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
EVERYTHING MR. EMORY HAS BEEN SAYING ABOUT THE UKRAINE WAR IS ENCAPSULATED IN THIS VIDEO FROM UKRAINE 24
ANOTHER REVEALING VIDEO FROM UKRAINE 24
Mr. Emory has launched a new Patreon site. Visit at: Patreon.com/DaveEmory
FTR#1247 This program was recorded in one, 60-minute segment.
Introduction: This program features a reading of an interview done with Colonel Jacques Baud by The Postil.
Key Points of Discussion and Analysis: As with the two analytical pieces Baud did on the conduct and progress of the war itself, Colonel Baud stresses that the picture of the Ukraine War being presented by Western politicians and media voices consists of what they want to happen, rather than the information that would be provided by a good intelligence service, which would present the situation as it actually exists:
- “ . . . . As a result, we tend to portray the enemy as we wished him to be, rather than as he actually is. This is the ultimate recipe for failure. . . .”
- “ . . . . First, most people, including politicians and journalists, still confuse Russia and the USSR. For instance, they don’t understand why the communist party is the main opposition party in Russia. . . .”
- “ . . . . Most people, including the top brass, tend to confuse ‘Russia’ and ‘USSR.’ As I was in NATO, I could hardly find someone who could explain what Russia’s vision of the world is or even its political doctrine. Lot of people think Vladimir Putin is a communist. . . .”
- “ . . . . In 2014, during the Maidan revolution in Kiev, I was in NATO in Brussels. I noticed that people didn’t assess the situation as it was, but as they wished it would be. This is exactly what Sun Tzu describes as the first step towards failure. . . .”
- “ . . . . We like to call him [Putin] a ‘dictator,’ but we have a hard time to explain what we mean by that. As examples, people come up invariably with the assassination of such and such journalist or former FSB or GRU agents, although evidence is extremely debatable. . . .”
- “ . . . . the German doctors in the Charité Hospital in Berlin, were not able to identify any nerve agent in Navalny’s body. Surprisingly, they published their findingsin the respected medical review The Lancet, showing that Navalny probably experienced a bad combination of medicine and other substances. The Swedish military lab that analyzed Navalny’s blood—redacted the name of the substance they discovered, which is odd since everybody expected ‘Novichok’ to be mentioned. . . .”
- “ . . . . In fact, it appeared clear to me that nobody in NATO had the slightest interest in Ukraine. The main goal was to destabilize Russia. . . .”
- “ . . . . The problem here is that these far-right fanatics threatened to kill Zelensky were he to try to make peace with Russia. As a result, Zelensky found himself sitting between his promises and the violent opposition of an increasingly powerful far-right movement. In May 2019, on the Ukrainian media Obozrevatel, Dmytro Yarosh, head of the ‘Pravy Sektor’ militia and adviser to the Army Commander in Chief, openly threatened Zelensky with death, if he came to an agreement with Russia. . . .”
- “ . . . . I am not sure about the so-called ‘color-revolutions’ aim at spreading democracy. My take is that it is just a way to weaponize human rights, the rule of law or democracy in order to achieve geo-strategic objectives. . . .”
- “ . . . . Ukraine is a case in point. After 2014, despite Western influence, it has never been a democracy: corruption soared between 2014 and 2020; in 2021, it banned opposition media and jailed the leader of the main parliamentary opposition party. As some international organizations have reported, torture is a common practice, and opposition leaders as well as journalists are chasedby the Ukrainian Security Service. . . .”
- “ . . . . But as soon as you come up with western data that do not fit into the mainstream narrative, you have extremists claiming you ‘love Putin.’ . . .”
- “ . . . . Our media are so worried about finding rationality in Putin’s actions that they turn a blind eye to the crimes committed by Ukraine, thus generating a feeling of impunity for which Ukrainians are paying the price. This is the case of the attack on civilians by a missile in Kramatorsk—we no longer talk about it because the responsibility of Ukraine is very likely, but this means that the Ukrainians could do it again with impunity. . . .”
- “ . . . . With the end of the Cold War, Russia expected being able to develop closer relations with its Western neighbors. It even considered joining NATO. But the US resisted every attempt of rapprochement. . . .”
- “ . . . . The purpose of this incredible polarization is to prevent any dialogue or negotiation with Russia. We are back to what happened in 1914, just before the start of WWI. . . .”
- “ . . . . Since 2014, I haven’t met any intelligence professional who could confirm any Russian military presence in the Donbass. In fact, Crimea became the main ‘evidence’ of Russian ‘intervention.’ Of course, Western historians ignore superbly that Crimea was separated from Ukraine by referendum in January 1990, six months before Ukrainian independence and under Soviet rule. In fact, it’s Ukraine that illegally annexed Crimea in 1995. . . .”
- “ . . . . Regardless of what Russia does, US and western strategy is to weaken it. From that point on, Russia has no real stake in its relations with us. Again, the US objective is not to have a ‘better’ Ukraine or a ‘better’ Russia, but a weaker Russia. . . .”
- “ . . . . As Henry Kissinger said in the Washington Post: ‘For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.’ . . .”
- “ . . . . I think the decay of US hegemony will be the main feature of the next decades. . . . . The loss of confidence in the US dollar may have significant impact on the US economy at large. . . . a significant deterioration could lead the United States to engage in more conflicts around the world. This is something that we are seeing today . . . .”
1. We begin by reading an interview The Postil did with Colonel Baud. We will continue with this interview next week.
Key Points of Discussion and Analysis: As with the two analytical pieces Baud did on the conduct and progress of the war itself, Colonel Baud stresses that the picture of the Ukraine War being presented by Western politicians and media voices consists of what they want to happen, rather than the information that would be provided by a good intelligence service, which would present the situation as it actually exists:
- “ . . . . As a result, we tend to portray the enemy as we wished him to be, rather than as he actually is. This is the ultimate recipe for failure. . . .”
- “ . . . . First, most people, including politicians and journalists, still confuse Russia and the USSR. For instance, they don’t understand why the communist party is the main opposition party in Russia. . . .”
- “ . . . . Most people, including the top brass, tend to confuse ‘Russia’ and ‘USSR.’ As I was in NATO, I could hardly find someone who could explain what Russia’s vision of the world is or even its political doctrine. Lot of people think Vladimir Putin is a communist. . . .”
- “ . . . . In 2014, during the Maidan revolution in Kiev, I was in NATO in Brussels. I noticed that people didn’t assess the situation as it was, but as they wished it would be. This is exactly what Sun Tzu describes as the first step towards failure. . . .”
- “ . . . . We like to call him [Putin] a ‘dictator,’ but we have a hard time to explain what we mean by that. As examples, people come up invariably with the assassination of such and such journalist or former FSB or GRU agents, although evidence is extremely debatable. . . .”
- “ . . . . the German doctors in the Charité Hospital in Berlin, were not able to identify any nerve agent in Navalny’s body. Surprisingly, they published their findingsin the respected medical review The Lancet, showing that Navalny probably experienced a bad combination of medicine and other substances. The Swedish military lab that analyzed Navalny’s blood—redacted the name of the substance they discovered, which is odd since everybody expected ‘Novichok’ to be mentioned. . . .”
- “ . . . . In fact, it appeared clear to me that nobody in NATO had the slightest interest in Ukraine. The main goal was to destabilize Russia. . . .”
- “ . . . . The problem here is that these far-right fanatics threatened to kill Zelensky were he to try to make peace with Russia. As a result, Zelensky found himself sitting between his promises and the violent opposition of an increasingly powerful far-right movement. In May 2019, on the Ukrainian media Obozrevatel, Dmytro Yarosh, head of the ‘Pravy Sektor’ militia and adviser to the Army Commander in Chief, openly threatened Zelensky with death, if he came to an agreement with Russia. . . .”
- “ . . . . I am not sure about the so-called ‘color-revolutions’ aim at spreading democracy. My take is that it is just a way to weaponize human rights, the rule of law or democracy in order to achieve geo-strategic objectives. . . .”
- “ . . . . Ukraine is a case in point. After 2014, despite Western influence, it has never been a democracy: corruption soared between 2014 and 2020; in 2021, it banned opposition media and jailed the leader of the main parliamentary opposition party. As some international organizations have reported, torture is a common practice, and opposition leaders as well as journalists are chasedby the Ukrainian Security Service. . . .”
- “ . . . . But as soon as you come up with western data that do not fit into the mainstream narrative, you have extremists claiming you ‘love Putin.’ . . .”
