The day cannot be far off when the U.S. is going to have to review and discard Cold War commitments that date to the 1940s and 1950s, and require us to fight a nuclear power such as Russia for countries that have nothing to do with our vital interests or our national security.
“Get off our front porch. Get out of our front yard. And stay out of our backyard.”
This might stand as a crude summary of two draft security pacts Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei A. Ryabkov delivered last week as Russia’s price for resolving the crisis created by those 100,000 Russian troops on Ukraine’s borders.
Ryabkov’s demands appear to be a virtual ultimatum, designed to be rejected by the U.S. and NATO and provide Moscow with a pretext for an invasion and occupation of part or all of Ukraine.
Among the maximalist Russian demands:
Written guarantees from NATO that it will not admit into the 70-year-old Cold War alliance any more ex-Soviet republics, specifically, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Offensive weapons are to be kept out of nations that border Russia.
The U.S. and Russia should keep their warships and strategic bombers away from each other’s territory. The U.S. should forgo planting military bases in any of the five “stans,” the Central Asian nations that once were part of the USSR.
NATO should withdraw military infrastructure it has placed in Eastern European states after 1997.
That date is significant. For not until 1999 did Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic join NATO. And the accession of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Slovenia came only in 2004.
Russia is calling for the creation of a security zone around its borders to include all of the former Soviet Union and beyond, where U.S. and NATO military bases would be prohibited.
American foreign policy, wrapped up in hubris inside American exceptionalism, is incapable of recognizing a dangerous situation.
And a dangerous situation is what we have.
The Russian deputy foreign minister Sergey Ryabkov speaking for the Kremlin has made it clear that Russia will tolerate no further movement of NATO toward Russia’s borders.
Russia has ruled out any possibility of the former Russian provinces of Ukraine and Georgia becoming NATO members. If this red line is ignored, the consequences, Ryabkov said, “will be dire.” Russia will respond militarily, and the West, he said, will find it has undermined its own security, not Russia’s.
In other words, as the Kremlin sees it, the incorporation of Ukraine and/or Georgia into NATO is an unacceptable threat to Russian national security. Period. It is not negotiable.
In a rational world such an unequivocal statement by a preeminent military power with hypersonic nuclear missiles would be taken seriously.
But the Western World is no longer rational. It is a world drunk on arrogance. The NATO secretary replied to what is, in effect, an ultimatum from a nuclear power by rejecting out of hand that power’s security concern:
“Whether kii joins NATO is up to the bloc’s member states and its leadership, and Moscow doesn’t have input into the decision.” The idiot NATO secretary went on to boast, foolishly, that NATO was so little impressed with Russian objections that NATO was “already training Ukrainian troops and consulting with them, and are conducting joint exercises and providing military supplies and technology.”
The White House spokesperson replying for President Biden and the National Security Council said Washington “will not compromise” on NATO expansion, adding that Washington won’t accept the idea of halting NATO expansion, despite what Russia demands.
In other words–be certain to understand this and its consequences–Washington’s position is that Russia has NO legitimate national security interests except as defined by Washington.
Here we have a highly dangerous situation. One power says you are treading on me and we won’t tolerate it; the other power says you have no say in the matter.
During the 20th century Cold War we Cold Warriors heard every word, every intonation of what the Soviets said. To risk nuclear war because some fool had wax in his ears or was feeling macho that day was out of the question. In those days there were departments of Russian studies in US universities that were not dependent on funding from the military-security complex. There was public debate. There was always an independent expert, such as Stephen Cohen, to remind everyone of how the Russians saw the situation.Russia Has Western Enemies, Not Partners
Today independent scholarship has disappeared. Russian studies programs in universities are Russophobic in keeping with their funding. As there are no objective scholars, there are no knowledgeable people in the US intelligence community. We can see this in the recent statement of Biden’s national security advisor Jake Sullivan, who reports that US intelligence agencies believe that Putin is “giving serious consideration” to an invasion of Ukraine.
Washington has been saying this since 2014 when Washington overthrew the Russian friendly Ukrainian government hoping to seize in the process the Russian naval base in Crimea. It is a fixed message. There is no thought. Just repetition of propaganda. So we have a National Security Council incapable of nothing but the repetition of propagandistic slogans.
In effect Washington is already at war with Russia.
