You can subscribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE.
You can subscribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.
You can subscribe to the comments made on programs and posts–an excellent source of information in, and of, itself, HERE.
WFMU-FM is podcasting For The Record–You can subscribe to the podcast HERE.
Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is available on a 32GB flash drive, available for a contribution of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). Click Here to obtain Dave’s 40+ years’ work, complete through Late Fall of 2021 (through FTR #1215).
“Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
— George Orwell, 1946
FTR#1234 This program was recorded in one, 60-minute segment.
EVERYTHING MR. EMORY HAS BEEN SAYING ABOUT THE UKRAINE WAR IS ENCAPSULATED IN THIS VIDEO FROM UKRAINE 24
Introduction: This program continues our coverage of the Ukraine War, embodied by the quote from Mort Sahl that is the title of this series.
We begin with an article which embodies Mr. Emory’s analysis of the war and its attendant coverage as a “philosopher’s stone,” effecting an alchemical transformation of the U.S., the West in general and most of the people and institutions in them into what might be called “the embodiment of the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory.”
Golinkin penned an op-ed piece for The New York Times in which he mentioned none of what he spoke about three years ago. Instead, he repeated anti-Soviet and/or anti-Russian material which is practically institutionalized at this point.
At the end of his Nation piece, Golinkin gave voice to a very important insight: ” . . . . By tolerating neo-Nazi gangs and battalions, state-led Holocaust distortion, and attacks on LGBT and the Roma, the United States is telling the rest of Europe: ‘We’re fine with this.’ The implications—especially at a time of a global far-right revival—are profoundly disturbing. . . .”
Note also, that the Ukraine Institute of National Memory has designated the members of the SS Galician Division (pictured at right, below, as victims: ” . . . . The recuperation even extends to SS Galichina, a Ukrainian division of the Waffen-SS; the director of the Institute of National Memory proclaimed that the SS fighters were ‘war victims.’. . . .”
Oleh Tihanybok, leader of the OUN/B successor organization Svoboda.
Points of analysis and discussion in Golinkin’s older work include:
* The elevation of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion that was formally incorporated into Ukraine’s armed forces yet remains a neo-Nazi battalion.
* Azov is now engaged in policing with its National Druzhina street patrol units that have engaged in anti-Roma pogroms.
* Azov’s campaign to turn Ukraine into an international hub of white supremacy.
* Andriy Parubiy’s role in creating Ukraine’s Nazi Party that he continues to embrace and that’s routinely ignored as he has become the parliament speaker.
* The deputy minister of the Interior—which controls the National Police—is a veteran of Azov, Vadim Troyan.
* Government sponsorship of historical revisionism and holocaust denial though agencies like Ukrainian Institute of National Memory. It is now illegal to speak unfavorably of the OUN/B or the UPA, both of which were Nazi collaborationist organizations with bloody, lethal histories.
* Torchlight parades are now normal.
* Within several years, an entire generation will be indoctrinated to worship Holocaust perpetrators as national heroes.
* Books that criticize the now-glorified WWII Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera are getting banned.
* Public officials make threats against Ukraine’s Jewish community with no repercussions.
* The neo-Nazi C14’s street patrol gangs are both responsible for anti-Roma pogroms and also the recipient of government funds to run a children’s educational camp. Last October, C14 leader Serhiy Bondar was welcomed at America House Kyiv, a center run by the US government.
* It’s open season on the LGBT community and far right groups routinely attack LGBT gatherings.
* Ukraine is extremely dangerous for journalists and the government has supported the doxxing and intimidation of journalist by the far right like Myrovorets group.
* The government is trying to repeal laws protecting the many minority languages used in Ukraine.
And yet, as the article notes at the end, its many examples were just a small sampling of what has transpired in Ukraine since 2014:
The conclusion of the program entails discussion that is presented at greater length HERE. It is handled in the next program.
Modern Times: Celebration of the 75th Anniversary of the 14th Waffen SS Division in Lviv, Ukraine in summer of 2018. THIS is what lurks beneath the thin facade of Zelensky’s democracy.
1. Next, we conclude the reading of an article (from the previous program) which embodies Mr. Emory’s analysis of the war and its attendant coverage as a “philosopher’s stone,” effecting an alchemical transformation of the U.S., the West in general and most of the people and institutions in them into what might be called “the embodiment of the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory.”
Golinkin penned an op-ed piece for The New York Times in which he mentioned none of what he spoke about three years ago. Instead, he repeated anti-Soviet and/or anti-Russian material which is practically institutionalized at this point.
At the end of his Nation piece, Golinkin gave voice to a very important insight: ” . . . . By tolerating neo-Nazi gangs and battalions, state-led Holocaust distortion, and attacks on LGBT and the Roma, the United States is telling the rest of Europe: ‘We’re fine with this.’ The implications—especially at a time of a global far-right revival—are profoundly disturbing. . . .”
Points of analysis and discussion in Golinkin’s older work include:
* The elevation of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion that was formally incorporated into Ukraine’s armed forces yet remains a neo-Nazi battalion.
* Azov is now engaged in policing with its National Druzhina street patrol units that have engaged in anti-Roma pogroms.
* Azov’s campaign to turn Ukraine into an international hub of white supremacy.
* Andriy Parubiy’s role in creating Ukraine’s Nazi Party that he continues to embrace and that’s routinely ignored as he has become the parliament speaker.
* The deputy minister of the Interior—which controls the National Police—is a veteran of Azov, Vadim Troyan.
* Government sponsorship of historical revisionism and holocaust denial though agencies like Ukrainian Institute of National Memory. It is now illegal to speak unfavorably of the OUN/B or the UPA, both of which were Nazi collaborationist organizations with bloody, lethal histories.
* Torchlight parades are now normal.
* Within several years, an entire generation will be indoctrinated to worship Holocaust perpetrators as national heroes.
* Books that criticize the now-glorified WWII Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera are getting banned.
* Public officials make threats against Ukraine’s Jewish community with no repercussions.
* The neo-Nazi C14’s street patrol gangs are both responsible for anti-Roma pogroms and also the recipient of government funds to run a children’s educational camp. Last October, C14 leader Serhiy Bondar was welcomed at America House Kyiv, a center run by the US government.
* It’s open season on the LGBT community and far right groups routinely attack LGBT gatherings.
* Ukraine is extremely dangerous for journalists and the government has supported the doxxing and intimidation of journalist by the far right like Myrovorets group.
* The government is trying to repeal laws protecting the many minority languages used in Ukraine.
And yet, as the article notes at the end, its many examples were just a small sampling of what has transpired in Ukraine since 2014:
“Neo-Nazis and the Far Right Are On the March in Ukraine” by Lev Golinkin; The Nation; 02/22/2019.