- “ . . . . Our media are so worried about finding rationality in Putin’s actions that they turn a blind eye to the crimes committed by Ukraine, thus generating a feeling of impunity for which Ukrainians are paying the price. This is the case of the attack on civilians by a missile in Kramatorsk—we no longer talk about it because the responsibility of Ukraine is very likely, but this means that the Ukrainians could do it again with impunity. . . .”
- “ . . . . With the end of the Cold War, Russia expected being able to develop closer relations with its Western neighbors. It even considered joining NATO. But the US resisted every attempt of rapprochement. . . .”
- “ . . . . The purpose of this incredible polarization is to prevent any dialogue or negotiation with Russia. We are back to what happened in 1914, just before the start of WWI. . . .”
- “ . . . . Since 2014, I haven’t met any intelligence professional who could confirm any Russian military presence in the Donbass. In fact, Crimea became the main ‘evidence’ of Russian ‘intervention.’ Of course, Western historians ignore superbly that Crimea was separated from Ukraine by referendum in January 1990, six months before Ukrainian independence and under Soviet rule. In fact, it’s Ukraine that illegally annexed Crimea in 1995. . . .”
- “ . . . . Regardless of what Russia does, US and western strategy is to weaken it. From that point on, Russia has no real stake in its relations with us. Again, the US objective is not to have a ‘better’ Ukraine or a ‘better’ Russia, but a weaker Russia. . . .”
- “ . . . . As Henry Kissinger said in the Washington Post: ‘For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.’ . . .”
- “ . . . . I think the decay of US hegemony will be the main feature of the next decades. . . . . The loss of confidence in the US dollar may have significant impact on the US economy at large. . . . a significant deterioration could lead the United States to engage in more conflicts around the world. This is something that we are seeing today . . . .”
“Our Interview with Jacques Baud”; The Postil; 5/1/2022.
In this penetrating interview, Jacques Baud delves into geopolitics to help us better understand what is actually taking place in the Ukraine, in that it is ultimately the larger struggle for global dominance, led by the United States, NATO and the political leaders of the West and against Russia.
As always, Colonel Baud brings to bear his well-informed analysis, which is unique for its depth and gravity. We are sure that you will find this conservation informative, insightful and crucial in connecting the dots.
The Postil (TP): We are so very pleased to have you join us for this conversation. Would you please tell us a little about yourself, about your background?
Jacques Baud (JB): Thank you for inviting me! As to my education, I have a master’s degree in Econometrics and postgraduate diplomas in International Relations and in International Security from the Graduate Institute for International relations in Geneva (Switzerland). I worked as strategic intelligence officer in the Swiss Department of Defense, and was in charge of the Warsaw Pact armed forces, including those deployed abroad (such as Afghanistan, Cuba, Angola, etc.) I attended intelligence training in the UK and in the US. Just after the end of the Cold War, I headed for a few years a unit in the Swiss Defense Research and Procurement Agency. During the Rwanda War, because of my military and intelligence background, I was sent to the Democratic Republic of Congo as security adviser to prevent ethnic cleansing in the Rwandan refugee camps.
During my time in the intelligence service, I was in touch with the Afghan resistance movement of Ahmed Shah Masood, and I wrote a small handbook to help Afghans in demining and neutralizing Soviet bomblets. In the mid-1990, the struggle against antipersonnel mines became a foreign policy priority of Switzerland. I proposed to create a center that would collect information about landmines and demining technologies for the UN. This led to the creation of the Geneva International Center for Humanitarian Demining in Geneva. I was later offered to head the Policy and Doctrine Unit of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations. After two years in New York, I went to Nairobi to perform a similar job for the African Union.
Then I was assigned to NATO to counter the proliferation of small arms. Switzerland is not a member of the Alliance, but this particular position had been negotiated as a Swiss contribution to the Partnership for Peace with NATO. In 2014, as the Ukraine crisis unfolded, I monitored the flow of small arms in the Donbass. Later, in the same year I was involved in a NATO program to assist the Ukrainian armed forces in restoring their capacities and improving personnel management, with the aim of restoring trust in them.
TP: You have written two insightful articles about the current conflict in the Ukraine, which we had the great privilege to translate and publish (here and here). Was there a particular event or an instance which led you to formulate this much-needed perspective?
JB: As a strategic intelligence officer, I always advocated providing to the political or military decision-makers the most accurate and the most objective intelligence. This is the kind of job where you need to keep you prejudice and your feelings to yourself, in order to come up with an intelligence that reflects as much as possible the reality on the ground rather than your own emotions or beliefs. I also assume that in a modern democratic State decision must be fact-based. This is the difference with autocratic political systems where decision-making is ideology-based (such as in the Marxist States) or religion-based (such as in the French pre-revolutionary monarchy).
Thanks to my various assignments, I was able to have an insider view in most recent conflicts (such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Syria and, of course, Ukraine). The main common aspect between all these conflicts is that we tend to have a totally distorted understanding of them. We do not understand our enemies, their rationale, their way of thinking and their real objectives. Hence, we are not even able to articulate sound strategies to fight them. This is especially true with Russia. Most people, including the top brass, tend to confuse “Russia” and “USSR.” As I was in NATO, I could hardly find someone who could explain what Russia’s vision of the world is or even its political doctrine. Lot of people think Vladimir Putin is a communist. We like to call him a “dictator,” but we have a hard time to explain what we mean by that. As examples, people come up invariably with the assassination of such and such journalist or former FSB or GRU agents, although evidence is extremely debatable. In other words, even if it is true, we are not able to articulate exactly the nature of the problem. As a result, we tend to portray the enemy as we wished him to be, rather than as he actually is. This is the ultimate recipe for failure. This explains why, after five years spent within NATO, I am more concerned about Western strategic and military capabilities than before.
In 2014, during the Maidan revolution in Kiev, I was in NATO in Brussels. I noticed that people didn’t assess the situation as it was, but as they wished it would be. This is exactly what Sun Tzu describes as the first step towards failure. In fact, it appeared clear to me that nobody in NATO had the slightest interest in Ukraine. The main goal was to destabilize Russia.
TP: How do you perceive Volodymyr Zelensky? Who is he, really? What is his role in this conflict? It seems he wants to have a “forever war,” since he must know he cannot win? Why does he want to prolong this conflict?
JB: Volodymyr Zelensky was elected on the promise he would make peace with Russia, which I think is a noble objective. The problem is that no Western country, nor the European Union managed to help him realize this objective. After the Maidan revolution, the emerging force in the political landscape was the far-right movement. I do not like to call it “neo-Nazi” because “Nazism” was a clearly defined political doctrine, while in Ukraine, we are talking about a variety of movements that combine all the features of Nazism (such as antisemitism, extreme nationalism, violence, etc.), without being unified into a single doctrine. They are more like a gathering of fanatics.
After 2014, Ukrainian armed forces’ command & control was extremely poor and was the cause of their inability to handle the rebellion in Donbass. Suicide, alcohol incidents, and murder surged, pushing young soldiers to defect. Even the British government noted that young male individuals preferred to emigrate rather than to join the armed forces. As a result, Ukraine started to recruit volunteers to enforce Kiev’s authority in the Russian speaking part of the country. These volunteers were (and still are) recruited among European far-right extremists. According to Reuters, their number amounts to 102,000. They have become a sizeable and influential political force in the country.
The problem here is that these far-right fanatics threatened to kill Zelensky were he to try to make peace with Russia. As a result, Zelensky found himself sitting between his promises and the violent opposition of an increasingly powerful far-right movement. In May 2019, on the Ukrainian media Obozrevatel, Dmytro Yarosh, head of the “Pravy Sektor” militia and adviser to the Army Commander in Chief, openly threatened Zelensky with death, if he came to an agreement with Russia. In other words, Zelensky appears to be blackmailed by forces he is probably not in full control of.
In October 2021, the Jerusalem Post published a disturbing report on the training of Ukrainian far-right militias by American, British, French and Canadian armed forces. The problem is that the “collective West” tends to turn a blind eye to these incestuous and perverse relationships in order to achieve its own geopolitical goals. It is supported by unscrupulous far-right biased medias against Israel, which tend to approve the criminal behavior of these militias. This situation has repeatedly raised Israel’s concerns. This explains why Zelensky’s demands to the Israeli parliament in March 2022 were not well received and have not been successful.
So, despite his probable willingness to achieve a political settlement for the crisis with Russia, Zelensky is not allowed to do so. Just after he indicated his readiness to talk with Russia, on 25 February, the European Union decided two days later to provide €450M in arms to Ukraine. The same happened in March. As soon as Zelensky indicated he wanted to have talks with Vladimir Putin on 21 March, the European Union decided to double its military aid to €1 billion on 23 March. End of March, Zelensky made an interesting offer that was retracted shortly after.
