, Viktor Yanukovych.15 These cursory historical renditions simplify a complex sequence of events. The purpose of this paper is to historicize the blame NATO narrative.



It will also illustrate how the blame NATO claim intersects with much of Putin’s historical myth-making, which posits a cooperative Russia as a victim of an ever-expanding existential threat, while providing cover for Putin’s evolving redemptive, expansionist worldview. That is, the second, related aim of this paper is to document Putin’s desire to restore a glorious Russian empire. Indeed, this paper will first demonstrate how NATO encirclement as the catalyst for Putin’s “special operation” in Ukraine overlooks the intricate details of Russia’s interactions with NATO in recent history. It shall then document the role of ultranationalist thinkers in accelerating Putin’s historical-spiritual mythology. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine cannot be properly understood without an examination of his redemptive historical myth-making. Putin channels ultranationalist discourse, such as the Izborsk Club and the neo-fascist Alexander Dugin, in calling for quasi-religious rebirth of Russian dominance, an agenda that seeks to swallow “Little Russia” into a renewed Russian empire that stretches from “Lisbon to Vladivostok,” a phrase popularized by Dugin and repeated by Putin.

.

.

.

[sandtown]

The actual "claim" that Boris Johnson somehow spiked a peace agreement came from Ukrainska Pravda: :

Well, no. The claim stems from Johnson's own words, spoken out there in front of god and everybody. see links in article

https://scheerpost.com/2022/09/01/re...deal-in-april/

[SaltyD from BC]

Originally Posted by George.You see, sandy, when you don't answer a simple, relevant, and unoffensive question, even as you reply to a half-dozen ad hominem posts, it makes me think you are not serious about your philosophical objections to war. On the contrary, you seem to prefer conflict to objective discussion.

..................................

And a half-dozen more, but still no response.

Don't hold your breath

[epoxyboy]

It is not "my claim", it has been reported by those who were there including the Israeli PM, Turkey, Ukr just for openers.

The fact that you refuse to accept basic reality shows you to be pro-war . . .

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/20...al-in-ukraine/

(I have posted this material previously, and will likely continue to have to do so.(

This is a long, in depth article with multiple links, sources, and quotes, that fairly comprehensively demolishes that line of argument.
https://www.thebulwark.com/no-the-un...ia-peace-deal/

Pete

[George.]

Don't hold your breath

I won't, but there is no need. Sandy clearly never thought through his dogma before deciding to defend it publicly.

One more chance, sandy: do you think the US should not have supported the UK's war effort in 1940?

Don't be a coward now, either answer or withdraw from the field. Don't do another sandystorm of substanceless posts to evade it.

[gypsie]

Well, no. The claim stems from Johnson's own words, spoken out there in front of god and everybody. see links in article

https://scheerpost.com/2022/09/01/re...deal-in-april/

Oh dear God, please give patience.

Sandy, do you ever read your links?

According to a report from Ukrainska Pravda, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to stop negotiating with Russia when he visited Kyiv on April 9.

You are a warmonger Sandtown, you're a hater who promotes the the position of violent criminals. You think you have the moral high ground, but you're a fool. People like you enable people like Putin. You're line of propaganda, in Russia, has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions.

[Splodge]

The claim stems from Johnson's own words
Johnson is a proven liar any claim that stems from his words is very weak indeeed.
He is currently under investigation for lying to to British Parliament.

[johnw]

It's astonishing that sandtown is posting the Responsible Statecraft article by Connor Echols again. Has he forgotten how badly that turned out the first time he tried it? See post 5228 & etc.

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthre...kraine/page150

I followed up on his sources. Pravda, a Russian propaganda organ, really did say that the US and the UK sabotaged the peace talks, and he dishonestly implied that Fiona Hill's Foreign Affairs article said the same. I have repeatedly demonstrated that Hill's article does not make this claim, but you continue to cling to it, knowing that Echols' only source was Russian propaganda.

[WX]

Has anyone read this?
https://medium.com/@NoahSneider/the-...k-2b1ed2a2ebad

[johnw]

The claim stems from Johnson's own words
Johnson is a proven liar any claim that stems from his words is very weak indeeed.
He is currently under investigation for lying to to British Parliament.