Meanwhile last Thursday evening, December 16, Washington and its neo-nazi Ukraine puppet decided to confirm Russian suspicions that Washington and Ukraine represent revanchist Nazism. Only two countries voted against the UN resolution condemning Nazism. Yes, it was the United States and Ukraine. The utter total stupidity of the US vote is extraordinary. That Washington supports Nazism is the last thing the Kremlin needed to hear.
My generation was the last generation in the West to be educated instead of indoctrinated, and even we were fed lies about World War I and World War II.
Subsequent generations are largely unaware that in German-occupied Western Ukraine large armies were organized and incorporated into the German army’s march into Russia. It was remnants of these “Banderas” (Stepan Bandera) that Washington used to overthrow the Ukrainian government and install an American puppet state on former Russian territory while the Kremlin, ignoring its backyard, was enjoying the Sochi Olympics.
The mistakes that people make have more to do with world history than any good decisions.
I am watching Washington, which I know so well from a quarter century of high level participation, make the mistake of a lifetime. The Washington regime is so full of arrogance that it is unable to comprehend that Russia has run out of patience.
The Russians see a real problem. All Washington sees is a propaganda opportunity. This is a situation that leads directly to Washington miscalculating. The miscalculation will be fatal.
Update to America’s Foreign Policy Dilemma
In America Russophobia is running amuck.
The Propaganda Ministry repeats daily that Russia is on the verge of invading Ukraine.
The American people, long trained to regard Russia as the enemy, have heard the allegation so many times it has become a fact.
The arrogant Biden regime has rebuffed Russia’s security concern, and the Republicans are no better. Blind belligerence towards Russia is building as Republican senators add their voices to the propaganda that Putin intends to invade Ukraine and “rob the Ukrainian people of their sovereignty.”( Washington already did that when it overthrew the elected Ukrainian government in 2014 and established a puppet state in Kiev.)
The Republicans want to rush $450 million more in weapons to “the brave Ukrainian armed forces.” And for good measure, the Republicans want to have Russia designated a terrorist state.
The Ukraine crisis is in part an armaments marketing program as the Republicans backing the bill are in tight with the military/security complex. But everyone is overlooking the effect on the Kremlin whose trust in Washington has reached zero on the scale.
Perhaps in preparation for what the Kremlin sees will be a showdown over Washington’s indifference to Russia’s security concern, the Kremlin has ordered two strategic nuclear missile forces to combat duty. Additionally, Russia has closed the northern sea route and deployed radio engineering regiments and electronic domes to jam US over-the-horizon radar. If US naval provocations continue in the Black Sea, Russia might also close the Black Sea.
Meanwhile, the neo-nazi Ukrainian battalions armed by Washington are escalating the situation with the Donbass Russians.
Washington is setting itself up for an embarrassing backdown or a major confrontation for which Washington holds few cards.
But the U.S. can do its part by incentivizing Kyiv to operate through the prism of reality rather than fantasy. Giving Ukraine the false hope of unconditional U.S. backing does the country no favors.
With approximately 100,000 Russian forces stationed near Ukraine’s eastern border and reports that Moscow might be planning an incursion as soon as next month, a casual observer can be forgiven for thinking war in Eastern Europe is just around the corner. U.S. officials are taking the threats of a Russian operation extremely seriously.
A session between U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov last week did little to calm bilateral tensions over Ukraine. Neither did a two-hour video conference on Tuesday between President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin, which at first glance appeared to be more of an airing of grievances than a conflict-resolution strategy session. At present, the U.S. and Russian positions on Ukraine are nearly irreconcilable, even as both pay lip service to a diplomatic process that has made little progress beyond a shaky ceasefire. Putin wants assurances Ukraine will not be swallowed up in the Western orbit, insisting on “legal guarantees” to this effect (a point he reiterated during his video call with President Joe Biden on December 7). Washington, meanwhile, demands Russia withdraw its forces from Ukrainian territory, sever support to the separatists in the Donbas, and hand back full control of the Ukrainian border to Kyiv.
Don’t Believe Biden’s Assurances About Not Going To War Over Ukraine
If Russia invades Ukraine, the Biden administration says it is prepared to do more than the U.S. did in 2014. But, what does that actually mean?(By BiksuTong/Shutterstock)
On Tuesday, President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin met via an online video conference that spanned two hours, primarily in an attempt to defuse the heightening tensions in Ukraine.
Biden attempted to deter Putin’s Russia from considering an invasion in the near future by threatening increased economic sanctions and “other measures” if the situation becomes more dire, according to a White House readout of the call. The White House readout was unsurprisingly light on details, although it reiterated Biden’s “support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and called for de-escalation and a return to diplomacy.” The Kremlin’s summary of the call claimed Biden told Putin the Russian president was approaching a “red line” regarding Ukraine.