Apparently, Zelensky is trying to navigate between Western pressure and his far right on the one hand and his concern to find a solution on the other, and is forced into a “back-and-forth,” which discourages the Russian negotiators.
In fact, I think Zelensky is in an extreme uncomfortable position, which reminds me of Soviet Marshal Konstantin Rokossovsky’s during WWII. Rokossovsky had been imprisoned in 1937 for treason and sentenced to death by Stalin. In 1941, he got out of prison on Stalin’s orders and was given a command. He was eventually promoted to Marshall of the Soviet Union in 1944, but his death sentence was not lifted until 1956.
Today, Zelensky must lead his country under the sword of Damocles, with the blessing of Western politicians and unethical media. His lack of political experience made him an easy prey for those who were trying to exploit Ukraine against Russia, and in the hands of extreme right-wing movements. As he acknowledges in an interview with CNN, he was obviously lured into believing that Ukraine would enter NATO more easily after an open conflict with Russia, as Oleksey Arestovich, his adviser, confirmed in 2019.
TP: What do you think will be the fate of the Ukraine? Will it be like all the other experiments in “spreading democracy” (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.)? Or is Ukraine a special case?
JB: I have definitely no crystal ball… At this stage, we can only guess what Vladimir Putin wants. He probably wants to achieve two main goals. The first one is to secure the situation of the Russian-speaking minority in Ukraine. How, remains an open question. Does he want to re-create the “Novorossiya” that tried to emerge from the 2014 unrests? This “entity” that never really existed, and it consisted of the short-lived Republics of Odessa, Donetsk, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov and Lugansk, of which only the Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk “survived.” The autonomy referendum planned for early May in the city of Kherson might be an indication for this option. Another option would be to negotiate an autonomous status for these areas, and to return them to Ukraine in exchange of its neutrality.
The second goal is to have a neutral Ukraine (some will say a “Finlandized Ukraine”). That is—without NATO. It could be some kind of Swiss “armed neutrality.” As you know, in the early 19th century, Switzerland had a neutral status imposed on it by the European powers, as well as the obligation to prevent any misuse of its territory against one of these powers. This explains the strong military tradition we have in Switzerland and the main rationale for its armed forces today. Something similar could probably be considered for Ukraine.
An internationally recognized neutral status would grant Ukraine a high degree of security. This status prevented Switzerland from being attacked during the two world wars. The often-mentioned example of Belgium is misleading, because during both world wars, its neutrality was declared unilaterally and was not recognized by the belligerents. In the case of Ukraine, it would have its own armed forces, but would be free from any foreign military presence: neither NATO, nor Russia. This is just my guess, and I have no clue about how this could be feasible and accepted in the current polarized international climate.
I am not sure about the so-called “color-revolutions” aim at spreading democracy. My take is that it is just a way to weaponize human rights, the rule of law or democracy in order to achieve geo-strategic objectives. In fact, this was clearly spelled out in a memo to Rex Tillerson, Donald Trump’s Secretary of State, in 2017. Ukraine is a case in point. After 2014, despite Western influence, it has never been a democracy: corruption soared between 2014 and 2020; in 2021, it banned opposition media and jailed the leader of the main parliamentary opposition party. As some international organizations have reported, torture is a common practice, and opposition leaders as well as journalists are chased by the Ukrainian Security Service.
TP: Why is the West only interested in drawing a simplistic image of the Ukraine conflict? That of “good guys” and the “bad guys?” Is the Western public really now that dumbed down?
JB: I think this is inherent to any conflict. Each side tends to portray itself as the “good guy.” This is obviously the main reason.
Besides this, other factors come into play. First, most people, including politicians and journalists, still confuse Russia and the USSR. For instance, they don’t understand why the communist party is the main opposition party in Russia.
Second, since 2007, Putin was systematically demonized in the West. Whether or not he is a “dictator” Is a matter of discussion; but it is worth noting that his approval rate in Russia never fell below 59 % in the last 20 years. I take my figures from the Levada Center, which is labeled as “foreign agent” in Russia, and hence doesn’t reflect the Kremlin’s views. It is also interesting to see that in France, some of the most influential so-called “experts” on Russia are in fact working for the British MI‑6’s “Integrity Initiative.”
Third, in the West, there is a sense that you can do whatever you want if it is in the name of western values. This is why the Russian offensive in Ukraine is passionately sanctioned, while FUKUS (France, UK, US) wars get strong political support, even if they are notoriously based on lies. “Do what I say, not what I do!” One could ask what makes the conflict in Ukraine worse than other wars. In fact, each new sanction we apply to Russia highlights the sanctions we haven’t applied earlier to the US, the UK or France.
The purpose of this incredible polarization is to prevent any dialogue or negotiation with Russia. We are back to what happened in 1914, just before the start of WWI…
TP: What will Russia gain or lose with this involvement in the Ukraine (which is likely to be long-term)? Russia is facing a conflict on “two fronts,” it would seem: a military one and an economic one (with the endless sanctions and “canceling” of Russia).
JB: With the end of the Cold War, Russia expected being able to develop closer relations with its Western neighbors. It even considered joining NATO. But the US resisted every attempt of rapprochement. NATO structure does not allow for the coexistence of two nuclear superpowers. The US wanted to keep its supremacy.
Since 2002, the quality of the relations with Russia decayed slowly, but steadily. It reached a first negative “peak” in 2014 after the Maidan coup. The sanctions have become US and EU primary foreign policy tool. The Western narrative of a Russian intervention in Ukraine got traction, although it was never substantiated. Since 2014, I haven’t met any intelligence professional who could confirm any Russian military presence in the Donbass. In fact, Crimea became the main “evidence” of Russian “intervention.” Of course, Western historians ignore superbly that Crimea was separated from Ukraine by referendum in January 1990, six months before Ukrainian independence and under Soviet rule. In fact, it’s Ukraine that illegally annexed Crimea in 1995. Yet, western countries sanctioned Russia for that…
Since 2014 sanctions severely affected east-west relations. After the signature of the Minsk Agreements in September 2014 and February 2015, the West—namely France, Germany as guarantors for Ukraine, and the US—made no effort whatsoever to make Kiev comply, despite repeated requests from Moscow.
Russia’s perception is that whatever it will do, it will face an irrational response from the West. This is why, in February 2022, Vladimir Putin realized he would gain nothing in doing nothing. If you take into account his mounting approval rate in the country, the resilience of the Russian economy after the sanctions, the loss of trust in the US dollar, the threatening inflation in the West, the consolidation of the Moscow-Beijing axis with the support of India (which the US has failed to keep in the “Quad”), Putin’s calculation was unfortunately not wrong.
Regardless of what Russia does, US and western strategy is to weaken it. From that point on, Russia has no real stake in its relations with us. Again, the US objective is not to have a “better” Ukraine or a “better” Russia, but a weaker Russia. But it also shows that the United States is not able to rise higher than Russia and that the only way to overcome it is to weaken it. This should ring an alarm bell in our countries…
TP: You have written a very interesting book on Putin. Please tell us a little about it.
JB: In fact, I started my book in October 2021, after a show on French state TV about Vladimir Putin. I am definitely not an admirer of Vladimir Putin, nor of any Western leader, by the way. But the so-called experts had so little understanding of Russia, international security and even of simple plain facts, that I decided to write a book. Later, as the situation around Ukraine developed, I adjusted my approach to cover this mounting conflict.
The idea was definitely not to relay Russian propaganda. In fact, my book is based exclusively on western sources, official reports, declassified intelligence reports, Ukrainian official medias, and reports provided by the Russian opposition. The approach was to demonstrate that we can have a sound and factual alternative understanding of the situation just with accessible information and without relying on what we call “Russian propaganda.”
The underlying thinking is that we can only achieve peace if we have a more balanced view of the situation. To achieve this, we have to go back to the facts. Now, these facts exist and are abundantly available and accessible. The problem is that some individuals make every effort to prevent this and tend to hide the facts that disturb them. This is exemplified by some so-called journalist who dubbed me “The spy who loved Putin!” This is the kind of “journalists” who live from stirring tensions and extremism. All figures and data provided by our media about the conflict come from Ukraine, and those coming from Russia are automatically dismissed as propaganda. My view is that both are propaganda. But as soon as you come up with western data that do not fit into the mainstream narrative, you have extremists claiming you “love Putin.”