Five years ago, Ukraine’s Maidan uprising ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, to the cheers and support of the West. Politicians and analysts in the United States and Europe not only celebrated the uprising as a triumph of democracy, but denied reports of Maidan’s ultranationalism, smearing those who warned about the dark side of the uprising as Moscow puppets and useful idiots. Freedom was on the march in Ukraine.
Today, increasing reports of far-right violence, ultranationalism, and erosion of basic freedoms are giving the lie to the West’s initial euphoria. There are neo-Nazi pogroms against the Roma, rampant attacks on feminists and LGBT groups, book bans, and state-sponsored glorification of Nazi collaborators.
These stories of Ukraine’s dark nationalism aren’t coming out of Moscow; they’re being filed by Western media, including US-funded Radio Free Europe (RFE); Jewish organizations such as the World Jewish Congress and the Simon Wiesenthal Center; and watchdogs like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Freedom House, which issued a joint report warning that Kiev is losing the monopoly on the use of force in the country as far-right gangs operate with impunity.
Five years after Maidan, the beacon of democracy is looking more like a torchlight march.
A neo-Nazi battalion in the heart of Europe
“Volunteer Ukrainian Unit Includes Nazis.”—USA Today, March 10, 2015
The DC establishment’s standard defense of Kiev is to point out that Ukraine’s far right has a smaller percentage of seats in the parliament than their counterparts in places like France. That’s a spurious argument: What Ukraine’s far right lacks in polls numbers, it makes up for with things Marine Le Pen could only dream of—paramilitary units and free rein on the streets.
Post-Maidan Ukraine is the world’s only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces. The Azov Battalion was initially formed out of the neo-Nazi gang Patriot of Ukraine. Andriy Biletsky, the gang’s leader who became Azov’s commander, once wrote that Ukraine’s mission is to “lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade…against the Semite-led Untermenschen.” Biletsky is now a deputy in Ukraine’s parliament.
In the fall of 2014, Azov—which is accused of human-rights abuses, including torture, by Human Rights Watchand the United Nations—was incorporated into Ukraine’s National Guard.
While the group officially denies any neo-Nazi connections, Azov’s nature has been confirmed by multiple Western outlets: The New York Times called the battalion“openly neo-Nazi,” while USA Today, The Daily Beast, The Telegraph, and Haaretzdocumented group members’ proclivity for swastikas, salutes, and other Nazi symbols, and individual fighters have also acknowledged being neo-Nazis.
In January 2018, Azov rolled out its National Druzhinastreet patrol unit whose members swore personal fealty to Biletsky and pledged to “restore Ukrainian order” to the streets. The Druzhina quickly distinguished itself by carrying out pogroms against the Roma and LGBTorganizations and storming a municipal council. Earlier this year, Kiev announced the storming unit will be monitoring polls in next month’s presidential election.
In 2017, Congressman Ro Khanna led the effort to ban Azov from receiving U.S. arms and training. But the damage has already been done: The research group Bellingcat proved that Azov had already received access to American grenade launchers, while a Daily Beast investigation showed that US trainers are unable to prevent aid from reaching white supremacists. And Azov itself had proudly posted a video of the unit welcoming NATO representatives.
(Azov isn’t the only far-right formation to get Western affirmation. In December 2014, Amnesty International accused the Dnipro‑1 battalion of potential war crimes, including “using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.” Six months later, Senator John McCain visited and praised the battalion.)
Particularly concerning is Azov’s campaign to transform Ukraine into a hub for transnational white supremacy. The unit has recruited neo-Nazis from Germany, the UK, Brazil, Sweden, and America; last October, the FBI arrested four California white supremacists who had allegedly received training from Azov. This is a classic example of blowback: US support of radicals abroad ricocheting to hit America.
Far right ties to government
“Ukrainian police declare admiration for Nazi collaborators”—RFE, February 13, 2019
Speaker of Parliament Andriy Parubiycofounded and led two neo-Nazi organizations: the Social-National Party of Ukraine(later renamed Svoboda), and Patriot of Ukraine, whose members would eventually form the core of Azov.
Although Parubiy left the far right in the early 2000’s, he hasn’t rejected his past. When asked about it in a 2016 interview, Parubiy replied that his “values” haven’t changed. Parubiy, whose autobiography shows him marching with the neo-Nazi wolfsangel symbol used by Aryan Nations, regularly meets with Washington think tanksand politicians; his neo-Nazi background is ignored or outright denied.
Even more disturbing is the far right’s penetration of law enforcement. Shortly after Maidan, the US equipped and trainedthe newly founded National Police, in what was intended to be a hallmark program buttressing Ukrainian democracy.
The deputy minister of the Interior—which controls the National Police—is Vadim Troyan, a veteran of Azov and Patriot of Ukraine. In 2014, when Troyan was being considered for police chief of Kiev, Ukrainian Jewish leaders were appalled by his neo-Nazi background. Today, he’s deputy of the department running US-trained law enforcement in the entire nation.
Earlier this month, RFE reportedon National Police leadership admiring Stepan Bandera—a Nazi collaborator and Fascist whose troops participated in the Holocaust—on social media.
The fact that Ukraine’s police is peppered with far-right supporters explains why neo-Nazis operate with impunity on the streets.
State-sponsored glorification of Nazi collaborators
“Ukrainian extremists celebrate Ukrainian Nazi SS divisions…in the middle of a major Ukrainian city”—Anti-Defamation League Director of European Affairs, April 28, 2018
It’s not just the military and street gangs: Ukraine’s far right has successfully hijacked the post-Maidan government to impose an intolerant and ultranationalist culture over the land.
In 2015, the Ukrainian parliament passed legislation making two WWII paramilitaries—the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)—heroes of Ukraine, and made it a criminal offenseto deny their heroism. The OUN had collaborated with the Nazis and participated in the Holocaust, while the UPA slaughtered thousands of Jews and 70,000–100,000 Poles on their own volition.
The government-funded Ukrainian Institute of National Memory is institutionalizing the whitewashing of Nazi collaborators. Last summer, the Ukrainian parliament featured an exhibitcommemorating the OUN’s 1941 proclamation of cooperation with the Third Reich (imagine the French government installing an exhibit celebrating the Vichy state!).
Torchlight marches in honor of OUN/UPA leaders like Roman Shukhevych (a commander in a Third Reich auxiliary battalion) are a regular feature of the new Ukraine. The recuperation even extends to SS Galichina, a Ukrainian division of the Waffen-SS; the director of the Institute of National Memory proclaimed that the SS fighters were “war victims.” The government’s embrace of Bandera is not only deplorable, but also extremely divisive, considering the OUN/UPA are reviledin eastern Ukraine.
