Thursday, September 4, 2014

It's Nato, not Russia, provoking the Ukraine crisis

Op-ed that is right on the money!  Mail & Guardian Africa's Best Read

Such a good read I simply have to use it entirely. It's so refreshing to read something closer to fact as opposed to the constant stream of fantastical news we are inundated with in the West

For the West’s masters of war, it’s a good time to be in Wales. A military alliance that has struggled for years to explain why it still exists has a packed agenda for its Newport summit.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) may not be at the centre of Barack Obama and David Cameron’s plans to ramp up intervention in the Middle East and wipe Isis “out of existence”. But after 13 years of bloody occupation of Afghanistan and a calamitous intervention in Libya, the Western alliance at last has an enemy that seems to fit its bill.
Swinging through the former Soviet republic of Estonia this week, the US president declared that Nato was ready to defend Europe from “Russian aggression”.
Nato’s secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen – who insisted as Danish prime minister in 2003 that “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction ... we know” – has released satellite images supposed to demonstrate that Russia has invaded Ukraine. Not to be outdone, the British prime minister has compared Vladimir Putin with Hitler.
The summit is planning a rapid reaction force to be deployed across Eastern Europe to deter Moscow. Britain is sending troops to Ukraine for exercises. In Washington, Congress hawks are demanding action to give Ukraine “a more capable fighting force to resist” Russia.
Any hope that talk of a ceasefire agreement by Ukraine’s president might signal an end to the conflict was sunk when his prime minister, Arseniy Yatseniuk, described Russia as a “terrorist state” and, encouraged by Rasmussen, demanded that Ukraine be allowed to join Nato.
It was precisely the threat that Ukraine would be drawn into a military alliance hostile to Russia, despite the opposition of most Ukrainians and its then elected government, that triggered this crisis in the first place.
Nato has been the cause of escalating tension and war, which is how it’s been since it was founded in 1949, at the height of the Cold War, six years before the Warsaw Pact, supposedly as a defensive treaty against a Soviet threat. It’s often claimed the alliance maintained peace in Europe for 40 years, when in fact there is not the slightest evidence the Soviet Union ever intended to attack.
After the USSR collapsed, the Warsaw Pact was duly dissolved. But Nato was not, despite having lost the ostensible reason for its existence. If peace had been the aim, a collective security arrangement including Russia, under the auspices of the United Nations, could have been formed.
Instead, it gave itself a new “out of area” mandate to wage unilateral war, from Yugoslavia to Afghanistan and Libya, as the advance guard of a US-dominated new world order. (Henry Kissinger- The Assembly of a New World Order) In Europe it laid the ground for war in Ukraine by breaking a US pledge to Moscow and relentlessly expanding eastwards: first into ex-Warsaw Pact states, then into the former Soviet Union itself.
But the “biggest prize”, as the head of US-funded National Endowment for Democracy put it last year, was ethnically divided Ukraine. After the European Union made its military-linked association agreement with Ukraine, exclusive of a Russian deal – and Ukraine’s corrupt but elected president, who refused to sign it, was overthrown in a US-backed coup by any other name – it was hardly paranoid for Russia to see the takeover of the neighbouring state as a threat to its core interests.
Six months on, Moscow-backed eastern Ukrainian resistance to the Nato-backed nationalists in Kiev has become full-scale war. Thousands have died and human rights abuses have multiplied on both sides, as government troops and their irregular auxiliaries bombard civilian areas and abduct, detain and torture suspected separatists on a mass scale.
The Ukrainian forces backed by Western governments include groups such as the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, whose symbol is the wartime Nazi stormtroopers’ wolf’s hook. The increasingly repressive Kiev regime is now attempting to ban the Ukrainian communist party, which won 13% of the vote at the last parliamentary elections.
But then Nato, whose members have often included fascist governments in the past, has never been too fussy about democracy. Evidence for its claims that Russian troops have invaded eastern Ukraine is also thin on the ground. Arms supplies and covert intervention in support of the Donbass rebels, including special forces and state-backed irregulars are another matter.
This is what Nato powers such as the US, Britain and France have been busy doing all over the world for years, from Nicaragua to Syria and Somalia. The idea that Russia has invented a new form of “hybrid warfare” in Ukraine is bizarre.
That’s not to say the proxy war between Nato and Russia in Ukraine isn’t ugly and dangerous. But it’s not necessary to have any sympathy for Putin’s oligarchic authoritarianism to recognise that Nato and the EU, not Russia, sparked this crisis – and that it’s the Western powers that are resisting the negotiated settlement that is the only way out, for fear of appearing weak.
That settlement will have to include federal autonomy, equal rights for minorities and military neutrality as a minimum: in other words, no Nato.
Nato likes to see itself as the international community. In reality it’s an interventionist and expansionist military club of rich-world states and their satellites used to enforce Western strategic and economic interests. As Ukraine shows, far from keeping the peace, Nato is a threat to it.

Sort of ties up today's previous posts.