After the call, other members of the Biden administration provided more details on what could be to come if Russia continues its buildup along the Ukrainian border. Biden’s National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan told members of the media at a press conference after the call that “things we did not do in 2014, we are prepared to do now,” in reference to the Obama administration’s response to the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014.
Biden was V.P. then, but he’s president now.
The U.S. still considers the Crimean Peninsula illegally occupied territory. Back in 2014, the Obama administration responded to the initial annexation by imposing sanctions, banning or revoking visas for Russian officials, canceling trade and military diplomatic discussions, as well as providing loan guarantees and humanitarian aid.
During the administration that followed, Donald Trump, whose Russia policy was hamstrung domestically by the infamous Russia hoax, frequently boasted that he gave Ukraine “anti-tank busters,” whereas Obama was sending them “pillows and sheets.” Since 2014, the U.S. has given the Ukrainians more than $2.5 billion in security assistance.
What, then, is America prepared to do for Ukraine that it didn’t in 2014 and the years since? Biden’s team hasn’t quite specified, often making overtures to democracy and the territorial integrity of Ukraine, but the administration’s focus is reportedly ramping up economic penalties directed at a number of Russian oligarchs, as well as cutting off some Russian companies from global capital markets in coordination with the United States’ European allies.
At the extreme end of the spectrum of punishing Russia economically for its buildup on Ukraine’s border is cutting Russia off from SWIFT, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication that serves as a mediator between banks for international transactions. The U.S. and its allies could also pressure Russia by attempting to slow, if not stop, the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline to Germany.
However, none of these measures are particularly new, and somewhat in line with how the United States has responded to Russian action in Ukraine since 2014. Again I ask, what is the U.S. prepared to do that it hasn’t done before? Ned Price, spokesperson for the State Department, said Monday, “if Russia chooses to move forward with any plans it may have developed to continue its military aggression or to aggress militarily upon Ukraine, to violate Ukraine’s sovereignty, its independence, its territorial integrity, we and our allies would be prepared to act.” Price later added that the Biden administration is committed to NATO’s open-door policy, which is inherently militaristic in nature.
While reports indicate that the administration is not debating direct military involvement in Ukraine at the moment, they’re doing an awfully bad job of reassuring the public they won’t stumble into yet another foreign policy debacle.
Biden attempted to provide such reassurances Wednesday while answering questions from the media outside the White House. The president said, “The idea the United States is going to unilaterally use force to confront Russia invading Ukraine is not in the cards right now.” However, by qualifying that statement with the term “unilateral,” Biden made his statement nonfunctional, given any action in Ukraine will be at the invitation of the Ukrainians, not to mention the U.S. capabilities in the region are heavily intertwined with NATO. Biden admitted this himself, saying that the U.S. would be “required to reinforce our presence in NATO countries,” and that “it would depend upon what the rest of the NATO countries were willing to do as well.”
This doesn’t inspire much hope. The U.S. has pulled its allies into conflicts before, albeit begrudgingly in some cases. Who says it won’t happen again, despite our humiliation meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries over similar concerns (ostensibly) for freedom and democracy.
It seems the foreign policy blob is set on continuing to walk the tightrope of red lines despite a bad case of vertigo.
about the author
Bradley Devlin is a Staff Reporter for The American Conservative. Previously, he was an Analysis Reporter for the Daily Caller, and has been published in the Daily Wire and the Daily Signal, among other publications that don’t include the word “Daily.” He graduated from the University of California, Berkeley with a degree in Political Economy. You can follow Bradley on Twitter @bradleydevlin.
As a result of the ramped up culture war—as the American Empire’s war pigs dance on the edges of Russia and China’s red lines—our people are divided, indeed committed to attacking, killing, beating, locking down, force vaccinating, robbing, and hating each other. In our lifetimes, we may well see the return of conscription, millions upon millions of unnecessary deaths, as well as the use of nuclear weapons.
On Thanksgiving, eyeing Russia, the U.S. Navy’s Sixth Fleet sailed yet another warship, a guided missile destroyer, the USS Arleigh Burke into the Black Sea. At the beginning of November, the U.S. sent two warships to these waters—the destroyer USS Porter and the command and control ship USS Mount Whitney—they have only just exited the area. These warships are operating with America’s NATO allies, integrating their surface and air forces, running military exercises, and otherwise preparing for war on Russia’s very doorstep.