Predictably, the celebration of Nazi collaborators has accompanied a rise in outright anti-Semitism.
“Jews Out!” chanted thousands during a January 2017 march honoring OUN leader Bandera. (The next day the police denied hearing anything anti-Semitic.) That summer, a three-day festivalcelebrating the Nazi collaborator Shukhevych capped off with the firebombing of a synagogue. In November 2017, RFE reported Nazi salutes as 20,000 marched in honor of the UPA. And last April, hundreds marched in L’viv with coordinated Nazi salutes honoring SS Galichina; the march was promotedby the L’viv regional government.
The Holocaust revisionism is a multi-pronged effort, ranging from government-funded seminars, brochures, and board games, to the proliferation of plaques, statues, and streetsrenamed after butchers of Jews, to far-right children camps, where youth are inculcated with ultranationalist ideology.
Within several years, an entire generation will be indoctrinated to worship Holocaust perpetrators as national heroes.
Book bans
“No state should be allowed to interfere in the writing of history.”—British historian Antony Beevor, after his award-winning book was banned in Ukraine, The Telegraph, January 23, 2018
Ukraine’s State Committee for Television and Radio Broadcasting is enforcing the glorification of Ukraine’s new heroes by banning“anti-Ukrainian” literature that goes against the government narrative. This ideological censorship includes acclaimed books by Western authors.
In January 2018, Ukraine made international headlines by banning Stalingrad by award-winning British historian Antony Beevor because of a single paragraphabout a Ukrainian unit massacring 90 Jewish children during World War II. In December, Kiev bannedThe Book Thieves by Swedish author Anders Rydell (which, ironically, is about the Nazis’ suppression of literature) because he mentioned troops loyal to Symon Petliura (an early 20th-century nationalist leader) had slaughtered Jews.
This month, the Ukrainian embassy in Washington exported this intolerance to America by brazenly demanding the United States ban a Russian movie from American theaters. Apparently, the billions Washington invested in promoting democracy in Ukraine have failed to teach Kiev basic concepts of free speech.
Anti-Semitism
“I’m telling you one more time—go to hell, kikes. The Ukrainian people have had it to here with you.”—Security services reserve general Vasily Vovk, May 11, 2017
Unsurprisingly, government-led glorification of Holocaust perpetrators was a green light for other forms of anti-Semitism. The past three years saw an explosion of swastikas and SS runes on city streets, death threats, and vandalism of Holocaustmemorials, Jewish centers, cemeteries, tombs, and places of worship, all of which led Israel to take the unusual step of publicly urging Kiev to address the epidemic.
Public officials make anti-Semitic threats with no repercussions. These include: a security services general promising to eliminate the zhidi (a slur equivalent to ‘kikes’); a parliament deputy going off on an anti-Semitic rant on television; a far-right politician lamenting Hitler didn’t finish offthe Jews; and an ultranationalist leader vowing to cleanse Odessa of zhidi.
For the first few years after Maidan, Jewish organizations largely refrained from criticizing Ukraine, perhaps in the hope Kiev would address the issue on its own. But by 2018, the increasing frequency of anti-Semitic incidents led Jewish groups to break their silence.
Last year, the Israeli government’s annual reporton anti-Semitism heavily featured Ukraine, which had more incidents than all post-Soviet states combined. The World Jewish Congress, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, and 57 membersof the US Congress all vociferously condemned Kiev’s Nazi glorification and the concomitant anti-Semitism.
Ukrainian Jewish leaders are also speaking out. In 2017, the director of one of Ukraine’s largest Jewish organizations published a New York Times op-ed urging the West to address Kiev’s whitewashing. Last year, 41 Ukrainian Jewish leaders denounced the growth of anti-Semitism. That’s especially telling, given that many Ukrainian Jewish leaders supported the Maidan uprising.
None of these concerns have been addressed in any meaningful way.
Roma pogroms
“‘They wanted to kill us’: masked neo-fascists strike fear into Ukraine’s Roma.”—The Guardian , August 27, 2018
Ukraine’s far right has resisted carrying out outright attacks on Jews; other vulnerable groups haven’t been so lucky.
Last spring, a lethal wave of anti-Roma pogroms swept through Ukraine, with at least six attacks in two months. Footage from the pogroms evokes the 1930s: Armed thugs attack women and children while razing their camps. At least one man was killed, while others, including a child, were stabbed.
Two gangs behind the attacks—C14 and the National Druzhina—felt comfortable enough to proudly post pogrom videos on social media. That’s not surprising, considering that the National Druzhina is part of Azov, while the neo-Nazi C14 receives government funding for “educational” programs. Last October, C14 leader Serhiy Bondar was welcomed at America House Kyiv, a center run by the US government.
Appeals from international organizations and the US embassy fell on deaf ears: Months after the United Nations demanded Kiev end “systematic persecution” of the Roma, a human-rights group reported C14 were allegedly intimidating Roma in a jointpatrol with the Kiev police.
LGBT and Women’s‑rights groups
“‘It’s even worse than before’: How the ‘Revolution of Dignity’ Failed LGBT Ukrainians.”—RFE, November 21, 2018
In 2016, after pressure from the US Congress, the Kiev government began providing security for the annual Kiev Pride parade. However, this increasingly looks like a Potemkin affair: two hours of protection, with widespread attacks on LGBT individuals and gatherings during the rest of the year. Nationalist groups have targeted LGBT meetings with impunity, going so far as to shut down an event hosted by Amnesty International as well as assault a Western journalist at a transgender rights rally. Women’s‑rights marches have also been targeted, including brazen attacks in March.
Attacks on press
“The Committee to Protect Journalists condemns a Ukrainian law enforcement raid at the Kiev offices of Media Holding Vesti…more than a dozen masked officers ripped open doors with crowbars, seized property, and fired tear gas in the offices.”—The Committee to Protect Journalists, February 9, 2018
In May 2016, Myrotvorets, an ultranationalist website with links to the government, published the personal data of thousands of journalists who had obtained accreditation from Russia-backed rebels in eastern Ukraine. Myrotvorets labeled the journalists “terrorist collaborators.”
A government-tied website declaring open season on journalists would be dangerous anywhere, but it is especially so in Ukraine, which has a disturbing track record of journalist assassinations. This includes Oles Buzina, gunned down in 2015, and Pavel Sheremet, assassinated by car bomb a year later.
The Myrotvorets doxing was denounced by Western reporters, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and ambassadorsfrom the G7 nations. In response, Kiev officials, including Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, praised the site: “This is your choice to cooperate with occupying forces,” Avakov told journalists, while posting“I Support Myrotvorets” on Facebook. Myrotvorets remains operational today.