Our media are so worried about finding rationality in Putin’s actions that they turn a blind eye to the crimes committed by Ukraine, thus generating a feeling of impunity for which Ukrainians are paying the price. This is the case of the attack on civilians by a missile in Kramatorsk—we no longer talk about it because the responsibility of Ukraine is very likely, but this means that the Ukrainians could do it again with impunity.
On the contrary, my book aims at reducing the current hysteria that prevent any political solution. I do not want to deny the Ukrainians the right to resist the invasion with arms. If I were Ukrainian, I would probably take the arms to defend my land. The issue here is that it must be their decision. The role of the international community should not be to add fuel to the fire by supplying arms but to promote a negotiated solution.
To move in this direction, we must make the conflict dispassionate and bring it back into the realm of rationality. In any conflict the problems come from both sides; but here, strangely, our media show us that they all come from one side only. This is obviously not true; and, in the end, it is the Ukrainian people who pay the price of our policy against Vladimir Putin.
TP: Why is Putin hated so much by the Western elite?
JB: Putin became Western elite’s “bête noire” in 2007 with his famous speech in Munich. Until then, Russia had only moderately reacted to NATO expansion. But as the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002 and started negotiations with some East European countries to deploy anti-ballistic missiles, Russia felt the heat and Putin virulently criticized the US and NATO.
This was the start of a relentless effort to demonize Vladimir Putin and to weaken Russia. The problem was definitely not human rights or democracy, but the fact that Putin dared to challenge the western approach. The Russians have in common with the Swiss the fact that they are very legalistic. They try to strictly follow the rules of international law. They tend to follow “law-based International order.” Of course, this is not the image we have, because we are used to hiding certain facts. Crimea is a case in point.
In the West, since the early 2000s, the US has started to impose a “rules-based international order.” As an example, although the US officially recognizes that there is only one China and that Taiwan is only a part of it, it maintains a military presence on the island and supplies weapons. Imagine if China would supply weapons to Hawaii (which was illegally annexed in the 19th century)!
What the West is promoting is an international order based on the “law of the strongest.” As long as the US was the sole superpower, everything was fine. But as soon as China and Russia started to emerge as world powers, the US tried to contain them. This is exactly what Joe Biden said in March 2021, shortly after taking office: “The rest of the world is closing in and closing in fast. We can’t allow this to continue.”
As Henry Kissinger said in the Washington Post: “For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.” This is why I felt we need to have a more factual approach to this conflict.
TP: Do you know who was involved and when it was decided by the US and NATO that regime change in Russia was a primary geopolitical objective?
JB: I think everything started in the early 2000s. I am not sure the objective was a regime change in Moscow, but it was certainly to contain Russia. This is what we have witnessed since then. The 2014 events in Kiev have boosted US efforts.
These were clearly defined in 2019, in two publications of the RAND Corporation [James Dobbins, Raphael S. Cohen, Nathan Chandler, Bryan Frederick, Edward Geist, Paul DeLuca, Forrest E. Morgan, Howard J. Shatz, Brent Williams, “Extending Russia : Competing from Advantageous Ground,” RAND Corporation, 2019; James Dobbins & al., “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia,” RAND Corporation, (Doc Nr. RB-10014‑A), 2019]. .This has nothing to do with the rule of law, democracy or human rights, but only with maintaining US supremacy in the world. In other words, nobody cares about Ukraine. This is why the international community (that is, Western countries) make every effort to prolong the conflict.
Since 2014, this is exactly what happened. Everything the West did was to fulfill US strategic objectives.
TP: In this regard, you have also written another interesting book, on Alexei Navalny. Please tell us about what you have found out about Navalny.
JB: What disturbed me about the Navalny case was the haste with which Western governments condemned Russia and applied sanctions, even before knowing the results of an impartial investigation. So, my point in the book is not “to tell truth,” because we do not know exactly what the truth is, even if we have consistent indications that the official narrative is wrong.
The interesting aspect is that the German doctors in the Charité Hospital in Berlin, were not able to identify any nerve agent in Navalny’s body. Surprisingly, they published their findings in the respected medical review The Lancet, showing that Navalny probably experienced a bad combination of medicine and other substances.
The Swedish military lab that analyzed Navalny’s blood—redacted the name of the substance they discovered, which is odd since everybody expected “Novichok” to be mentioned.
The bottom line is that we don’t know exactly what happened, but the nature of the symptoms, the reports of the German doctors, the answers provided by the German government to the Parliament, and the puzzling Swedish document tend to exclude a criminal poisoning, and therefore, a fortiori, poisoning by the Russian government.
The main point of my book is that international relations cannot be “Twitter-driven.” We need to use appropriately our intelligence resources, not as a propaganda instrument, as we tend to do these days, but as an instrument for smart and fact-based decision-making.
TP: You have much experience within NATO. What do you think is the primary role of NATO now?
JB: This is an essential question. In fact, NATO hasn’t really evolved since the end of the Cold War. This is interesting because in 1969, there was the “Harmel Report” that was ahead of its time and could be the fundament of a new definition of NATO’s role. Instead, NATO tried to find new missions, such as in Afghanistan, for which the Alliance was not prepared, neither intellectually, nor doctrinally, nor from a strategic point of view.
Having a collective defense system in Europe is necessary, but the nuclear dimension of NATO tends to restrict its ability to engage a conventional conflict with a nuclear power. This is the problem we are witnessing in Ukraine. This is why Russia strives having a “glacis” between NATO and its territory. This would probably not prevent conflicts but would help keep them as long as possible in a conventional phase. This is why I think a non-nuclear European defense organization would be a good solution.
TP: Do you think that NATO’s proxy war with Russia serves to placate internal EU tensions, between conservative Central/Eastern Europe and the more progressive West?
JB: Some will certainly see it that way, but I think this is only a by-product of the US strategy to isolate Russia.
TP: Can you say something about how Turkey has positioned itself, between NATO and Russia?
JB: I have worked quite extensively with Turkey as I was in NATO. I think Turkey is a very committed member of the Alliance. What we tend to forget is that Turkey is at the crossroads between the “Christian World” and the “Islamic World;” it sits between two civilizations and in a key region of the Mediterranean zone. It has its own regional stakes.
The conflicts waged by the West in the Middle East significantly impacted Turkey, by promoting Islamism and stimulating tensions, in particular with the Kurds. Turkey has always tried to maintain a balance between its desire for Western-style modernization and the very strong traditionalist tendencies of its population. Turkey’s opposition to the Iraq War due to domestic security concerns was totally ignored and dismissed by the US and its NATO Allies.
Interestingly, when Zelensky sought a country to mediate the conflict, he turned to China, Israel and Turkey, but didn’t address any EU country.
TP: If you were to predict, what do you think the geopolitical situation of Europe and the world will look like 25 years from now?
JB: Who would have predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall? The day it happened, I was in the office of a National Security Adviser in Washington DC, but he had no clue about the importance of the event!
I think the decay of US hegemony will be the main feature of the next decades. At the same time, we will see a fast-growing importance of Asia led by China and India. But I am not sure Asia will “replace” the US strictly speaking. While US worldwide hegemony was driven by its military-industrial complex, Asia’s dominance will be in the research and technology area.
The loss of confidence in the US dollar may have significant impact on the US economy at large. I don’t want to speculate on future developments in the West, but a significant deterioration could lead the United States to engage in more conflicts around the world. This is something that we are seeing today, but it could become more important.
TP: What advice would you give people trying to get a clearer picture of what is really driving competing regional/national and global interests?
JB: I think the situation is slightly different in Europe than in North America.
In Europe, the lack of quality alternative media and real investigative journalism makes it difficult to find balanced information. The situation is different in North America where alternative journalism is more developed and constitutes an indispensable analytical tool. In the United States, the intelligence community is more present in the media than in Europe.
I probably could not have written my book based only on the European media. At the end of the day, the advice I would give is a fundamental one of intelligence work:
Be curious!
TP: Thank you so very much for your time—and for all your great work.
Questions of ‘how did we get here?’ are bound to proliferate as the conflict in Ukraine intensifies and deepens in the country’s east. But if the warnings in the following Opinion piece recently published in the New York Times pan out, those questions are going to be asked for the foreseeable future because this conflict may already be at a point where it can’t really be stopped. That’s the conclusion arrived at by conservative journalist Christopher Caldwell, who writes about the warnings issued by Heni Guaino, a top adviser to Nicolas Sarkozy when he was president of France, about how Europe was “sleepwalking” into a war with Russia. A sleepwalk that appeared to be part of a kind of “Peace through Strength” US strategy that was predicated on preventing a Russian invasion by building up Ukraine’s military strength. A strategy that obviously already failed. But a strategy that’s still in place. It’s that strategy — a strategy of “peace through strength, and if that doesn’t work winning the war through more strength” — that Caldwell warns is effectively unstoppable. Each side has to win...or else.