As Ron Paul has noted, these hostile provocations would be unthinkable if conversely Russia was drilling for war off the Texas coast or the Gulf of Mexico. However, this year there has been an almost constant presence of American warships in the Black Sea.
This month, U.S. Strategic Command’s Global Thunder exercise saw nuclear capable warplanes, strategic bombers, flying within 12.4 miles of the Russian border and simulating a nuclear attack. According to Russia’s Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu American bomber activity near his country’s borders has increased 2.5 times compared to last year. There have been 30 such flights this month.
The United States Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin this week performed impressive, albeit pathetic, mental gymnastics.In a press conference, the Pentagon chief called on Russia to be more transparent about troop movements “on the border with Ukraine”. In others words, on Russian soil.
As is so often the case, what was presented as an aggressive stance on the part of Russia was only half the story. The other half was what the US, the UK and NATO were doing not a hundred kilometres from Russia’s borders. Once you factor this in, you might just conclude that Russia was doing no more than taking prudent precautions and that any troop movements were primarily defensive.
Granted, memories in the era of instant media are short. But are they so short that US and European public opinion is being invited to accept, without challenge, a new round of scaremongering about Russia that comes only six months after the last?
It was, after all, as recently as April that most of Europe was on tenterhooks over reports that 100,000 Russian troops were massing on Ukraine’s eastern border, preparing for… well, it was never quite spelled out what they were preparing for. It could have been an invasion and takeover of the whole of Ukraine, the installation of a puppet government in the Donbass, or the annexation – or ‘integration’, as Russia might have preferred to say – of that territory by the Russian Federation, on the model of Crimea in 2014. Or just a new ‘offensive’ against Ukrainian government forces in the region.
Then, not only did nothing happen, but also two rather large clarifications emerged. The first was that there were not, and never had been, 100,000 Russian troops massing on Ukraine’s border. The vast majority were at their bases many kilometres away. And second, the much smaller number who were moving around were likely to be doing so in response to reports of Ukrainian troops mustering for a spring offensive, new weapons deliveries from the UK and the US, and some rather extensive NATO exercises being conducted in the Black Sea and to the west of Ukraine.
Mary Dejevsky is a writer and broadcaster. She was Moscow correspondent for The Times between 1988 and 1992. She has also been a correspondent from Paris, Washington and China.
“The Biden administration now faces a stark choice: commit to fight for Ukraine, creating a serious risk of war with Russia, or admit that NATO expansion has come to an overdue end.”
Anti-war advocates on Monday warned that U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin would be making a dangerous strategic blunder if he suggests that Ukraine and Georgia have a welcome mat toward full integration into the NATO military alliance – a move critics say would dramatically increase the risk of war between Washington, D.C. and Moscow.
According toThe Washington Times, Austin will signal that NATO is holding an “open door” for Georgia and Ukraine as he visits the two nations and Romania this week.
“We are reassuring and reinforcing the sovereignty of countries that are on the front lines of Russian aggression,” a senior US defense official told reporters ahead of Austin’s trip.
Critics like Matt Duss, foreign policy to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), renewed long-standing warnings against potential NATO membership for the two former Soviet republics.
Duss, writing on his personal Twitter account, categorized the move as “needlessly provocative,” one that “will almost certainly receive wall to wall applause in DC.”
According to Antiwar.com contributing editor Daniel Larison:
Encouraging Ukraine and Georgia to believe that NATO membership is still in the cards for them is a serious mistake. It is not surprising that the Biden administration is maintaining the status quo on this issue, but it is a missed opportunity to reverse some of the damage that was done back in 2008 when this dangerous promise was first made to these aspirant states.
Keeping the “door” open to NATO expansion antagonizes Russia, and it strings Ukraine and Georgia along for no good reason. Many European allies will not support bringing these states into the alliance, and there is no compelling reason to add them.
Both countries would be extremely difficult if not impossible to defend in the event of a conflict, and they already have Russian or Russian-backed forces on their territory. Even if they were model democracies, which they most certainly are not, they would be poor candidates for the alliance.
Under Article 5 of the NATO charter – also known as the “collective defense” clause – the United States and other alliance members would be treaty-bound to fight Russia should war break out with Georgia or Ukraine. Russian troops invaded and occupied Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia in 2008, and Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014. Ukraine is also widely considered the ancient cradle of Russian civilization.