Last fall brought another attack on the media, this time using the courts. The Prosecutor General’s office was granted a warrant to seize records of RFE anti-corruption reporter Natalie Sedletska. An RFE spokeswoman warned that Kiev’s actions created “a chilling atmosphere for journalists,” while parliament deputy Mustafa Nayyem called it “an example of creeping dictatorship.”
Language laws
“[Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk] also made a personal appeal to Russian-speaking Ukrainians, pledging to support…a special status to the Russian language.”—US Secretary of State John Kerry, April 24, 2014
Ukraine is extraordinarily multilingual: In addition to the millions of Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainians, there are areas where Hungarian, Romanian, and other tongues are prevalent. These languages were protected by a 2012 regional-language law.
The post-Maidan government alarmed Russian-speaking Ukrainians by attempting to annul that law. The US State Department and Secretary of State John Kerry sought to assuage fears in 2014 by pledgingthat Kiev would protect the status of Russian. Those promises came to naught.
A 2017 law mandated that secondary education be conducted strictly in Ukrainian, which infuriatedHungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Greece. Several regions passed legislation banningthe use of Russian in public life. Quotas enforce Ukrainian usage on TV and radio. (This would be akin to Washington forcing Spanish-language media to broadcast mostly in English.)
And in February 2018, Ukraine’s supreme court struck down the 2012 regional language law—the one Kerry promised eastern Ukrainians would stay in effect.
Currently, Kiev is preparing to pass a draconian law that would mandate the use of Ukrainian in most aspects of public life. It’s another example of Kiev alienating millions of its own citizens, while claiming to embrace Western values.
The price of willful blindness
These examples are only a tiny fraction of Ukraine’s slide toward intolerance, but they should be enough to point out the obvious: Washington’s decision to ignore the proliferation of armed neo-Nazi groups in a highly unstable nation only led to them gaining more power.
…
In essay after essay, DC foreign-policy heads have denied or celebrated the influence of Ukraine’s far right. (Curiously, the same analysts vociferously denounce rising nationalism in Hungary, Poland, and Italy as highly dangerous.) Perhaps think-tankers deluded themselves into thinking Kiev’s far-right phase would tucker itself out. More likely, they simply embraced DC’s go-to strategy of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend.” Either way, the ramifications stretch far beyond Ukraine.
America’s backing of the Maidan uprising, along with the billions DC sinks into post-Maidan Kiev, make it clear: Starting February 2014, Ukraine became Washington’s latest democracy-spreading project. What we permit in Ukraine sends a green light to others.
By tolerating neo-Nazi gangs and battalions, state-led Holocaust distortion, and attacks on LGBT and the Roma, the United States is telling the rest of Europe: “We’re fine with this.” The implications—especially at a time of a global far-right revival—are profoundly disturbing.
2. Indicative of the degree of media manipulation is the heavy spinning of the nature of Pravy Sektor, one of the OUN/B successor organizations dominating the national security apparatus in Ukraine. Zelensky characterized this action as an ISIS-style kidnapping.
” . . . . The Luhansk prosecutor’s office claimed that Fedorov was a member of the ‘Right Sector.’ CNN has previously reported that the group is a Ukrainian nationalist paramilitary and political group that operates in Ukraine. It has an anti-Russian stance, but independent observers say it’s not the fascist threat that Russian President Vladimir Putin claims it to be. . . .”
The mayor of Melitopol, Ivan Fedorov, was seen on video being led away by armed men from a government building in the city on Friday, and the prosecutor’s office for the separatist Russia-backed Luhansk region now says they are weighing terrorism charges against him.
Fedorov’s detention by the armed men is the first known instance of a Ukrainian political official being detained and investigated by Russian or Russian-backed forces since the invasion began.
According to a message on the Luhansk prosecutor’s website, Fedorov is being accused of assisting and financing terrorist activities and being part of a criminal community.
The Luhansk prosecutor’s office claimed that Fedorov was a member of the “Right Sector.” CNN has previously reported that the group is a Ukrainian nationalist paramilitary and political group that operates in Ukraine. It has an anti-Russian stance, but independent observers say it’s not the fascist threat that Russian President Vladimir Putin claims it to be.
The prosecutor’s office claims “Right Sector” has conducted terroristic acts against civilians in the Donbas region without providing any details.
Local media, citing conversations with the Melitopol City Council, confirmed that the man being led away in the video was Fedorov.
CNN has geolocated and verified the authenticity of the video. . . .
3. A Guardian article–between the lines–admits the presence of these laboratories. This issue is handled at length and in detail in the next program.
The UN security council met on Friday to discuss Moscow’s claims the US is funding ‘military biological activities’ in Ukraine
The UN security council met on Friday at Russia’s request to discuss Moscow’s claims that the US is funding “military biological activities” in Ukraine – in other words, secretly developing biological weapons in Ukrainian laboratories. The event saw some heated discussion. The Russian ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, evoked the terrifying specter of an “uncontrolled spread of bio agents from Ukraine” across Europe. His American counterpart, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, warned that Russia’s claim could be a pretext for it launching its own biological weapons attack on Ukraine.
So what is the dispute all about, and what is actually happening inside Ukraine?
How did “bio labs” become the latest front in the Ukraine information war?
Last Sunday the Russian ministry of foreign affairs posted a tweet accusing the US and Ukrainian governments of running a secret “military-biological programme” inside the stricken country. Moscow claimed that its invading forces had discovered evidence of an “emergency clean-up” to hide the programme.
Moscow went on to claim that it had found documents related to the secret US operation in laboratories in the Ukrainian cities of Kharkiv and Poltava.
The allegations were quickly amplified by China, which supported the claims during Friday’s UN security council debate. . . .
. . . . How have the US and Ukrainian governments responded? . . .
Ukraine’s ambassador to the world body, Sergiy Kyslytsya, used more colourful language. He called the idea being advanced by Russia “a bunch of insane delirium”. . . .
So do bio labs exist inside Ukraine, and is the US supporting them?
Yes, and yes. Ukraine does operate biological laboratories which receive US funding. The US undersecretary of state Victoria Nuland affirmed those facts in a Senate foreign relations committee hearing this week in which the Republican senator Marco Rubio asked her directly whether Ukraine had biological weapons.
Nuland did not answer the question head on. “Ukraine has biological research facilities,” she replied, adding that there was concern that Russian forces were trying to gain control of the labs. “We are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces.” . . . .
. . . . The scheme was originally known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programme, but is now more commonly referred to as the biological engagement programme. It has been successful in supporting former Soviet and other countries to fulfil public health obligations.
“This is one of the best things that we do,” Dr Gigi Gronvall, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told the Guardian.
Most of the work of the Ukraine labs today, Gronvall said, involved surveillance of diseases in animals and people as an early-warning system for illnesses such as African swine fever, which is endemic in the region. “We know pathogens don’t respect borders, so helping to put out public health fires before they become too big is an advantage to all of us,” she said.