But Caldwell also points out an event that shouldn’t be glossed over in answering the “how did we get here?’ question: back on November 10, 2021, the US and Ukraine signed a “charter on strategic partnership” that called for Ukraine to join NATO, condemned “ongoing Russian aggression” and affirmed an “unwavering commitment” to the reintegration of Crimea into Ukraine. According to Guaino, that charter “convinced Russia that it must attack or be attacked.” As Guaino wrote, “It is the ineluctable process of 1914 in all its terrifying purity.”
Recall how this isn’t the first time Ukraine’s NATO ambitions have been publicly touted. President Petro Poroshenko had a similar kind of NATO ambition ceremony back in February 2019 involving European Commission President Donald Tusk, who attended the ceremony where Ukraine adopted constitutional amendments that included an amendment committing Ukraine to joining NATO by 2023.
As we’re also going to see, it was during this signing ceremony where we heard some of the first public warnings about the threat of a Russian troop build up and invasion plans. At that same ceremony we hear Ukraine’s foreign minister basically articulate this ‘Peace through Strength’ doctrine and his hopes that by making it clear that Ukraine has powerful military allies that Russia can be dissuaded. A strategy that obviously didn’t work. But we’re doubling and tripling down on it anyway:
“Even if we don’t accept Mr. Putin’s claim that America’s arming of Ukraine is the reason the war happened in the first place, it is certainly the reason the war has taken the kinetic, explosive, deadly form it has. Our role in this is not passive or incidental. We have given Ukrainians cause to believe they can prevail in a war of escalation.”
The US has given Ukrainians cause to believe they can prevail in a war of escalation. Which is obviously a recipe for ever greater escalation. That’s the thrust of Caldwell’s argument.
But the US hasn’t given Ukraine this impression that it can win a war of escalation just by flooding the country with weapons. On November 10, 2021, the United States and Ukraine signed a “charter on strategic partnership” that called for Ukraine to join NATO, condemned “ongoing Russian aggression” and affirmed an “unwavering commitment” to the reintegration of Crimea into Ukraine.
It was just the US and Ukraine who signed this charter. But don’t forget how President Petro Poroshenko had a similar kind of NATO ambition ceremony back in February 2019 involving European Commission President Donald Tusk, who attended the ceremony where Ukraine adopted constitutional amendments that included an amendment committing Ukraine to joining NATO by 2023. So when the US and Ukraine made this mutual commitment to get Ukraine in NATO, it’s a commitment that really does include more than just the US and Ukraine:
It’s a rather high stakes strategy: commit to providing Ukraine with whatever support it needs to defeat Russia as a means of dissuading a Russian invasion. It’s the kind of strategy that ignores the fact that arming Ukraine with advanced weapons and pledging to have it join NATO are, from the Kremlin’s perspective, basically bait to force Russia into doing something. There are no easy answers when it comes to these kinds of seemingly intractable international crises. And yet flooding Ukraine with more and more weapons while making pledges to make Ukraine a NATO member are basically being treated as a kind of easy answer to this situation. And easy answer that’s already proven wrong.
But it’s also worth noting something else the US and Ukraine were declaring on November 10, the day of the “charter on strategic partnership” was signed: during a press conference at the State Department, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba expressed their concerns about large Russian military build up along Ukraine’s border and the possibility of an upcoming Russian invasion.
Now, what is not at all mentioned in the article is the NATO ambitions expressed during that signing ceremony. There’s a reference to the signing of a renewed Ukraine-US Strategic Partnership, but that’s it. Neither is there a mention of the large build up of Ukrainian military forces in the east following the March 24, 2021, decree by Zelensky to recapture Crimea that began a redeployment of Ukrainian forces which Jacque Baude has talked about. And that more or less captures the dynamic Caldwell is warning about. After all, the US did indeed follow the strategy of arming Ukraine to the teeth and pledging ever deeper military alliances, ostensibly as part of a strategy of warding off a Russian response. That’s what this signing ceremony and renewed strategic partnership signing ceremony were all about. The strategy of making ever deeper military commitments was followed. And either backfired entirely or worked exactly as planned:
“Blinken and Kuleba addressed reporters at the conclusion of a strategic dialogue that led to the signing of a renewed Ukraine-US Strategic Partnership. The Ukrainian official expressed gratitude to the US for deepening defense and security cooperation “to help Ukraine build its capacity to defend itself and also to deter Russia to demotivate them from taking further aggressive actions.”
A renewed Ukraine-US Strategic Partnership ceremony that involves a commitment to having Ukraine join NATO. So at a ceremony where the US and Ukraine were pledging to do something that has long been viewed as a kind of ‘red line’ by the Kremlin — having Ukraine join NATO — was the venue last November where we some some of the first public pronouncements from the US government about concerns of Russian invasion. Ukrainian foreign minister Kuleba was quite explicit bout this “Peace through Strength” policy, declaring that the “best way to deter aggressive Russias is to make it clear for the Kremlin that Ukraine is strong.” So, if nothing else, this signing ceremony really captured an important aspect of that underlying dynamics driving this conflict. There really was a strategy of making conflict inevitable by adopting a kind of ‘Peace Through Strength’ policy and acting like that was wasn’t a massive provocation:
That’s the dynamic Caldwell is warning about: ‘Peace Through Strength’ for Ukraine has been a driving force for getting us into this situation and also the core strategy for getting us out. So while we don’t know how this is going to end, we can be pretty confident Ukraine is going to be a giant pile of rubble by the end up it. Perhaps a victorious pile of rubble. We’ll see. But the only peace that’s going to be allowed in Ukraine clearly going to come through one side winning by force. It’s a reminder that ‘Peace through Strength’ doesn’t mean there’s never going to be war. It just means war, or the threat of war, is the only way anything is going to be solved.
The war in Ukraine has obviously been a massive boon for US defense contractors. A gift that promises to keep on giving. So it shouldn’t come as any surprise to learn that Palantir is reportedly involved in the Ukrainian war effort. We don’t yet know exactly what services Palantir is providing to Ukraine’s military, but as the following Bloomberg article from a few days ago makes clear, the Ukrainian government is quite interested in expanding Palantir’s involvement in Ukraine’s military operations. Something that Palantir is also very interested in, And as Palantir CEO Alex Karp also makes clear.
But as we’re going to see in the following articles, Palantir’s interest in the war in Ukraine isn’t just about getting another government client. As Karp has been expressing in interviews in recent months, Palantir views the war in Ukraine as a possible inflection point for civilization. An inflection point that could bring about a bifurcation of the global economy and a New Cold War between the ‘West’ on one side and China and Russia on the other side. Karp also included his now standard criticisms of Silicon Valley firms that are willing to do business in Russia and China. So in this sense, Karp’s comments were an extension of the ‘Yellow-peril’ kind of commentary we’ve been hearing from figures like Peter Thiel and Steve Bannon for years. It’s a reminder that when Karp warns about a global bifurcation, he’s also calling for it.
But Karp isn’t just warning about the risk of the conflict in Ukraine triggering a global bifurcation. He’s also warning that the West’s institutions appear to be incapable of dealing with today’s stresses and predicting massive institutional failure and social disruptions. But there’s a far more dire warning: Karp put the odds of nuclear war at 20–30% if the war in Ukraine becomes a long-term conflict.
Interestingly, Karp isn’t predicting a renewed nuclear arms race. Instead, he foresees a new Cold War with AI as the key technology instead of nukes. As Karp sees it, the countries with the most advanced AIs will in effect have the most power in coming decades, much like how nuclear weapons defined power in the last century. This is obviously a highly self-serving prediction given that this is the exact service Palantir provides. But that doesn’t mean there’ isn’t more than a grain a truth to what Karp is predicting. AI really is set to be increasingly important in the national security realm.
So how does Karp address concerns about the potential government abuses that will surely come as national security AIs play ever greater roles in our lives? Well, he assures us that Palantir’s software makes third-party auditing available. That’s it. So if Palantir’s clients decide to police themselves, they can do so.
Finally, as we’re going to see an in interview Karp gave back in April, Palantir won’t just be providing national security intelligence to government clients. Karp also envisions Palantir facilitating data sharing between nations. In particular, Japan’s data sharing with the Five Eyes. Karp thinks Palantir can help with that. It’s a hint about the company’s ambitions. Palantir wants to become the West’s international intelligence broker. A role that it will assume as part of a long-term new AI Cold War conflict that will play out in a bifurcated world. And if this scenario plays out, Palantir also envisions a major possibility of nuclear war and mass institutional failure. So the company that governments hire to analyze data and make predictions is both calling for a major New Cold War and also predicting predicting a global meltdown will result from it:
“Palantir’s technology has been in use by Ukraine, the US and other NATO countries since the beginning of the conflict three months ago, according to a person familiar with the company who asked not to be identified discussing private information.”