You're giving too much credit to scheerpost. The post misrepresents what Fiona Hill said, so can we trust what it claims Johnson said? I've seen direct quotes saying he told Zelensky not to trust Putin, but Zenensky is smart enough to have already come to that conclusion. scheerpost tells us Johnson also said Western nations weren't willing to sign onto a deal, but what sort of deal? If Ukraine can't trust Russia not to commit further incursions after signing a deal, the only real alternative was a deal whereby other countries would guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty. Perhaps Johnson said he wouldn't sign onto a deal that would have required British boots on the ground in Ukraine if Russia took an operational pause during a cease fire then invaded again. There isn't enough information in the scheerpost screed to know what Johnson was unwilling to sign on to.

In any case, the Russians made it clear, according to the Fiona Hill piece that he misrepresents, that they were not interested in negotiating a peace deal based on the Minsk agreements because facts on the ground had changed. In other words, they did not want to give up the additional territory they had taken in the south of Ukraine.

Russia is currently saying it does not want to negotiate, just as it did when negotiations broke down near the beginning of the war:

https://gazette.com/news/us-world/ru...863cb30e8.html

(Reuters) - Russia said on Friday that a ceasefire in Ukraine would not enable it to achieve the goals of its "special military operation" at the moment.
The Kremlin was reacting after Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko - Russia's closest ally - called for an immediate ceasefire, without preconditions, and for both Moscow and Kyiv to start negotiations on a lasting peace settlement.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Russia had noted Lukashenko's comments and that President Vladimir Putin would discuss it with him next week. But he said Russia's goals in Ukraine could not be achieved at the moment through a halt in fighting.


"In terms of Ukraine, nothing is changing, the special military operation is continuing because today that is the only means in front of us to achieve our goals," Peskov said.

[johnw]

Korshak:

https://medium.com/@Stefan.Korshak/m...n-e4d6be4b9d07

[Peerie Maa]

Remember Versailles circa 1918 ?? JM Keynes who was there foretold what disasters it would spawn.

Munich 1938 has been the go-to rationale of war lovers ever since.

The fact that France demanded war reparations that bankrupted Germany does NOT justify Hitlers dishonesty nor his amorality nor his attacks that started WWII, just as there is no mileage in expecting Pootin to deal honestly over any negotiations.

[sandtown]

It's astonishing that sandtown is posting the Responsible Statecraft article by Connor Echols again. Has he forgotten how badly that turned out the first time he tried it? See post 5228 & etc.

And the Israeli PM ?? How quickly they (choose to) forget.

[WX]

[...continued]

DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR

Putin’s manipulations of history suggest that his claims go beyond Ukraine, into Europe and Eurasia. The Baltic states might be on his colonial agenda, as well as Poland, part of which was ruled by Russia from 1772 to 1918. Much of present-day Moldova was part of the Russian empire, and Russian officials have suggested that this state could be next in their sights. Finland was also part of the Russian empire between 1809 and 1918. Putin may not be able to conquer these countries, but his extravagant remarks about taking back Russia’s colonies are designed to intimidate his neighbors and throw them off balance. In Putin’s ideal world, he will gain leverage and control over their politics by threatening them until they let Russia dictate their foreign and domestic policies.

In Putin’s vision, the global South would, at a minimum, remain neutral in Russia’s standoff with the West. Developing nations would actively support Moscow. With the BRICS organization—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—set to expand to include Argentina, Iran, and possibly Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, Russia may acquire even more partners, ones that together represent a significant percentage of global GDP and a large percentage of the world’s population. Russia would then emerge as a leader of the developing world, as was the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

All this underlines why it is imperative that the West (Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, the United States, and Europe) redouble its efforts to remain united in supporting Ukraine and countering Russia. In the near term, that means working together to push back against Russian disinformation about the war and false historical narratives, as well as the Kremlin’s other efforts to intimidate Europe—including through deliberate nuclear saber-rattling and energy cutoffs. In the medium to long term, the United States, its allies, and its partners should discuss how to restructure the international and European security architecture to prevent Russia from attacking other neighbors that it deems within its sphere. But for now, NATO is the only institution that can guarantee Europe’s security. Indeed, Finland’s and Sweden’s decision to join was in part motivated by that realization.