Do the Ukraine laboratories store dangerous biological agents?
Yes, it appears so. As part of their work researching diseases the bio labs do seem to hold dangerous pathogens. We know that because WHO is urging Ukraine to destroy any highly dangerous agents in its laboratories to avoid the risk of a disastrous outbreak should one of the labs be hit under Russian attack. . .
“As part of this work, WHO has strongly recommended to the ministry of
health in Ukraine and other responsible bodies to destroy high-threat
pathogens to prevent any potential spills,” the UN health agency said.The WHO has worked in Ukraine for several years helping the bio labs improve their safety and security, so it knows what it is talking about.
If Russian claims of a secret bioweapons programme are fake news, does that mean there is nothing to worry about?
No. In addition to the threat of pathogens held in Ukrainian labs leaking out or falling into the hands of Russian forces, there is the threat of Russia potentially launching its own biological weapons attack. The assessment of the US state department is that Russia continues to maintain an offensive biological weapons programme in violation of the convention that it has signed.
Earlier this week, the White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, accused Russia under Vladimir Putin of having a “long and well-documented track record” of using chemical weapons, pointing to the poisoning of the opposition leader Alexei Navalny and Russia’s support of the Syrian regime while it deployed chemical weapons. She went on to warn that Moscow’s claim of a secret biological weapons programme in Ukraine could in fact be laying the foundations for a Russian chemical or biological weapons assault inside Ukraine.
That possibility leaves even seasoned experts rattled. “I hope that this is more of a disinformation talking point than an actual thing,” Gronvall said. “I guess we shall see.”
4. A characteristically “spun” New York Times article disclaims any U.S. involvement with biological warfare labs in Ukraine
“Theory on U.S.-Funded Bioweapons Labs Is Baseless” by Linda Qiu; The New York Times; 3/12/2022.
. . . . Mr. Carlson also pointed to an interview with Robert Pope, the director of the Pentagon’s Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which helps countries in the former Soviet Union secure or eliminate nuclear and chemical weapons. (This program is a major funder of EcoHealth Alliance, as noted in FTR#1170.)
“As Pope put it, scientists are scientists, they don’t want to destroy all the bioweapons,” Mr. Carlson continued in his segment. “Instead, they’re using them to conduct new bioweapons research — that’s what he said.”
Mr. Carlson mischaracterized those remarks from Ms. Nuland and Mr. Pope.
In congressional testimony this week, Ms. Nuland, the under secretary of state for political affairs, was asked by Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, whether Ukraine has chemical or biological weapons.
“Ukraine has biological research facilities which, in fact, we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to gain control of,” she responded. “So we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach.” . . .
. . . . If there were a biological or chemical weapon attack inside Ukraine, Mr. Rubio asked, would there be any doubt that Russia was behind it?
“There is no doubt in my mind, Senator, and it is classic Russian technique to blame the other guy what they’re planning to do themselves,” Ms. Nuland responded.
. . . . The State Department said Ms. Nuland was referring to Ukrainian diagnostic and biodefense laboratories during her testimony, which are different from biological weapons facilities. Rather, these biodefense laboratories counter biological threats throughout the country, the department said.
Mr. Rubio made the same clarification in another congressional hearing on Thursday, noting that “there’s a difference between a bioweapons facility and one that’s doing research.”
In referring to Mr. Pope on Thursday, Mr. Carlson was distorting a February interview Mr. Pope gave to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a nonprofit organization and publication.
Mr. Pope had warned that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may damage laboratories in the country that conduct research and disease surveillance and are supported by the United States. He noted that some of the facilities may contain pathogens once used for Soviet-era bioweapons programs, but he emphasized that the Ukrainian labs currently did not have the ability to manufacture bioweapons. . . .
. . . . In a March interview with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Mr. Pope also echoed Ms. Nuland’s concerns about the laboratories falling into Russia’s hands. He spoke specifically about the Pentagon’s support of 14 veterinary laboratories that provide Ukraine with sampling and diagnostic abilities to detect infectious diseases.
“Should Russian forces occupy a city with one of these facilities, we are concerned that Russia will fabricate ‘evidence’ of nefarious activity in an attempt to lend credibility to their ongoing disinformation about these facilities,” he said.
The United Nations Security Council convened a meeting on Friday about Russia’s accusations concerning biological weapons in Ukraine. Izumi Nakamitsu, the U.N.’s high representative for disarmament affairs, said the United Nations was “not aware of any biological weapons programs.” . . . .
Looking Back from 1984
We’re getting reports about the possible bombing of an art school in Mariupol on Sunday. The building reportedly had roughly 400 people inside. This is latest claim of a blatant attack on civilians coming out of Mariupol, following the alleged Russian bombing the Mariupol Drama theater on May 16. The theater bombing took place just hours after President Volodymyr Zelenskiy made his history appeal to the US congress for more military assistance. It’s all part of a growing narrative about the Kremlin having decided to just level civil populations in the face of slow progress on the battlefield.
And that brings us to the following pair of article that should raise major questions about not only what actually took place in these civilian attacks in Mariupol, but should also serve as a warning about far worse attacks in the future. Attacks carried out by Azov on civilians for the expressed purpose of provoking so much international outrage the West is forced to directly enter into the conflict. Because as we’re going to see in the following report by Max Blumenthal in the Gray Zone, while we don’t have solid information on what’s going on in Mariupol due to a massive information blackout, the little information we don have points towards Azov false flags. A wildly successful false flag if true given the near complete acceptance of Azov’s story about what happened at that theater. Because as the report points out, we were told both that Russians bombed the theater, but also shelled it, and yet there is no footage at all of the attack. Instead, the evidence of a Russian attack on the theater is based solely on Azov’s assertions. On top of that, locals were warning about a possible false flag at the theater days before the attack. But what is perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this attack is that there are no confirmed deaths from the attack. Everyone known to be in the theater at the time was in the basement, although we have heard warnings from the Ukrainian government that hundreds of bodies are likely under the rubble. But so far no confirmed deaths.
As the report also notes, the Mariupol attack was preceded by an alleged attack on a Turkish mosque, which locals were also warning was the target of a planned false flat attack. Curiously, the Ukrainian government claimed the mosque was attack by Russian forces, Russia countered that it was attacked by Ukrainian forces, and Turkish media reported that there was no attack at all and the mosque was unharmed. So as the world waits to here about the fate of the people allegedly trapped in that art school attack, it’s going to be worth keeping in mind that we have very little idea of what is actually happening there:
“Civilians that escaped the city through humanitarian corridors have testified that they were held by Azov as human shields in area, and that Azov fighters detonated parts of the theater as they retreated. Despite claims of a massive Russian airstrike that reduced the building to ashes, all civilians appear to have escaped with their lives.”