We don’t know what exactly Palantir is doing in relation to Ukraine’s war effort. But as the first foreign CEO to visit the country since the start of the conflict, Palantir is clearly very interested in Ukraine.
But if we take Alex Karp at his word, his interest in Ukraine isn’t just the potential new market Ukraine presents for Palantir’s services. According to Karp, the conflict in Ukraine represents a kind of global security inflection poin. An inflection point that could “shatter our collective illusions of stability and perpetual peace.” It’s a profoundly dark prediction:
So what kinds of turmoil is Karp predicting might come with this global institutional meltdown? Well, we got a hint for Karp in an interview a couple weeks ago where he shared a prediction: If the war in Ukraine turns into a long-term conflict, Karp puts the odds of a nuclear war at 20–30%:
““I think, of course, it depends on the duration. If you have a long duration, I think the risk is modellable and it’s probably in the 20–30% range.””
A 20–30% change of nuclear war. Those are the odd Karp was placing on the risk of a nuclear war between Russia and the West if the conflict in Ukraine ends up becoming a long running conflict. But beyond that grim prediction, Karp appears to be suggesting that the world is poised for a period of mass institutational failure and complete irrationality. He’s predicting a kind of global mental meltdown:
So will the nuclear war happen before or after the institutional meltdowns? We’ll find out.
But the invasion of Ukraine and Palantir’s role in that fight hasn’t just prompted fears of a nuclear exchange in Karp’s mind. As he describes in the following Asahi Shimbun article from back in April, Karp views the West as being locked in a long-term strategic full spectrum Cold War with Russian and China. But unlike the last Cold War, AI will be the critical technology in the future of national security.
And what about the concerns about the kinds of services Palantir offers governments being abused as these national security AIs become more and more powerful and invasive? Well, Karp assures us that Palantir’s software allows for oversight by third parties within organizations who do not have a stake in project outcomes. In other words, Palantir isn’t actively monitoring its clients for abuses, but if those clients wanted to monitor themselves the tools are available. It’s not exactly assuring.
But we also get a rather remarkable statement about Palantir’s ambitions in relation to Japan: the company wants to play a role in facilitating intelligence sharing between Japan and the Five Eyes alliance. So Palantir is warning about a coming AI Cold War. A Cold War that’s going to require massive volumes of data collection and sharing shared international across the West and its partners, with Palantir at the heart of it as the West’s intelligence sharing hub:
““The country that controls the best software, in this case AI software and its many manifestations, will dictate the norms of the future, the same way the countries that controlled the nuclear bomb in the last half decade de facto defined the rules of the game,” Karp said.”
AI is the new nukes. That’s how Karp was characterizing the role he envisions AI playing in the geostrategic landscape of tomorrow. The countries with superior AI capabilities will dominate the future.
Of course, under this AI-centric vision, that also means the mass collection of data to feed these AIs are going to be more and more of a national security issue. So how to Karp envision this battle of super-AIs playing out in the context of an ostensible global divide between the ‘free’ West and authoritarian governments? Authoritarian regimes would obviously have a massive advantage in terms of data collection and uses. Karp echoed the ‘yellow peril’ criticism Peter Thiel and Steve Bannon have long issued against Palantir’s Silicon Valley rivals for their willingness to do business in countries like China. He goes on to warn about a global bifurcation. A bifirucation that, of course, he is simultaneously calling for when he makes his demands that Western companies simply stop doing business with Russia or China.
So how does Karp address concerns that Palantir’s services are providing tools ripe for government abuse as this AI Cold War plays out? Well, Karp offers bland assurances about how “software allows for oversight by third parties within organizations who do not have a stake in project outcomes.” In other words, Palantir isn’t actually monitoring how its software is used, but if its clients want to set up their own internal abuse-tracking measures they are free to do so. It’s the kind of none-answer answer that’s a remind that the issue of civil rights abuses by government AIs is poised during the upcoming AI Cold War. An AI Cold War that will be guided by figures like Alex Karp who want to simultaneously assure us that the AI services provided by Palantir are both absolutely vital for international security and also safe from abuse:
And then we get this fascinating hint about another area of growth Palantir has in mind in this future AI Cold War landscape: As AI becomes more and more important for global security, so will information sharing between nations. As such, Karp apparently envisions Palantir playing a role in that information sharing global infrastructure. For example, facilitating the sharing of information between Japan and the Five Eyes. So Palantir is trying to become a kind of Five Eyes international data broke middle-man:
It’s worth keeping in mind thebizarre contradiction in Palantir’s stance here: it wants to be a hyper-nationalistic company with a focus on nationalist security while simultaneously offering similar services to just about any government on the planet that isn’t Russia or China. It’s the kind of business plan that raises the question of how long before Palantir has more access to intelligence than any other entity on the planet? And what are the global security implications of giving a private entity run by known fascists that much power? We’ll find out. But don’t be shocked if it ends in global calamity. That is what Palantir is predicting, after all.
The unofficial — yet basically official — crackdown on Consortium New had an disturbing, if not unexpected, new twist: following on PayPal’s decision to permanently cut off Consortium News from its payment services for mysterious unexplained reasons, we’re now learning that Consortium News has been “reviewed” by a new US government affiliated entity called “NewsGuard”, which has assumed the role of judging news outlets for the quality of their news coverage. So in addition to cutting off Consortium News’s ability to finance itself, the site is also being attack as a purveyor of false news by an app being pushed on the public with government backing.
As we should expect, NewsGuard has charged Consortium News with publishing “false content”. As we should also expect, those charges of “false content” are focused on the outlet’s coverage of the events in Ukraine. Charges of “false content” that are absolutely outrageous and easily refuted using a myriad of mainstream sources. And that’s more or less what the following article by Joe Lauria of Consortium News lays out in extensive detail. It’s just one giant refutation of NewsGuard’s attacks, filled with mainstream news reports backing Consortium News’s reporting. A giant refutation of NewsGuard filled with mainstream news reports backing Consortium News’s reporting that will presumably be entirely ignored by NewsGuard and the rest of the mainstream media:
“Getting a red label means that potentially millions of people that have the NewsGuard extension installed and operating on their browsers will see the green or red mark affixed to websites on social media and Google searches. (For individuals that do not already have it installed and operating on Microsoft’s browser, it costs $4.95 a month in the U.S., £4.95 in the U.K., or €4.95 in the EU to run the extension.)”
The threat is clear: NewsGuard is threatening to put a government-sponsored “False News!” label that will show up next to any links to any Consortium News sites on computers where the NewsGuard app is installed. That’s part of what makes the government sponsorship of NewsGuard so significant. NewsGuard doesn’t just have a kind of US government stamp of approval. It’s also going to have the government’s implicit support in paying for the NewsGuard services at places like public libraries:
And as Joe Lauria lays out in his piece, not only was NewsGuard accusing Consortium News of publishing falsehoods about the forces behind the 2014 Maidan revolution, but NewsGuard’s own version of the ‘truth’ of those events is itself filled with blatant falsehoods. Like the objectively false assertion that protesters only took control of government buildings following the collapse of the Yanukovych government. It underscores how NewsGuard’s mission isn’t just to discredit independent media outlets but also to reinforce official lies:
It’s also worth recalling one of the other major aspects of the 2014 Maidan revolution that is conveniently obscured by NewsGuard’s narrative: by not acknowledging the protester’s presence in these buildings, it’s a lot easier to also obscure the evidence of the role far right snipers played in the sniper attacks that catalyzed the final collapse of the Yanukovych government.
And, again, that was all just a subset of Lauria’s giant article that doesn’t just shred NewsGuard’s attack but also points out how NewsGuard’s own narratives are false. A massive refutation of NewsGuard that relies almost entirely on the citation of the very same mainstream news sources NewsGuard endorses. It’s that kind of gross bad faith from NewsGuard that poses the ever present question: what’s next? Since the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine less than four months ago, Consortium News has had its finances attacked and now its editorial credibility smeared. Consortium News’s reporting is clearly seen as a threat. The kind of threat that can’t really be dealt with directly and remains threatening just by existing. The truth is like that. So what’s next in this war on the truth of what’s happening in places like Ukraine? We’ll see. Although we presumably won’t see if everything goes according to plan.