As he looks toward a quarter century in power, Putin seeks to build his version of a Russian empire. He is “gathering in the lands” as did his personal icons—the great Russian tsars—and overturning the legacy of Lenin, the Bolsheviks, and the post–Cold War settlement. In this way, Putin wants Russia to be the one exception to the inexorable rise and fall of imperial states. In the twentieth century, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire collapsed after World War I. Britain and France reluctantly gave up their empires after World War II. But Putin is insistent on bringing tsarist Russia back. Regardless of whether he prevails in Ukraine, Putin’s mission is already having a clear and ironic impact, both on Europe and on Russia’s 22 years of economic advancement. In reasserting Russia’s imperial position by seeking to reconquer Ukraine, Putin is reversing one of the greatest achievements of his professed greatest hero. During his reign, Peter the Great opened a window to the West by traveling to Europe, inviting Europeans to come to Russia and help develop its economy, and adopting and adapting European artisans’ skills. Vladimir Putin’s invasions and territorial expansions have slammed that window shut. They have sent Europeans and their companies back home and pushed a generation of talented Russians fleeing into exile. Peter took Russia into the future. Putin is pushing it back to the past.

[Fin.]

Worth the read.

[WX]

And the Israeli PM ?? How quickly they (choose to) forget.

Netanyahu is about as bent as they get...looks like he's bitten off a bit too much this time though.

[sandtown]

The fact that France demanded war reparations that bankrupted Germany .

Nor does it justify any other war-mongering provocations.

And BTW, our navy is laying siege to the very core of the empire . . . . yea !!

https://share.garmin.com/goldenrule

[sandtown]

Netanyahu is about as bent as they get...looks like he's bitten off a bit too much this time though.

That is a really ignorant statement - it was former PM Bennett.

Fractal wrongness alert !!

[WX]

Nor does it justify any other war-mongering provocations.

And BTW, our navy is laying siege to the very core of the empire . . . . yea !!

https://share.garmin.com/goldenrule

Like what?

[WX]

That is a really ignorant statement - it was former PM Bennett.

Fractal wrongness alert !!

On 21 November 2019, Netanyahu was officially charged with deception and breach of trust in cases 1000 and 2000, and with deception, breach of trust, and receiving bribes in case 4000. Case 1000

In case 1000, Netanyahu has been charged with having had a conflict of interest when, in the capacity of Minister of Communications, he handled affairs related to the business interests of Arnon Milchan. The prosecution alleges that over the course of 20 years, Netanyahu received from Milchan, and from a friend of Milchan's, James Packer, expensive cigars and champagne, worth $195,000, and jewelry for Netanyahu's wife Sara costing $3,100.^[3][4] The charges cite three separate incidents in which Netanyahu assisted Milchan. In the first, Netanyahu contacted US officials regarding Milchan's visa to the US. In the second, in 2013, Netanyahu discussed with then-Finance Minister the possibility of extending the period of an investment tax break that would help Milchan (the tax break was not extended). In the third, Netanyahu directed an official of the communications ministry to provide information to Milchan regarding a merger of Milchan's telecommunication companies.
Case 2000

The two largest newspapers in circulation in Israel are Yedioth Ahronoth and Israel Hayom. Israel Hayom, which was owned directly and indirectly by Netanyahu's personal friend and benefactor Sheldon Adelson, is often criticized by the political left for portraying Netanyahu in an overly positive light. Conversely, Yedioth is often criticized by the right for being unfairly negative towards Netanyahu. "Israel Hayom" has an edge over other daily newspapers in Israel because it's distributed for free.
Netanyahu and the editor of Yedioth, Arnon "Noni" Mozes, held three meetings between 2008 and 2014,^[5] during which they discussed passage of legislation that would limit circulation of Israel Hayom in exchange for Yedioth hiring journalists more favorable to Netanyahu. The legislation received support from left-wing parties but failed due to opposition from Netanyahu's coalition,^[4] which Netanyahu says he dissolved due to his opposition to the legislation.
Netanyahu has been charged with fraud and breach of trust in the case; Mozes and two others were charged in November 2019 for attempted bribery.^[6] Adelson, who was primarily a resident of the United States of America, later died in January 2021.^[7]
Case 4000

Case 4000 involves the communication conglomerate Bezeq. The investigation reviewed, among other issues, whether falsehoods were made in regards to paperwork leading to favorable business dealings for Bezeq owner Shaul Elovitch in exchange for favorable reporting to Netanyahu by Walla!.^[8]
The Israeli Police recommended on 2 December 2018 that bribery charges be brought against Netanyahu and his wife.^[9] On 21 November 2019, Israeli Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit officially brought charges against Netanyahu of fraud, breach of trust, and receipt of bribes.
After Netanyahu removed defense minister Yoav Galant from his post on 26 March 2023 during the judicial reform protests, Boez Ben Zur, Netanyahu's lawyer in Case 4000, told Netanyahu he would quit if Netanyahu did not stop the proposed legislation.^[10]

And now he wants to remove the separation between state and the judiciary.
And then of course there is his stance on ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories.