As the fog slowly clear, what is becoming clearer is how little we know about what has actually been taking place insider Mariupol for the past two weeks. In part because the communication flows have been cut off. But also because the stories leaking out of the area have been so conflicting, with claims of attacks on civilians by both sides. Chillingly, it appears that a major reason we have so few stories about what’s happening in the city is because civilians have been prevented from fleeing by the Azov Battalion. That’s part of the significance of the stories swirling around attacks on the Mariupol theater and the Kanuni Sultan Suleyman Mosque. The fog of war in this situation is apparently extra thick due to the fact that the eye-witnesses have effectively been held hostage. And that includes video of Azov soldiers directing elderly civilians into the Mariupol theater:
Then, on March 12, the alleged bombing of the Turkish-built Kanuni Sultan Suleyman mosque was claimed by the Ukrainian government. But a Russian reporter in the city claimed that local residents were warning him about that attack by Ukraine on the mosque. That same report include warnings of a similar false flag attack planned for the Mariupol theater. Turkish media later reported that there was no shelling at all on the mosque. So first we get Ukrainian government reports that the mosque was shelled. Then we get Russian new reports that locals are warning about a false flag attack on the mosque. Then we get Turkish reports that no attack on the mosque occurred at all. This is the information environment we’re operating in:
But then, less than 48 hours after that ominous warning about a Mariupol theater false flag plan, humanitarian corridors are finally opened and civilians are allowed to flee towards Russian-controlled military positions. Two days later, President Zelenskiy makes his address to the US congress, followed hours later with news from the Azov Battalion about a massive Russian attack at the Mariupol theater. No footage of the attack is available, making the claims about what cause the explosion exclusively sourced from Azov. What is available is photos from the day before showing Azov troops stationed outside theater with a large number of objects piled up next to the area were the explosion took place:
But perhaps the biggest twist in this story is that no one was killed. At least no dead bodies have been found yet. Instead, it appears all of the people in the theater at the time were located in the basement:
Next, here’s a new AP report that underscores just how little on the ground verifiable information is available at this point in Mariupol. The report is written by the last two international journalists operating in the city, describing their harrowing escape. A harrowing escape led by Ukrainian military units operating in the city who apparently freed the journalists on March 15 from a hospital that was then surrounded by Russian forces. The Ukrainian soldiers were apparently looking for the journalists, explaining that if they are caught by Russian forces they were bill forces to claim that everything they reported was a lie. The journalists were then somehow able to escape from the city through 15 Russian-controlled checkpoints. So these two AP reporters were viewed as critical assets by the Ukrainian military forces in Mariupol. Notably, at no point in the report do they mention the Nazi Azov Battalion, the dominant military force in the area. Also of note is the fact that the Ukrainian military (Azov) made sure to get these last two reporters out of the city — through Russian controlled-checkpoints — just one day before the Mariupol theater strike:
“We were the only international journalists left in the Ukrainian city, and we had been documenting its siege by Russian troops for more than two weeks. We were reporting inside the hospital when gunmen began stalking the corridors. Surgeons gave us white scrubs to wear as camouflage.”
If there’s one thing we can conclude from this report, it’s that all of the reports we’re getting about what’s actually happening in Mariupol are based on highly limited information. The two journalists this report was based on were the only international journalists left in Mariupol for the last couple of weeks.
Notably, the Ukrainian soldiers there clearly viewed these AP reporters as highly important figures in this information war. According to this report, Ukrainian soldiers fought to free these journalists March 15 from a hospital that was surrounded by Russian forces, and then escorted them through 15 Russian-controlled evacuation checkpoints. Why were these journalists so important that Ukrainian soldiers and police risked their lives to help get them out? “If they catch you, they will get you on camera and they will make you say that everything you filmed is a lie,” According to one soldier. “All your efforts and everything you have done in Mariupol will be in vain.”
Note that at no point in this report do we see any mention of the fact that the Nazi Azov Battalion is the dominant military force in the city, so this is presumably a very Azov-friendly pair of reporters:
That extraction from the hospital came after weeks of these reporters providing images of injured pregnant women forced to flee from a maternity war hit in an airstrike. It was apparently during a trip to the hospital to find these women when the hospital was surrounded by Russian forces:
So it sounds like these reporters were trapped by Russian soldiers for hours, then Ukrainian forces fought to extract the reporters, who then passed through 15 Russian checkpoints to freedom. It’s pretty remarkable that these journalists who were apparently sought after by Russian soldiers were able to pass through these checkpoints, but that’s the story we’re getting. And as part of these story, we get confirmation that the last international reporters in Mariupol were cone one day before the Mariupol theater strike.
And yes, if indeed the Russian forces really are attacking civilians in the manner Ukraine is claiming, that really is quite awful and it’s extra awful to dismiss those attacks as false flag. But on the flip side, if Azov really is executing false flag atrocities in Mariupol, and the world keeps blindly accepting this, there’s going to be a lot more false flat attacks going forward. Lots of extra awfulness to go around, which is why trying to get at the truth of the matter, regardless of the awful direction that truth may point, is probably the best way to approach these kinds of extra awful situations.
How much worse could the conflict in Ukraine get for trapped civilians? That’s the question raised in a new piece by Bill Arkin in Newsweek. Its a question raised by the massive explosions observed at a mall in Kyiv. A mall that Russia claims was being used to store MLRS rocket launchers. It’s a claim confirmed by independent reporters, underscoring how much of the fighting in Ukraine’s cities is taking place because that’s where much of the military hardware is located.
Which, again, raises the question of how much worse could this conflict get for Ukraine’s civilians trapped in those urban areas. And based on the anonymous Pentagon officials Arkin spoke with, the answer is the war could get much worse for civilians...precisely because Russia has actually been holding back from engaging in the indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas. It’s an answer that seems to be at odds with the coverage of bombed out apartment buildings or other urban destruction. But according to these officials, we really are seeing a highly limited urban bombing campaign that has been primarily focused on military targets. It’s why most of the airports around Kyiv remain undamaged and much of the basic infrastructure of the country continues to operate and much of the West of the country has been largely untouched. As opposed to being held back by Ukrainian forces, this limited engagement is part of Russia’s strategy.
Now, as these anonymous Pentagon officials also note, there really is very devastating damage to some urban areas, notably Mariupol. But that’s primarily been from the ground fighting and the use of artillery. And, of course, we have to keep in mind that some of the high profile damage in places like Mariupol, home of the Azov Battalion, might be self-inflicted.