Following up on the disturbing story of NewsGuard — the US government-backed app that purports to give ‘nutrition’ labels to various news outlets — and its absurd attacks on Consortium News’s coverage of events in Ukraine, here’s a stunning new report out The Grayzone about a parallel intelligence recently set up in the UK to carrying out the same mission. The operation is run by former Trotskyist and BBC journeyman, journalist Paul Mason and Amil Khan, the founder of a shadowy intelligence contractor called Valent Projects. According to a series of leaked emails, Mason and Khan have been working with UK spies to orchestrate an attack on The Grayzone that won’t just deplatform the site but potentially financial destroy it.
At the center of this scheme is an assumption that The Grayzone must be secretly financed by Russia and China. It’s an assumption that Mason and Khan appear to hold about virtually all independent media that question official narratives on foreign conflicts, including Consortium News. Amusingly, Mason even reached out the now-former US Disinformation Czar, Nina Jankowicz, about his concerns about Consortium News’s Kremlin funding. Jankowicz reportedly saw Consortium News as a case of “useful idiots rather than funding,” but Mason’s suspicions of Kremlin funding apparently remained. It’s one of aspects of Mason’s thinking that comes out in these emails: the guy really seems to genuinely be absolutely convinced that independent media outlets must be funded by hostile foreign powers. Considering we’re talking about a former Troskyite-turned-spy, It’s the kind of perspective that gives you a hint as to how profoundly cynical Mason’s view of the world must be. If you’re challenging official lies, you must be a spy.
It also sounds like filing formal complaints in the UK against The Grayzone is also part of the plan. The idea would be to get a complaint submitted by the various ‘targets’ of The Grayzone’s reporting, and use that a pretext to start an official UK investigation into the Grayzone’s financing. The UK’s newly formed psychological operations unit, the Government Information Cell, could also be involved in these efforts.
Oh, an it also turns out that Mason and Khan are planning on setting up their own “International Information Brigade” dedicated to countering what it deems to be Russian or Chinese propaganda. So overall, between the US government-backed NewsGuard attacks on Consortium News and this newly revealed UK government plot against The Grayzone, it’s pretty clear that the kind of reporting challenging official narratives on these foreign conflicts has been deemed to be too dangerous be allowed to continue:
“It is uncertain how Mason and Khan became acquainted, but their mutual coincidence of needs, motives and vendettas is obvious. The public interest in releasing the pair’s private communications is also abundantly clear. If their planned criminalization of The Grayzone for publishing facts and opinions they abhor is successful, it will have dire ramifications for any and all journalists and independent media institutions seeking to challenge the status quo.”
Yes, while we don’t know how these two British spies became acquainted, it’s clear they have a shared mission. And that mission appears to start with the destruction of The Grayzone. But it obviously won’t end there because their shared mission is to destroy independent outlets that put out reporting contradicting the UK national security state’s preferred narratives on foreign conflicts. They’re going after The Grayzone because they see it being at the center of this network of independent voices. A network they are apparently convinced is being financed and operated by the governments of Russia and China. Or at least that’s the convenient excuse. And on one level it shouldn’t be too shocking that these obvious intelligence assets view everyone else as also being an intelligence asset. Paul Mason and Amil Khan inhabit a hall of mirrors world where the truth goes to die. It’s got to be tempting to assume everyone is cynically running an intelligence operation when that’s the environment you’re operating in:
And note how the assumption that The Grayzone is secretly being financed by Russia and China is treated like such an article of faith by Mason that he apparently continued to suspect Consortium News was foreign asset even after Nina Jankowicz, the person tapped for the short-live role of US Disinformation Czar, told him the website was more just a bunch of “useful idiots”. It underscores how the label of foreign asset appears to be at the center of this intelligence operation:
And that brings us to Mason’s communications with a representative of the UK Foreign Office, where they imagined creating a situation where the UK government filed a formal complaint against The Grayzone. A scheme that will potentially involve the UK’s newly founded psychological warfare unit, the Government Information Cell. Under this scheme, the people ‘targeted’ by The Grayzone would get together and submit materials required to get a formal complaint issued, at which point the UK government could begin investigating The Grayzone’s finances:
Also note how Mason doesn’t just want deplatforming. He wants the financial destruction of independent journalism:
And note how Mason was reportedly unimpressed by the scope of this plan. A formal UK investigation into The Grayzone wasn’t enough. But Khan assured Mason that such an investigation could result in actions like algorithmic discrimination and shadow banning:
Finally, note the broader context that this operation is taking place in: Mason and Khan aren’t just trying to destroy outlets like The Grayzone that punch holes in the official narratives. They’re also planning on setting up a new “International Information Brigade”. So this attack on the The Grayzone should be viewed as in part a response to impact The Grayzone’s past reporting has had in revealing state sanctioned lies. But it’s also a preemptive move to neutralize The Grayzone in anticipation of setting up even more brazen propaganda operations:
How will the “International Information Brigade” fare when actually tasked with waging these information wars? Well, as we saw with Joe Lauria’s devastating take down of NewsGuard’s attacks on Consortium News, they’re probably not going to do very well. At least not in any direct debate. But they can potentially silence the opposition. Hence the plan.
As reporting on the intensifying fighting in Eastern Ukraine continues to depict slow but steady Russian gains, questions about what exactly Russia has in mind for Ukraine in the long run are growing all the more relevant. Especially after Palantir CEO Alex Karp recently predicted a 20–30% probability of a nuclear war emerging should this end up becoming a long-term conflict. So what’s the plan? Well, we’re getting a better idea of what that long-term plan might be: territorial expansion, with parts of Eastern Ukraine joining Russia via public referendum. In other words, the Crimea playbook. At least that’s what we can infer based on reports out of the Russian-installed administration in the occupied part of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia region, where officials have announced plans for a public referendum to join Russia that will be held some time this year. The exact timing is unclear, but it sounds like it will happen at some point in the next 6 months.
Now, we have no idea how realistic these declared plans are. But it does give us at least a putative timeline for this opening phase of this conflict: at point this Russia, these Russian occupied regions in Eastern Ukraine could potentially decide to join Russia. Now, what happens at that point is entirely unclear. Perhaps we achieve a new kind of frozen stalemate. But there’s also the obviously possibility that this is exactly the kind of scenario that turns this into a long-term conflict, with NATO resolving to provide Ukraine with whatever it deems is necessary to recapture these territories. It’s the kind of scenario that makes direct conflict between Russia and NATO all the more likely, especially if Russia considers it a NATO invasion of Russia at that point. So as we’re hearing these reports about planned referendums in Russian occupied regions of Ukraine, it’s going to be worth keeping in mind that we could be seeing what is the next major pivot point in this conflict unfolding. Perhaps it’s a pivot back to a frozen conflict. Or maybe a pivot towards WWIII. Time will tell:
““The people will determine the future of the Zaporizhzhia region. The referendum is scheduled for this year,” the official, Vladimir Rogov, was quoted by TASS as saying, giving no further details about the timing.”
We don’t know when the referendum is going to happen in the Zaporizhzhia region. Nor will the region necessarily be entirely under Russian control when it happens. But a referendum appears to be in the works for some time in the next six months:
So does a referendum actually stand a chance of passing a legitimate popular vote? It seems like a dicey proposition. Keep in mind that these are the cities that chose not to join the independent republics back in 2014 and have been experiencing a low level conflict for the past eight years. Odds are opinions are pretty entrenched at this point. But at the same time, let’s not forget that it’s the cities in the East where the brutalities of Nazi battalions like Azov and Right Sector are going to be most directly felt. Brutalities that have presumably only gotten worse since the start of Russia’s invasion. And presumably, in some cases, by the local authorities. Don’t forget that, while regions like Zaporozhzhia chose to stay in Ukraine, a large percent of the populace likely had deep sympathies for the independent republics. How are those elements of the populace been treated by the far right elements of Ukraine’s government in the East? It’s a potentially significant aspect of this story that we haven’t really have very much coverage of in the reporting.
And that brings us to the comments by Ivan Fedorv, the mayor of Melitopol, dismissing the prospect that the populace would ever support a referendum to join Russia. Recall how Federov, a member or Right Sector, was abducted by Russian forces for interrogation early on in the conflict. Abducted and returned unharmed. It was an episode that underscored how unusual this military adventure really is in terms of stated aims. Aims that might now include territorial expansion via referendum that is guaranteed to illicit the most extreme kind of response from Ukraine’s nationalists:
Will Ukraine’s far right get nasty enough to convince the local populace to join Russia? It’s part of the dynamic of this situation.