2-Catching up on Ukraine- Ceasefire talk/NATO in Wales/MH-17 no press conference

1-Syrian Rebels (NATO's mercs) Offer to Serve as Ground Troops for US airstrikes



    Victoria Nuland's Admits Washington Has Spent $5 Billion to "Subvert Ukraine

  2. Putins 'oligarchic authoritarianism'?
    Even this media reads like fox or BBC the The Guardian

    1. Really brian?
      I have never seen anything in the West from BBC/Fox etc that is even half as critical of NATO, while stating the truth of who is the agressor in the Ukraine situation. And I read many. many news items in one day

    2. putin is no authoriarian,,,and the real oligarchs are in Kiev...Putin is the man who put an end to oiligarchism in russia

    3. the ful sentence runs: ' But it’s not necessary to have any sympathy for Putin’s oligarchic authoritarianism to recognise that Nato and the EU, not Russia, sparked this crisis'

      this statement is meant to rebuke any readers, like me, who do sympathise with Putin, and wish the media were a bit more honest in their screeds..subtext is" Love Obama /Hate Putin

  3. There are reports that the militia have grouped by their standards a massive force in the south of the Republic to take the port of Mariupol. 5000 and 6000 are the numbers I've heard, plus around 300 armoured vehicles.

    Unusually, there are reports of militia losses. Usually they keep quiet about them. Here are some quotes from one of the articles.

    "September 4th Army Novorossia start a large-scale operation to liberate the city of Mariupol, which was occupied by troops of the Ukrainian army. For the liberation of the city were involved in about 6,500 fighters, about 300 units. military equipment, as well as special forces.

    In the eastern side of the departure from Mariupol, shots were heard (rn Shirokino). In the vicinity of the village of nameless is another fight.

    At midnight in Mariupol parties engaged in fire fighting and suffered losses: the army of New Russia has already lost 2 tanks, 3 trucks, 1 tank damaged. Personnel losses - up to 15 people; junta has lost some APCs and IFVs, personnel losses - up to 30 people. Actions Army Novorossia more like a reconnaissance in force, rather than a full-fledged assault."

    Now if this is true, and not a ruse intended to focus Ukranian attention on the south when action is intended elsewhere, then I find it strange.

    Where is the time pressure to take Mariupol? Why not just whittle away at the defenders on the outskirts and offer the defenders generous terms to leave?

    There would seem to me other more pressng targets. Finishing off the pockets of Ukranian army. Shoring up the line in the south west along the H20. Finally pushing north to retake Slovyansk, Severodonetsk and up to the northern borders. It would e great to see a push north similar to the push south we witnessed recently.

    However, even ig the stories are true that the militia are concentrating 5 to 6 thousand men around Mariupol, they could easily be pulled out to participate in what appear more pressing battles to the west and north west of the city.

    Military Maps looks fine on a big screen, but less so on a small screen. One thing it does well is gives a better impression of just how chaotic things are. For example, when the milita swept south, Military Marker gave the impression of it somehow being a very thorough operation. Military Maps seems to have given a better idea of the chaos as the militia in some areas just swept past Ukranian army units leading to a situation where there were isolated Ukranian units all over the place.

    Some militia maps show the south west along the H20 highway in striped pink to show that they do not have full control. This area is still vulnerale to a Ukranian counter offensive. There are also reports of a possible breakout from Mariupol, whether to simply escape or form a bridgehead to the west is unclear.


    1. I saw, yesterday, there was some news about movement towards Maripoul, but, not much of it-
      Haven't checked yet today, but, will be shortly

    2. Hey Anthony- Reading the news this morning. it' doesn't seem as if there has been any move to actually take Mariupol
      On the periphery there are reports of gunfire but not to much else

      "Shelling resounded on the outskirts of a key Ukrainian port

      The sound of incoming and outgoing shelling from different directions appeared to indicate that rebels have partially surrounded the area and are probing its defences.

      The onslaught could be aimed at increasing pressure on the Ukrainian government ahead of peace talks in Minsk, Belarus"

      Perhaps it's psychological at this point?

    3. Hi Penny,

      There are reports that a ceasefire has been agreed. starting today.


  4. Did you all notice the date for the MH17 report's release
    It is coming out this Tuesday, Sept 9/14
    No press conference
    info in the previous post- no press conference?

  5. 'Six months on, Moscow-backed eastern Ukrainian resistance to the Nato-backed nationalists in Kiev has become full-scale war.'

    not true

  6. 'That’s not to say the proxy war between Nato and Russia in Ukraine isn’t ugly and dangerous;'

    its not a proxy war between NATO and russia...,but the media make the reader believe it is

    1. Hi brian

      think you and I are having two different conversations?

      I posted this because it was correctly laying the blame at the feet of NATO for the destruction/destabilization of Ukraine and also correctly pointing out that NATO needs to go away...

      AS I said- I have never seen anything in the West from BBC/Fox etc that is even half as critical of NATO, while stating the truth of who is the agressor in the Ukraine situation.

      We can take issue with the comments on Putin,but, that isn't why I put this article up- though I get where your coming from.