For all of the talk we’re hearing about the Russian military being forced to engage in medieval siege warfare now that Ukraine has refused to collapse without a fight, the indiscriminate killing of civilians hasn’t actually started yet according to these analysts. It could. That’s presumably an implicit threat that’s part of the negotiation process. But at least so far, the Russian assault appears to have been intentionally restrained for the vast majority of Ukraine. So as the debate over whether or not Ukraine should accept Russia’s peace terms rages in the West, it’s going to be important to keep in mind that this conflict could get a lot worse for civilians fast at Russia’s discretion:
“But, the analyst says, the damage associated with a contested ground war involving peer opponents shouldn’t blind people to what is really happening. (The analyst requested anonymity in order to speak about classified matters.) “The heart of Kyiv has barely been touched. And almost all of the long-range strikes have been aimed at military targets.””
Is Ukraine enduring the indiscriminate bombardment of Russian forces intent on pummeling the populace into submission? That’s the impression one gets from the general coverage of the conflict. But as these military analysts (anonymously) point out, Ukraine’s civilian areas would look very different if that was actually the case. Instead, we’re seeing Russia largely leave these major metropolitan areas untouched with the key exception of military installations. It’s why only one major airport has been hit in Kyiv. We aren’t looking at a repeat of Grozny:
Crucially, as these analysts note, this relative restraint signals the path out of this conflict. For all of the talk about Russia deciding ot level the country, it appears to be quite the opposite: Russia is waging a relatively limited invasion — with most of the destruction focused on Mariupol — at the same time Russia calls for peace negotiations. It’s part of why the narrative about indiscriminate Russian bombing and war crimes isn’t helping. It’s a narrative that risks extending this conflict and making indiscriminate bombing far more likely:
Russia could be killing far more civilians if it wants to, but it doesn’t want to do that. That’s the conclusion these analysts are forced to anonymously provide to veteran military reporter Bill Arkin. Despite all of the coverage, what we’re seeing right now really is the relatively restrained version of how this invasion could have gone down. And still might go down should peace talks remain stalled.
With reports of Russia’s first ever use of a hypersonic missile in Ukraine, here’s a an article from back in November that serves as a reminder that we could end up seeing all sorts of experimental weapons used by all sides by the time this conflict is over. Experimenting with new ways of killing people is one of the few things war is genuinely ‘good’ for, after all:
In a move laden with historical significance, the US the reactivated the 56th Artillery Command in Germany. The unit was previously active between 1963 and 1991. So it’s being reactivated just in time for the ‘New Cold War’, with a mission of acting as a kind of hub for artillery operations across Europe. Beyond that, the unit is going to be tasked with the introduction of new experimental weapon systems. Weapon systems that, in many cases, would have been previously banned under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty that the US pulled out of in 2019. This includes the Dark Eagle hypersonic missile, which we are told the US Army is hoping to field in coming years. And that’s just one of the previously-banned missiles that we are told this newly reactivated command unit in Germany is planning on rolling out in the relatively near future. There will presumably be a lot more new weapons ‘tested’ in Ukraine the longer this goes:
“The 56th is co-located in Mainz-Kastel with the Army’s second so-called Multi-Domain Task Force (MDTF). The service’s MDTFs, the first of which was established at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington State, are still-evolving units that are being used as testbeds to explore the introduction of new weapons and other capabilities. They are expected to have an operational role, especially in any future high-end conflict against a major opponent such as Russia or China.”
A new hub for experimental weapons. Experimental weapons expected to be especially useful in any future conflict with Russia or China. Weapons like the hypersonic Dark Eagle or the multi-purpose Typhon. Or the Amy’s new intermediate-range ballistic missiles with a range of over 310 miles:
And as the article notes, all three of these experimental new missile systems would have been banned under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which collapsed in 2019 after the Trump administration pulled the US out of the treaty. So part of the historic significance of the reopening of the 56th Artillery Command is that introduction of previously banned missiles is the predictable consequence of the US’s historic decision to withdraw from that treat. A decision made just three years ago:
And don’t forget that the implications of pulling out of the INF Treaty at the same time the West is continuing to dangle NATO membership to Ukraine included the very real possibility of a future NATO-member Ukraine fielding all of these previously-banned weapons capable of rapidly hitting deep inside Russia. Which raises the apocalyptic question: if a nuclear power has hypersonic missiles sitting on its borders, which are presumably capable of knocking out nuclear missile sites extremely rapidly, could that effectively neutralize the logic of mutually assured destruction? In other words, if hypersonic missiles in Ukraine are capable of rapidly hitting all of Russia’s ballistic missile sites and long-range bomber airfields in a matter of minutes, would that effectively grant NATO a kind of first-strike capacity? It’s the kind of question we had better hope policy-makers are asking. Because something clearly spooked Vladimir Putin in a big way to provoke this invasion. It shouldn’t be too hard to understand how Putin would find an unstoppable first-strike capacity derived from a NATO-armed Ukraine pretty spooky.
Here’s an article about a now familiar story coming out of Latvia, with a 2022 twist: that would be the story of Latvia’s annual parade honoring Latvia’s SS Legion. Yep, after taking a break for the past couple of years over pandemic concerns, the government of Latvia is officially celebrating its most notorious Nazis as heroes. At the same time Russian’s ‘de-Nazification’ invasion of Ukraine currently underway. It’s like nation-state trolling. Except it’s not trolling. It’s just the latest manifestation of a very real trend of the glorification and historic whitewashing of some of Europe’s most notorious war criminals. And more or less the exact same phenomena that has pervades Ukraine. So it’s the same old story of yesterday, but with the trolling twist of having this parade literally taking place across the border from a major European war being fought on a de-Nazification pretext.
Is there any push back against this parade? Yes, but it’s also the same old story: Latvia’s Jewish community is decrying the parade. And largely being ignored. As the following article notes, it’s been the same old story for decades in Latvia. And not only did the Latvian government deny the request to allow a counter-protest by those oppose to Nazi glorification at this year’s parade, but it’s alleging those who denounce the parade have been duped by “Russian disinformation”.
How about other western governments? Are they saying anything in response to this parade? Well, as the following Ottawa Citizen article also notes, the government of Canada did indeed denounce the parade explicitly, with a government spokesperson announcing that Canada was “strongly opposed to the glorification of Nazism and all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, intolerance and extremism. That is why we condemn the parade to commemorate the Latvian SS Brigade held in Latvia on March 16th.”. No such denouncement was made in 2022. Instead, the Canadian government issued a statement that appeared to distance the Latvian government from the event: “Canada has consistently supported Latvia’s freedom and independence, and condemns those who would co-opt those sentiments to promote hatred, extremism, and division...To our understanding, these events are neither sanctioned nor attended by the Latvian government.”