Critics have long argued that NATO, formed in 1949 as a mutual defense pact against the Soviet Union, is a provocative anachronism in the absence of any threat from a long-defunct Warsaw Pact, and should be dissolved.
Peace advocates have greeted each actual or proposed enlargement of NATO – which currently counts 10 former Soviet or Warsaw Pact republics as members, and which has crept steadily eastward since its inception – by warning that such expansion threatens world peace.
My view remains: “After decades of overreach, the Biden administration now faces a stark choice: commit to fight for Ukraine [and Georgia], creating a serious risk of war with Russia, or admit that NATO expansion has come to an overdue end.” https://t.co/zovAz4K82u — Stephen Wertheim (@stephenwertheim) October 18, 2021
“After decades of overreach, the Biden administration now faces a stark choice,” writes Stephen Wertheim of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, “commit to fight for Ukraine, creating a serious risk of war with Russia, or admit that NATO expansion has come to an overdue end.”
Austin’s trip comes as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced Monday that his country’s government was suspending its diplomatic mission to NATO and closing the alliance’s Moscow office. The move follows last week’s expulsion of eight Russian staff members from Russia’s mission in Brussels amid espionage allegations.
Brett Wilkins is is staff writer for Common Dreams. Based in San Francisco, his work covers issues of social justice, human rights and war and peace. This originally appeared at CommonDreams
As a senior state department official, Nuland took an active part in what transpired in Ukraine back in 2014, namely the Euromaidan. She visited Kiev on several occasions during the height of the protests.
From 2019 onwards she’s been entirely banned from entering Russia. Her visit on October 11th was completely at the initiative of the American side.
Nuland who was a part of the “very successful” destabilization efforts in Kiev is now being sent to Moscow in order to foster “stable and predictable” relations.
Look who’s back in Eastern Europe – this time forced to deal directly with the Kremlin after a half-decade of military and political stalemate in war-torn eastern Ukraine. Victoria “F*ck The EU” Nuland is currently in Moscow for high-level talks with top Russian officials. Among multiple tense issues, there’s reportedly been progress on the situation in eastern Ukraine, related to working out a potential lasting political settlement leading to the cessation of violence there.As Biden’s Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Nuland kicked off three days of talks Tuesday and into Wednesday with Yury Ushakov, the top foreign policy aide to Putin. Interestingly the Kremlin agreed to a temporary lifting of travel sanctions against her just to enter the country for the meeting.
Aside from establishing face-to-face contact between the the two presidents, the Biden-Putin summit today met only the most modest expectations of those hoping for improved ties between the U.S. and Russia. By the same token, weapons makers and others profiteering on tension with Russia, and living in fear of a thaw in bilateral relations, can now breathe a sigh of relief.
Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov’s appearance on Russian TV early this morning, at which he dampened expectations, turned out to be a harbinger of things to come later in the day. Peskov said, “Clear signals had been sent to Moscow that the US would try to “restrain and pressure” Russia, adding that the constant talk about punishing Moscow “does not make the overall atmosphere any easier.” Putin himself charged recently that US leaders “want to hold back our [Russia’s] development and they talk about this openly.” At his press conference after the talks, Putin also charged that US attempts to “contain” Russia remained a huge fly in the ointment.
Baby Steps Forward …
Diplomats: Putin announced that the Russian and US ambassadors would be returning to their posts to work on what he called “an enormous backlog.”
Strategic arms: The Russian president reported an agreement to start interdepartmental consultations under the aegis of the Department of State and the Russian Foreign Ministry.
Cyber security: Putin said the two sides “have agreed, in principal, to sit down at the expert level and start working” on this issue, which he called “extremely important.”
Ukraine: Putin: “This issue was touched upon. I cannot say that it was done in great detail, but as far as I understood President Biden, he agreed that the Minsk agreements should be the basis for a settlement in southeastern Ukraine.
Tone: Putin described the conversation as “quite constructive,” with “no hostility at all.”
What was clearly absent was mutual trust. The key issue of trust came up at both press conferences. What was clear is that, in contrast to more productive summits in the past, even a modicum of trust was lacking. Mistrust has been the byword since the Western-sponsored coup in Ukraine (which Putin was particularly acerbic in denouncing today). That coup on Moscow’s doorstep and the coup regime’s expressed wish to join NATO prompted Russia to annex Crimea which hosts Russia’s only year-round naval base at Sevastopol. The coup and subsequent annexation shattered trust all around and account for the nadir reached in Russia-U.S. relations today.
by Tyler Durden
MCViewPoint 