Ramallah, occupied West Bank – Benjamin Netanyahu, currently tasked with forming a new Israeli government after his coalition won elections earlier this month, has pledged to legalise dozens of illegal settler outposts in the occupied West Bank, after a meeting with far-right, controversial politician Itamar Ben-Gvir.
The two met on Wednesday, during which they agreed to retroactively legalise the outposts within 60 days of the government being sworn in, according to Israeli media

[robm]

I don't think Sandtown is claiming any particular virtue for Netanyahu, just that he wasn't involved with the incident in question. Bennet was PM during that time. He is self-described as "more right wing than Netanyahu"; what this effect this political attitude might have on his description of the events is hard to say.

[dutchpp]

The Russian offensive campaign assessment, April 1.
https://www.understandingwar.org/bac...t-april-1-2023

Key Takeaways

• Russian, Ukrainian, and Western sources observed that the Russian winter offensive has failed to achieve the Kremlin’s goals of seizing all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts by March 31.
• Growing Russian speculation about Russian military command changes likely indicates that Russia may soon reshuffle its senior military command due to the failed winter offensive.
• Russian forces conducted limited ground attacks along the Svatove-Kreminna line.
• Russian forces did not make any confirmed gains in or around Bakhmut and continued offensive operations along the Avdiivka-Donetsk City frontline.
• Russian forces continued to build defenses in occupied southern Ukraine.
• Russia began its semi-annual conscription on April 1, the largest conscription call-up since 2016.
• Russian occupation officials continue to deport Ukrainian children to Russia under rest-and-rehabilitation schemes.
• Russian nationalist figures criticized Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko for failing to pursue the Union State between Russia and Belarus efforts since mid-1990s.

[WX]

I don't think Sandtown is claiming any particular virtue for Netanyahu, just that he wasn't involved with the incident in question. Bennet was PM during that time. He is self-described as "more right wing than Netanyahu"; what this effect this political attitude might have on his description of the events is hard to say.

Mea culpa.

[sandtown]

Another example of the pro-war crowd's estrangement from reality . . .

The US is blocking a UN investigation of the Nordstream sabotage ..

Several bilgistas continue to claim that Russia did the dirty deed; but if they did,

why would they support investigations ??

For them to do so makes no sense . ..

https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15243.doc.htm

Cue the personal attacks in 3 . . . 2 . . . . 1 . . .

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Stefan Korshak’s thoughts on a Ukrainian offensive:

https://medium.com/@Stefan.Korshak/march-31-day-401-kinburn-and-zapo-brigade-count-messing-with-the-man-e4d6be4b9d07

[robm]

The US is blocking a UN investigation of the Nordstream sabotage ..

Actually, they are not. They didn't vote against, just didn't vote for. Lots of other countries abstained as well, for a variety of reasons, but the common thread was "it is already being investigated, just let them do their thing."

And consider this: there are already 3 investigations being carried out by countries that are nearby and have the personnel, equipment, and competence required. Where would the UN get such facilities? The UN is diplomats and bureaucrats, they have no ships, divers, submersibles, explosive experts, pipeline engineers, etc. Maybe the Russians would be happy to provide them? Or the Chinese?

I think it is just a ploy to slow things down and confuse the issue.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

And Perun on the air war over Ukraine:

https://youtu.be/-PCg-ba9tRI

This is a particularly long and information-rich lecture by Perun. I learned a very great deal.

[WszystekPoTrochu]

A pro-aggression military blogger vladlen tatarsky (maksym fomyn) died in a successful assasination in leningr... sankt petersburg.
He was receiving an award inside a cafe, allegedly owned by prighozin. The bomb is said to have been hidden inside the award itself.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...es-2023-04-02/

I have no problem with assasinations of di..heads calling for massacres on Ukrainian civilians, but killing several bystanders and sending dozens to hospital is probably not the way to do it. Even when they most probably were there to applaud the targeted bloodhound.