So we aren’t just seeing the Latvian government officially celebrate its heroic Nazis. We’re also seeing governments like Canada go out of their way to excuse it. It’s not exactly easing the tensions:
“Marvin Rotrand, a national director with B’nai Brith Canada, said Latvia continued to ignore calls for the parade to be shut down. “They are honouring a SS unit whose members were involved in atrocities,” Rotrand said. “This year, in particular, there is an amazing lack of understanding of the damage a march like this does to the unity of NATO and the nations standing for democracy.””
Yes, it’s rather amazing how this year, in particular, there is no discernible recognition for how much these kinds of events do to narrative about NATO standing up for democracy and opposing Nazism. But it is what it is. The show must go on and those who denounce the parade will be labeled victims of Russian propaganda. Heck, Latvia’s government even blocked a counter-protest. They aren’t being subtle with the messaging. This is as official an embrace as the Latvian SS legion could possibly get. And yet the government of Canada decided to issue a statement denouncing the parade but then excusing the Latvian government from having anything to do with it. Again, it’s all pretty amazing. Amazingly gross:
Also note that when Holocaust scholars and Jewish groups note the easiest way for eastern European governments to undercut Putin’s claims that they support Nazism would be to put a halt to such celebrations and to remove monuments to collaborators, it’s important to keep in mind that one of the most important target audiences in this conflict is the Russian populace in general. If anyone needs to be put at ease about the Nazification of Eastern Europe, it the Russian public. Especially now, with Joe Biden declaring that Vladimir Putin “cannot stay in power”, making it ever more clear that regime change in Russia is now the top priority in this conflict. Does the West seriously expect the Russian public to suddenly forget everything it’s seen and just accept the laughable denials of Western governments. It’s a ‘don’t believe your lying eyes’ kind of situation. So it appears that the West is in for some rather nasty surprises: the surprise of learning that the Russian populace is actually paying attention to all these stories about the Nazification of Eastern Europe. And the nasty surprise of learning that the trollish and utterly implausible denials of this open Nazification is the kind of behavior that’s going to convince the Russia public the Nazi problem isn’t just in Eastern Europe.
Why hasn’t Vladimir Putin been more brutal in Ukraine? That’s the question raised by a recent NY Times piece that featured a number of anonymous national security officials sharing a view that diverges quite a bit from the prevailing narrative in the western media of the indiscriminate bombing of Ukrainian cities. On the contrary, these US officials appear to be downright baffled as to why Russia hasn’t been attacking Ukrainian infrastructure at anywhere close to the intensity the Russian military is capable of, including a lack of attacks on the infrastructure transporting Western arms from the West across the country. As the analysts note, this relatively tepid approach to the conflict stands in deep contrast to the bombastic coverage of the war on Russian media. Of course, the same could be said for the coverage of the war in much of the West.
It’s rather notable that the sentiment in this piece more or less matches the sentiments shared by the anonymous US military officials who spoke to Bill Arkin back in March. And that points to what could be considered the most disturbing aspect of this report: the bafflement over Putin’s apparent holding back is shared by policymakers in DC who have been fully expecting Putin to hit back much more directly at the West over the incredible number of Russian casualties as a result of the West’s intense military aid to Ukraine. In other words, as bad as the as gotten in Ukraine, it’s not nearly as bad as Western policymakers have been planning on making it. The fighting was supposed to be more intense and the tensions between Russian and the West should have been even more tense. But that hasn’t happened and policymakers are trying to determine why:
“The apparent restraint on the ground stands in contrast to the bombast on Russian state television, where Moscow is described as being locked in an existential fight against the West and where the use of nuclear weapons is openly discussed. The issue is whether, as the war grinds on, Mr. Putin will change tack and intensify the war.”
If Russia really is locked in an existential battle with the West, it’s not acting like it. Instead, as one Russian opposition analyst put it, the Kremlin was fighting as “less than half strength”. So given that Vladimir Putin appears to still be a rational actor, what is the rationale for holding back so much? It’s a question that no one appears to have a satisfactory answer for, hence the broad range of speculation:
But while that mystery of why Russia appears to be holding back so much raises a lot of troubling questions, perhaps the most disturbing part of this report is how it reveals how policy makers in DC have been surprised by the amount Russia has held back, including the lack of attacks on Western arms shipments. Beyond that, there appears to be an expectation that the Kremlin is going to be hitting back at the West far more directly in retaliation for all this aid to Ukraine that is directly killing Russian soldiers. In other words, DC has been operating from a playbook that has assumed this conflict would have escalated much more by now. So as bad as tense as the situation is right now between the world’s nuclear powers, it’s not actually as tense as Western policymakers were planning on making it:
And it’s that apparent expectation in DC that Russia would have struck back at the West by now, and will strike eventually, that makes the situation really feel like a WWIII provocation. Even these analysts are acknowledge that no one knows where the ‘red line’ is when it comes to actions that could provoke a nuclear response from the Kremlin. Even Moscow doesn’t know where that line is right now because we’re all in such uncharted waters:
And there we have it. One anonymous official after another expressing surprise that we aren’t much closer to WWIII. So if Putin is indeed the rational actor these analysts all appear to agree he still is, perhaps one of the reasons he appears to be so hesitant about making any moves that could turn this conflict into a broader conflict between Russia and NATO is because he has reasonably concluded that turning this into a broader conflict with NATO appears to be a NATO objective. Really the objective at this point. At least that’s what we can reasonably infer from a new report out of Pravda Ukraine about a message delivered directly to President Volodymyr Zelensky by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson during Johnson’s surprise trip to Kiev last month: Johnson’s message that Ukraine’s NATO partners were NOT prepared to sign any security guarantees or agreements with Russia to end the conflict even if Ukraine was ready to sign such agreements. Russia was reportedly open to peace negotiations at this point. Three days later, the talks collapsed
“Johnson’s position was that the collective West, which back in February had suggested Zelenskyy should surrender and flee, now felt that Putin was not really as powerful as they had previously imagined, and that here was a chance to “press him.””
The opportunity to “press” Putin was just too big to resist. Therefore, peace talks had to be resisted instead. Extending the war has become a NATO objective, with the long-term goal of strategically weakening Russia’s military capacity. In other words, the plan is for an extended conflict that bleeds Russia’s military dry:
It’s not really a mystery that this has been the plan. It’s more of mystery that this report made it into the press at all. But surely Putin has been aware that he was being goaded into a military death trap. It all points towards the dangerously perverse dynamic at work here: the fact that Putin’s decision to hold back Russian military probably has a lot to do with the fact that NATO appears to have arrived at the conclusion that now is the time to ‘push’ Putin into the kind of corner where he will be forced to either accept a crushing military defeat or escalate the situation into WWIII, and appears to be fine with either outcome.