But there’s also the question of how Ukraine’s international allies are going to respond to these referendums, especially if they result in these regions joining Russia, whether or not the vote is valid. How will territorial expansions affect the ability for this conflict to come to an end? Will annexing parts of Eastern Ukraine be the events that effectively end the conflict? Or deepen it? Again, don’t forget Alex Karp’s prediction: if this conflict turns into a long-term one, there’s a 20–30% chance of nuclear war. So when we’re seeing early indications of these kinds of territorial ambitions, are we seeing the pretext for the resolution of this conflict? Or a dramatic escalation of it? We’ll find out. But as the following TPM piece makes clear, the topic of territorial expansion is something Vladimir Putin isn’t shying from. So if Ukraine’s NATO allies want to use these referendums as an pretext for dramatically deepening NATO’s involvement in the conflict they’ll have plenty of excuses to do so:
““Judging from everything, it’s fallen to us to also return and strengthen,” he added. “And if we start from these basic values forming the foundation of our existence, we will unconditionally succeed in solving the tasks that stand before us.””
Returning and strengthening. It’s an ominous theme for Putin to be publicly championing. Especially ominous when the historic capture of places like the capitol of Estonia are brought up. It’s the kind talk that is guaranteed to fuel claims that Putin is planning on taking land from NATO members next:
Will talk of Russian expansion have a kind of sobering effect on world leaders or will this be treated as cause for greater alarmism and escalation? Again, time will tell. If the referendum timeline is accurate we’re going to find out how world leaders will react within the next six months or so. It’s ominous. On the one hand, some sort of referendum like this is almost the default kind of end to this conflict. But it could also be the trigger point for something far worse. In other words, we’re looking at the beginning of the end. We’re just not sure which end.
What is the actual casualty rate for the Ukrainian forces in the Donbas? It’s largely been a mystery from the outbreak of the conflict, although we could be pretty confident the true number was higher than the official numbers. Recall those reports from a few weeks about Ukrainian volunteers in the Donbas contacting reporters to share with the world the awful conditions under which they were expected to fight, with little to no training or equipment. That’s all part of the context of a disturbing pair of new official updates to the Ukrainian death rate in the Donbas.
First, that official number jumped from 100 to 200 troops a day in a BBC report last week. Then, just yesterday, another Ukrainian official just bumped it up to 200–500 deaths per day for Ukraine’s forces. Despite that, Ukraine maintains that no peace negotiations are possible as long as Russia holds Ukrainian territory. Negotiations can only start after Ukraine wins back its lost territory. So in the last week, the official death rate has jumped 2–5 fold at the same time the government doubled and tripled down on no peace negotiations until it starts winning:
“Mr Podolyak’s suggestion that 100 to 200 Ukrainian soldiers are dying each day is higher than previous estimates. On Thursday, Ukraine’s Defence Minister, Oleksii Reznikov, said Ukraine was losing 100 soldiers a day, and 500 more were injured.”
It was just a week ago when the official estimates for the daily number of killed Ukrainian soldiers jumped from 100 to 200. And yet, despite this dire news, the message coming out of the Ukrainian side was that negotiations are still off the table and peace talks could only resume following a complete Russian withdrawal back to the Feb 24 pre-conflict lines. Ongoing mass casualties are the plan:
So how much longer is Ukraine planning on sustaining these casualty rates? Well, we got a rather disturbing update on that front yesterday from David Arakhamia, who leads Ukraine’s negotiations with Russia and is described as one of Zelensky’s closest advisers. According to Arakhamia, 200–500 Ukrainian soldiers are being killed each day in the Donbas region. In just over a week, the official estimates have jump from 100 to 200–500 deaths per day.
How is this catastrophic death rate affecting the peace negotiations? Well, according to Arakhamia, he continues to contact his Russian counterparts once or twice a week but “both sides clearly realize that right now, there is no place for negotiation.” “Our negotiating position is actually quite weak, so we don’t want to sit at the table if we are in this position. We need to reverse it in some way,” Arakhamia said, who went on to stress the need for a counter-operation to regain lost territory.
Arakhamia also pointed out that Ukraine has recruited one million people into the army and has the capacity to recruit two million more, leaving it adequate potential manpower. It’s weapons that the country needs. In other words, the worse the war goes for Ukraine, the less possible negotiations become and the greater the call for more weapons because Ukraine will accept as high a casualty rate as is necessary to win the war. That’s the message coming out of Ukraine’s government.
So how long can we expect Ukraine to be able to maintain this death rate? Well, we got a bit of a hint from Arakhamia on that matter. When discussing the relative lack of economic impact sanctions have had on Russia’s economy, Arakhamia countered that it will take three to four years for the sanctions to fully take effect, adding “The question is if we (Ukraine) are still here in three or four years to enjoy the show”:
“Up to 1,000 Ukrainian soldiers are being killed or wounded each day in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, with 200 to 500 killed on average and many more wounded, a top Ukrainian official said on Wednesday.”
The official death rate jumped 2–5 fold in just a week. It’s the kind of jump that raises the obviously question of whether or not this new death rate is even accurate. Could it be even worse? Don’t forget the recent reports about new conscripts being sent to the front lines in the Donbas with little or not training and equipment. Ukraine is going to have to start tapping that reserve capacity for its armed forces soon rather than later because it appears to be treating its soldiers as an expendable resource:
And yet, despite this dire news, Arakhamia is reiterating the position that no peace negotiations are possible until Ukraine wins back its lost territory:
How long will this continue? Three to four years maybe? Will Ukraine still have a functioning military by that point? It’s an open question. And yet, despite that open question, Ukraine appears to be absolutely committed to the current strategy. A strategy that appears to demand that Ukraine commit itself ever more to winning at all costs the more lives are lost. It’s a recipe for an extremely bloody eventual victory. Or an extremely bloody eventual defeat. Maybe it’s not the best strategy.
The purging of all things Russian from Ukrainian society got another boost: Ukraine’s parliament just passed a law banning books and music from Russia.
But it’s not just content from Russia. Even Russian-language content from other countries will need to get a special exemption for import. In other words, this is effectively an attempt to ban the Russian language, making it the latest extension of a trend of suppressing the Russian language that was started immediately following the 2014 Maidan revolt and precipitated the ensuing civil war.
So in a country where ~1/3 of the populace are native Russian speakers, how much support does the new law have? ~2/3 of MP supported it and 1/3 opposed. Imagine that. So while the law is being touted as the latest example of Ukraine fighting back against Russian cultural imperialism or something, it’s important to keep in mind that we’re looking at the latest example of the same Ukrainian chauvinist impulses that helped spark Ukraine’s civil war in the first place:
““The laws are designed to help Ukrainian authors share quality content with the widest possible audience, which after the Russian invasion do not accept any Russian creative product on a physical level,” the Ukrainian cabinet’s website quoted him as saying.”
Any “creative product” generated by Russian authors or musicians is officially physically rejected by Ukrainians, according to Ukraine’s Culture Minister Oleksandr Tkachenko. It’s just the latest example of the “decommunisation”/“derussification” agenda that’s been increasingly both purging Ukrainian society of anything associated with Russia while Ukrainian-language content is official elevated. Even Russian-language books from countries other than Russia or Belarus will require special import permissions. That’s a key aspect to keep in mind here in this country where ~1/3 of the populace speaks Russian at home: this isn’t just an attempt to ban content for Russia. It’s designed to purge the Russian language out of Ukrainian society:
.
And while we’re told that this new lawa has ‘broad support’ in the the parliament, it’s important to recognize just how limited that broad support really was. AS the following article notes, 303 of the 450 deputies voted for the new law. So in a country where ~1/3 of the populace prefers to speak Russian, 32% of the MP voted against his law. In other words, while we’re being told that this is move is widely embraced by the Ukrainian populace, that doesn’t actually appear to be the case. Quite the contrary:
“It secured support from 303 of the 450 deputies in the Ukrainian parliament.”
Yep, in a country where ~1/3 of the populace prefers to speak Russian, ~1/3 of the parliament voted against effectively banning the Russian language. Imagine that.
On one level, this is just the latest move in a trend that’s been going on 2014. It’s also a grim reminder that the civil war that erupted in 2014 was very much fought along these language-identity lines.
But it’s hard to ignore the reality that its the regions of the country with the largest Russian-speaking populations that are being occupied by Russian forces, potentially with end goal of annexing these territories. It’s part of the dark context of this move by the Ukrainian parliament: at the same time the Russian-speaking parts of the country are being cleaved off, the Ukrainian government is taking steps to ensure those Russian-speakers know they are seen as second-class citizens in their society. The villainization of Ukraine’s Russian-speakers continues. Even now.