[J.Madison]

Reddit claims the guy was pro-wagner, anit-putin in his retoric. Likely an internal attack, a warning to those who are getting louder against putin.

Or maybe it was Ukraine operatives, but I doubt it. Whoever did it had very good inside access to the awards ceremony.

Edit: I thought the bomb was disguised as a bomb, but it wasn't. Looked like a figurine statue of some type.

[WX]

Another example of the pro-war crowd's estrangement from reality . . .

The US is blocking a UN investigation of the Nordstream sabotage ..

Several bilgistas continue to claim that Russia did the dirty deed; but if they did,

why would they support investigations ??

For them to do so makes no sense . ..

https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15243.doc.htm

Cue the personal attacks in 3 . . . 2 . . . . 1 . . .

456 what are we fighting for? Don't ask me I don't understand.......

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Reddit claims the guy was pro-wagner, anit-putin in his retoric. Likely an internal attack, a warning to those who are getting louder against putin.

Or maybe it was Ukraine operatives, but I doubt it. Whoever did it had very good inside access to the awards ceremony.

Also the award was meant to look like a bomb. A bomb disguised as a bomb.

I doubt it was Ukraine; smuggling bombs into St Petersburg cannot be easy.

On the other hand there are people in Russia who may think along the lines of a famous old Chinese proverb:

“Kill the cat to scare the monkey.”

[Lew Barrett]

Good Link, Andrew. Thanks. I too think St.P was an inside job. Taking out a prominent malcontent and critic along with his most ardent sycophants was the point. If there were a few stray bystanders, it was surely part of the equation.

Bakhmut looks to have become a fighting retreat. I don't try to second guess Ukrainian military tactics but the entire affair matches my understanding of Soviet/Russian military doctrine. The UAF was until recently schooled in Soviet military practices. They look Russian (Soviet), they march Russian, they are equipped Russian.

The flow of western weapons still does not meet the requirements though we know any such radical transition is a daunting task, more so in wartime. The Russians never made any bones about Bakhmut. They intended it to draw in and break the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians seem to have had the same idea. The outcome has been as expected, a pitiful grinding of men and machines.

The Russians seem positioned to take what little is left of the city but seem unable to create a cauldron while the Ukrainians slowly yield ground or stand elsewhere as they have been doing. Assuming this transpires we may be witness to the same grinding battles at Chasiv Yar which is possibly a better place for Ukraine to draw a line since it has commanding heights. A war of attrition, as ever on the Steppes.

[Landrith]

The Russians seem positioned to take what little is left of the city but seem unable to create a cauldron while the Ukrainians slowly yield ground or stand elsewhere as they have been doing. Assuming this transpires we may be witness to the same grinding battles at Chasiv Yar which is possibly a better place for Ukraine to draw a line since it has commanding heights. A war of attrition, as ever on the Steppes.

I think Russian Infantry finally transcended Soviet tactics in Bakhmut and finally learned small unit combined team tactics to get into Ukraine trenches and city blocks successfully. It took too long to learn to accept coordinating, but they seemed to have mastered it.

The other aspect of both sides using Soviet equipment and doctrine is that they both press on without close air support. I think this would be impossible for any US unit I ever trained with. It is one reason Colin Powell was able to transform the post Vietnam Army away from attrition to maneuver. US commanders could out distance their organic artillery and still support advances with air strikes when needed. Bakhmut reverted to WWI trench warfare while artillery slowly advances along a wide front. Mariupol fell when the Russians could finally destroy the anti aircraft missiles defending it by pressuring them with ground forces. Contrary to the ill advised optimism of the US Secretary of defense, that is why Russia is bringing even more ancient battle tanks to the front, to serve in the assault gun role block to block as immediate short range artillery supporting Infantry, a role that the US has long forgotten. The closest thing being the Big Red One breaching Iraq's trenches https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...aq.features111
by using their Armour in a combat engineering role to cross trenches under fire.

Its ugly, but I don't think a few super tanks and our other Western maneuver oriented weapons systems help Ukraine as much as more troops from other nations. Ukrainians riding on top Soviet armor across mud fields like Soviets fighting Nazi Germany is not going to make an offensive against grid square destroying coordinated artillery. It requires trained first world Infantry formations and all their supporting technologies. Maybe if they deployed now in the way of Russia's advance it wouldn't be an attack on Russia but a denial of Russia's further violation of Ukraine territory.